Personal tools

Coexpression cluster:C1609

From FANTOM5_SSTAR

Revision as of 11:29, 19 October 2012 by Autoedit (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


Full id: C1609_CD4_CD34_Mast_CD14_CD19_CD133_Peripheral



Phase1 CAGE Peaks

Hg19::chr11:116864496..116864504,+p@chr11:116864496..116864504
+
Hg19::chr2:238512335..238512368,-p@chr2:238512335..238512368
-
Hg19::chr2:238512370..238512394,-p@chr2:238512370..238512394
-
Hg19::chr2:238512518..238512533,+p@chr2:238512518..238512533
+
Hg19::chr5:43042577..43042600,+p2@LOC153684


Enriched pathways on this co-expression cluster<b>Summary:</b><br>Canonical pathway gene sets were compiled from Reactome, Wikipathways and KEGG. For the major signaling pathways, the transcriptionally-regulated genes (downstream targets) were obtained from Netpath. Combined, the canonical pathways and downstream targets totaled 489 human gene sets. The corresponding M. musculus gene sets were inferred by homology using the HomoloGene database. Enrichment for each of the canonical 489 pathways and gene sets included in the co-expression cluster was assessed by the hypergeometric probability. The resulting P values were also then adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple comparisons.<br><b>Analyst: </b>Emmanuel Dimont<br><br>link to source dataset<br>data


No results for this coexpression

Enriched Gene Ontology terms on this co-expression cluster<b>Summary:</b> Results for GOStat analysis on co-expressed clusters. Each cluster with promoters mapping to at least two different genes was analysed with GOStat (PMID: 14962934) with default parameter. <br><b>Analyst:</b> Erik Arner<br><br>link to source dataset<br>data


No GOStat results

Enriched sample ontology terms on this co-expression cluster<b>Summary:</b>To summarize promoter activities (expression profile of a TSS region) across ~1000 samples, we performed enrichment analysis based on FANTOM5 Sample Ontology (FF ontology). The question here is “in which type of samples the promoter is more active”. To answer this question, we compared expressions (TPMs) in the samples associated with a sample ontology term and the rest of the samples by using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test. To summarize ontologies enriched in this co-expression cluster, we ran the same analysis on an averaged expression profile of all promoters that make up. <b>Analyst:</b> Hideya Kawaji <br><br>links to source dataset<br><br>cell_data<br>uberon_data<br><br>


Cell Type
Ontology termp-valuen
classical monocyte5.43e-5042
CD14-positive, CD16-negative classical monocyte5.43e-5042
leukocyte1.00e-43136
nongranular leukocyte1.07e-42115
defensive cell2.74e-4248
phagocyte2.74e-4248
hematopoietic lineage restricted progenitor cell6.91e-41120
myeloid leukocyte9.96e-3672
hematopoietic stem cell1.72e-34168
angioblastic mesenchymal cell1.72e-34168
myeloid lineage restricted progenitor cell1.77e-3366
granulocyte monocyte progenitor cell8.30e-3367
hematopoietic cell9.03e-32177
monopoietic cell1.49e-3159
monocyte1.49e-3159
monoblast1.49e-3159
promonocyte1.49e-3159
hematopoietic oligopotent progenitor cell2.81e-31161
hematopoietic multipotent progenitor cell2.81e-31161
macrophage dendritic cell progenitor3.58e-3061
myeloid cell7.25e-21108
common myeloid progenitor7.25e-21108
stuff accumulating cell2.16e-1887
mature alpha-beta T cell7.65e-1618
alpha-beta T cell7.65e-1618
immature T cell7.65e-1618
mature T cell7.65e-1618
immature alpha-beta T cell7.65e-1618
CD4-positive, alpha-beta T cell8.99e-136
intermediate monocyte1.14e-119
CD14-positive, CD16-positive monocyte1.14e-119
T cell1.93e-1025
pro-T cell1.93e-1025
lymphoid lineage restricted progenitor cell5.37e-1052
lymphocyte1.05e-0953
common lymphoid progenitor1.05e-0953
nucleate cell3.67e-0955
CD8-positive, alpha-beta T cell2.18e-0711
naive T cell3.26e-073
mesenchymal cell3.29e-07354
basophil6.82e-073
natural killer cell8.47e-073
pro-NK cell8.47e-073
connective tissue cell8.87e-07361
Uber Anatomy
Ontology termp-valuen
hematopoietic system3.38e-3098
blood island3.38e-3098
bone marrow2.29e-2976
immune system3.85e-2993
hemolymphoid system2.12e-27108
bone element2.35e-2682
skeletal element5.64e-2390
skeletal system1.58e-19100
lateral plate mesoderm1.23e-08203
musculoskeletal system4.75e-08167


Overrepresented TFBS (DNA) motifs on this co-expression cluster<b>Summary:</b>The values shown are the p-values for overrepresentation of the motif in this coexpression cluster. So a small p-value means a strong overrepresentation. <b>Analyst:</b> Michiel de Hoon <br><br>link to source data <br> Novel motifs <br>data <br><br> Jaspar motifs <br>data


Novel motifs



JASPAR motifs

Motifs-log10(p-value)

{{{tfbs_overrepresentation_jaspar}}}



ENCODE TF ChIP-seq peak enrichment analysis<b>Summary:</b> For each TF and each co-expression cluster, the number of promoters with ENCODE TF ChIP signal was compared with the rest of promoters from the robust set using Fisher's exact test. Clusters with significant ChIP enrichment (q <= 0.05) after Benjamini-Hochberg correction were retained. <br><b>Analyst:</b> Erik Arner<br><br>link to source dataset<br><br>data


(#promoters = Number of promoters in this coexpression cluster that have ChIP signal of the TF)

TF#promotersEnrichmentp-valueq-value
ELF1#199743.406478367046030.01235066105299550.0447226506384368
FOS#235335.398773185336640.01153895317278740.0421841476621656
GATA2#262437.64695904013240.004279061879252130.0203275389405146
JUN#372537.50769751540180.004511206552906030.0213323327528277
MAX#414945.16204440720570.002526309009485180.0139956071844697



Relative expression of the co-expression cluster<b>Summary:</b>Co-expression clusters are compared against FANTOM5 samples to obtain relative expression. <br><b>Analyst:</b>NA<br><br>link to data source<br> data


This analysis result is provided for C0 - C305 clusters.