Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of plosonePLoS OneView this ArticleSubmit to PLoSGet E-mail AlertsContact UsPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(9): e3112.
Published online 2008 September 3. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0003112
PMCID: PMC2518834

Inferring Condition-Specific Modulation of Transcription Factor Activity in Yeast through Regulon-Based Analysis of Genomewide Expression

Guillaume Bourque, Editor



A key goal of systems biology is to understand how genomewide mRNA expression levels are controlled by transcription factors (TFs) in a condition-specific fashion. TF activity is frequently modulated at the post-translational level through ligand binding, covalent modification, or changes in sub-cellular localization. In this paper, we demonstrate how prior information about regulatory network connectivity can be exploited to infer condition-specific TF activity as a hidden variable from the genomewide mRNA expression pattern in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We first validate experimentally that by scoring differential expression at the level of gene sets or “regulons” comprised of the putative targets of a TF, we can accurately predict modulation of TF activity at the post-translational level. Next, we create an interactive database of inferred activities for a large number of TFs across a large number of experimental conditions in S. cerevisiae. This allows us to perform TF-centric analysis of the yeast regulatory network.


We analyze the degree to which the mRNA expression level of each TF is predictive of its regulatory activity. We also organize TFs into “co-modulation networks” based on their inferred activity profile across conditions, and find that this reveals functional and mechanistic relationships. Finally, we present evidence that the PAC and rRPE motifs antagonize TBP-dependent regulation, and function as core promoter elements governed by the transcription regulator NC2. Regulon-based monitoring of TF activity modulation is a powerful tool for analyzing regulatory network function that should be applicable in other organisms. Tools and results are available online at


About a decade ago, simultaneous measurement of the transcript level of all genes in a genome using DNA microarrays became technically feasible [1], [2]. Since then, a large amount of data from such experiments has been accumulated in public repositories [3], [4]. More recently, the marriage between chromatin-immunoprecipitation and microarray technology (“ChIP-chip”) [5], [6] has made it feasible to measure the genomewide profile of in vivo binding by transcription factors (TFs) [7], [8]. Methods for measuring in vitro TF-DNA binding affinities have also been developed [9][11]. Finally, a number of large-scale TF deletion and over-expression studies have been performed [12][14]. Consequently, genomewide information about the connectivity between TFs and their target genes is increasingly available.

The rate at which a gene is transcribed is controlled by transcription factors (TFs) binding to its upstream promoter region. Knowledge about how TF activity is modulated in a condition-specific manner by signaling pathways is therefore crucial for understanding gene regulatory network function. It is widely recognized that TF activity is often regulated at the post-translational level. First, the regulation of translation or of protein turnover rate may cause the protein abundance to not be proportional to mRNA abundance. Experimental quantification of protein abundance may depend on antibody availability and is not easily done on a high-throughput scale. Second, ligand binding or non-covalent modification and subsequent translocation between nucleus and cytoplasm can affect TF activity even at constant total cellular protein abundance. For all these reasons it is challenging to measure TF activity directly. Network inference algorithms therefore often use the mRNA expression level of the gene that encodes a TF as a proxy for that TF's regulatory activity [15], [16].

If prior knowledge about which genes are the targets of a specific TF is available, an alternative and potentially more accurate approach can be taken. As several studies have shown, it is possible to infer modulation of the “hidden” activity of a TF from the genomewide changes in mRNA expression, using either motif analysis of upstream promoter sequences [17], [18] or ChIP-chip data [19], [20] to estimate the connectivity between a TF and its target genes (for a recent review, see [21]).

We previously developed a simple web-based tool named T-profiler that scores differential expression of predefined gene sets using the two-sample t-test [22], [23]. Conceptually similar to Gene Set Enrichment Analysis [24], T-profiler was originally developed for scoring differential expression of Gene Ontology categories [25]. However, it can also infer condition-specific modulation of post-translational TF activity when used in conjunction with gene sets consisting of putative TF targets. These “regulons” can be defined either based on upstream matches to a consensus binding motif or based on the results of a ChIP-chip experiment.

In this paper, we perform a detailed assessment of the biological utility of our regulon-based approach. We first validate experimentally that RegulonProfiler can detect modulation of TF activity. Next, we create a database containing t-values that quantify the differential expression of a large number of regulons across a compendium of expression data for the yeast S. cerevisiae. Querying this database allows us to determine which TFs are modulated in a given experiment, or conversely, by which environmental conditions a given TF is modulated. We quantify the degree to which the mRNA expression level of each TF is predictive of its regulatory activity, and find a wide range of behaviors. We also organize TFs into “co-modulation networks” based on their inferred activity profile across conditions, and find that this reveals functional and mechanistic relationships. Finally, we present evidence that the PAC and rRPE motifs antagonize TBP-dependent regulation, and function as core promoter elements governed by the transcription regulator NC2. Taken together, these results demonstrate the value of regulon-based, TF-centric, analysis of the yeast regulatory network.


Creating a database of inferred TF activities

We used T-profiler [22] to populate a database of t-values that quantify the change in mean expression for a large number of predefined gene sets across a large number of experimental conditions (Figure 1A). For genes sets, we used both “motif-based” regulons, defined based on matches to specific consensus motifs in their 600-base pair upstream regions, and “ChIP-based” regulons, defined based on measurements of promoter occupancy in different conditions by Harbison et al. [7]. We analyzed a wide variety of experiments, including cell cycle [26], various stress response time courses [27], and a collection of gene deletion and gene suppression experiments [28], [29]; see Materials and Methods and Supplementary Figure S1 for details. The full results of our analysis are available at

Figure 1
Validation of inferred TF activity modulation.

Validation of inferred condition-specific TF activity modulation

We first tested the ability of T-profiler to infer changes in TF activity by analyzing experiments in which a transcription factor-encoding gene was either deleted or over-expressed. Yap1p activates genes involved in the response to oxidative stress, while Rox1p represses genes upon oxygen limitation. We monitored the t-values of the ChIP-based Yap1p (YPD condition) regulon (72 genes) and the motif-based (YCTATTGTT) Rox1p regulon (95 genes); see Figure 1B. In a YAP1 deletion strain, significant down-regulation (t-value = −4.0; E-value = 0.015) of the Yap1 regulon is observed, while over-expression of YAP1 results in its upregulation (t-value = 5.6; E-value = 6*10−6). Conversely, deletion of the repressor gene ROX1 results in upregulation of the Rox1p regulon, while overexpression of ROX1 causes downregulation. The specificity of our method is demonstrated by the lack of a Yap1p regulon response in H2O2-stressed Δyap1 cells.

We also tested T-profiler predictions concerning the time-dependent modulation of Crz1p, which is known to translocate to the nucleus in response to activation by calcineurin [30]. Figure 1C shows the activity of the motif-based (GAGGCT) Crz1p regulon in response to CaCl2 [31] and dithiothreitol (DTT) [27], respectively. Upon both CaCl2- and DTT-induced stress, Crz1p is activated, but with CaCl2 an immediate response (within 5 minutes) is seen, while with DTT the response is considerably delayed. To validate these predictions, we used a GFP-tagged Crz1 protein and fluorescence microscopy (see Materials & Methods). In both cases, we were able to confirm the timing of the measured responses (Figure 1D).

Condition-specific modulation of Hac1p regulatory activity

Our database can be used to perform queries that reveal condition-specific activation of specific TFs. We illustrate this for the Hac1 regulon. Cells treated with DTT have to cope with reductive stress resulting in accumulation of misfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum [32]. This leads to the activation of the unfolded protein response, which is governed by the transcription factor Hac1p [33]. Figure 2A shows the temporal profile of activation of the ChIP-based Hac1 regulon under DTT stress [27]. This response is independent of the aforementioned Crz1p response and therefore does not occur during CaCl2 stress. Next, by ranking all experiments according to the t-value of the Hac1p regulon, we found that the Hac1p is specifically activated in DTT-stressed cells or in cells in which specific essential genes have been partially suppressed [29] (Figure 2B). GPI2 and GWT2 function in GPI-anchor biosynthesis, whereas GPI16 and GAB1 are involved in transferring pre-assembled GPI-anchors to a specific class of secretory proteins called GPI-proteins; when these processes do not function properly, defective GPI-proteins accumulate in the endoplasmatic reticulum (ER). PGA1 codes for a protein that localizes to the nuclear periphery, a subregion of the ER; when its activity is repressed, maturation of the GPI-protein Gas1p and of Pho8p, which also follows the secretory pathway, is affected [34], likely resulting in their accumulation in the ER. In other words, activation of the Hac1p regulon seems to occur specifically when defective proteins accumulate in the ER. The condition-specific activation of the Hac1p regulon is just one of many discoveries that can be made about the transcription network by exploring our database of inferred TF activities.

Figure 2
Condition-specific activity of the Hac1p regulon.

Relationship between mRNA expression level and regulatory activity of a TF

Having established that regulon-based analysis using T-profiler allows us to quantify the post-translational regulatory activity of TFs, we explicitly addressed the question to what extent mRNA expression level can be used as a proxy for activity. The results shown in Figure 1d indicate that the activation of Crz1p is regulated by translocation to the nucleus. Indeed, only a marginal correlation (r = 0.08; P = 0.015) exists between the mRNA expression and inferred activity of Crz1p over all conditions in our database. Using ChIP-based regulons, we were able to quantify the degree to which mRNA expression level is predictive of post-translational activity for 83 distinct TFs. Figure 3A shows an example where the mRNA level is a poor predictor of TF activity (Mbp1; r = 0.05, P = 0.14). By contrast, Figure 3B shows that the mRNA levels of Hap4 are a good predictor for its inferred activity (r = 0.47; P<10−12). In Figure 3C the distribution of mRNA level vs. regulon activity correlations across all TFs is shown, revealing that whether or not mRNA expression is a valid proxy for activity strongly depends on the identity of the TF (see Supplementary Table S1 for full results).

Figure 3
Relationship between mRNA expression level and regulatory activity of a TF.

Organizing TFs into “co-modulation networks” based on their activity profile

For each TF, the inferred activity profile over roughly a thousand conditions represents a highly specific regulatory signature. It is highly unlikely for two such activity profiles to be similar, unless (i) they are derived from strongly overlapping regulons, or (ii) the corresponding TFs are modulated by the same signaling pathway. The latter case suggests a way of organizing the TFs into a network based on co-modulation of their post-translational activity. To illustrate this, consider the cell cycle regulators Stb1p and Mbp1p. The correlation between their mRNA expression values (r = −0.03; P = 0.36) (Figure 4A) over all conditions in our database is not statistically significant. However, the t-values scoring the differential expression of the ChIP-based regulons for Mbp1p (188 genes) and Stb1p (63 genes) are highly correlated (r = 0.75; P<10−12) (Figure 4C). Even when we exclude the 23 genes that occur in both regulons, the correlation remains high (r = 0.54; P<10−12) (Figure 4B).

Figure 4
Co-modulation of transcription factors.

The cumulative distributions in Figure 4d show how the three methods of quantifying TF co-modulation compare across all pairs of TFs (see Supplementary Table S2 for full results). As expected, the regulons with overlapping genes included show the strongest correlation, but only on the positive end of the distribution. Despite the very strict treatment of removing all overlapping genes, the correlation of regulons with overlapping genes removed is slightly better than the mRNA-based correlation at the positive end of the distribution, and are dramatically better at the negative end. Taken together, these results indicate that implicit information about the connectivity between signal transduction pathways and transcription factors can be obtained by comparing the activity profiles of TFs.

Starting from ChIP-based activity profiles for a large number of TFs, and drawing connections between pairs of TFs only when the correlation between their activities exceeds a stringent threshold (r>0.5), we organized all TFs into a “co-modulation network” consisting of eight disjoint sub-networks (Figure 5A; see Supplementary Table S3 for full results in Cytoscape format). In agreement with findings by Luscombe et al. [35], the cell-cycle sub-network and the pheromone response sub-network are found to be separated from the other sub-networks, whereas the oxidative/heat stress sub-network takes a central position. The most highly connected transcription factors are Msn4p (with 21 interactions) and Msn2p, Gcn4p, and Skn7p (each with 20 interactions). Within the oxidative-heat stress sub-network (Figure 5B) there is a separation between transcription factors involved in oxidative stress (Yap1p, Yap7p and Cad1p) and heat stress (Hsf1p). This sub-network also contains Skn7p, which has been previously described as being involved in oxidative, heat and osmotic stress [36].

Figure 5
Co-modulation networks derived from inferred TF activity profiles.

One of the other sub-networks in Figure 5a contains Sut1p, Nrg1p, Phd1p, Rim101p and Sok2p (Figure 5C). These TFs are involved in a variety of stress responses. However, a shared feature is that most of them are known to repress gene transcription by interacting with the co-repressor Tup1p-Cyc8p (Ssn6p). We analyzed the expression profiles of both the tup1 and cyc8 deletion mutant [28], and found that almost all of the ChIP-based regulons in this sub-network are indeed de-repressed in both the tup1Δ/wt and the cyc8Δ/wt expression profiles (Table 1). One of the members of the Tup1p-Cyc8p sub-network is Cin5p, a poorly characterized basic leucine zipper transcription factor of the yAP-1 family, which mediates pleiotropic drug resistance [37]. It is constitutively located in the nucleus. The Cin5p regulon is de-repressed in a cin5 deletion mutant [28] included in our database. We therefore predict that Cin5p interacts with the Tup1p-Cyc8p co-repressor complex to negatively regulate its target genes.

Table 1
Regulon analysis of the tup1Δ and cyc8 (ssn6)Δ transcription profiles.

The sub-network shown in Figure 5D reveals the co-modulation of Rap1p, Sfp1p and Fhl1p, known to control the expression of ribosomal protein genes, and Hir1p, Hir2p, and Hir3p, which are co-repressors involved in the cell-cycle-regulated transcription of histone genes. While ribosome biogenesis has been linked to cell division via Sfp1p [38], the parallel activation of the Hir regulon detected by our co-modulation approach provides additional clues about the coupling between these two processes.

PAC and rRPE may serve as NC2-dependent core promoter elements

Besides the specific response of the Hac1p gene set to DTT stress, a general transcriptional program known as the Environmental Stress Response (ESR) is triggered [27]. Motifs associated with the ESR include the stress-response element (STRE) motif (AGGGG/CCCCT) bound by the transcription factor Msn2p [39], PAC (CGATGAG) [40], and rRPE (AAAATTT), which is associated with genes required for rapid growth [41]. Figure 6A shows activity profiles for the corresponding gene sets during DTT stress. Further analysis of the activity profiles of the ESR motifs reveals that the antagonism between STRE and PAC/rRPE observed during DTT stress holds over a wide range of cellular states (Figure 6B,C). The TATA-box gene set (TATAWAWR) correlates strongly positively with STRE (r = 0.80), consistent with recent observations by Basehoar et al. [42] that TATA-box containing genes are activated in response to various stresses.

Figure 6
Motif-based dissection of the Environmental Stress Response.

The strongly coupled, but opposing transcriptional behavior of the STRE/TBP and PAC/rRPE gene sets across many conditions suggests a mechanistic relationship. Currently, it is not known which gene specific transcription factors bind to the PAC element. Although Stb3p has been found to bind the rRPE element, this only applies for a small portion of the rRPE containing genes [43]. Similar to the TBP motif, the PAC and rRPE elements are predominantly found in the first 150 bp upstream from the translational start site [44]. Promoter regions of genes containing PAC and rRPE elements are generally TATA box-less. Beer and Tavazoie [44] found that PAC and rRPE elements correlate with expression only when the PAC element is located downstream of the rRPE element. Similar motif characteristics have been described for regulatory sequences in Drosophila named DPE (Downstream core Promoter Element), which serve as core promoter elements [45]. The DPE is bound by NC2, a bi-functional general transcription factor that differentially regulates gene transcription through DPE or TATA-box motifs [46]. NC2 is a heterodimer of two histone-fold subunits. In S. cerevisiae, the α-NC2 subunit consists of Bur6p and Ydr1p, while the β-NC2 subunit consist of Ncb2p. Figure 6D shows that expression profiles of bur6Δ [47] cells show strong induction of the TBP (TATAWAWR) (t-value = 12.3) and STRE (AGGGG) gene sets (t-value = 10.8) and strong repression of the PAC (CGATGAG) and rRPE (AAAATTT) gene sets (t-values = −7.9 and −11.2, respectively). The expression profile of a TBP mutant (F182V; [48]) that is unable to bind NC2 shows similar behavior. The opposite pattern is observed for TBP mutants V71E and N69R, which are unable to dimerize. Since TBP dimers are inactive, this will increase the amount of NC2-TBP complex, which in turn represses transcription of TATA-box regulated genes and induces transcription via the PAC and rRPE element (Figure 6E). Together, these observations suggest that the PAC and rRPE sequences may function as core promoter elements with similar properties as DPE, and that in S. cerevisiae, NC2 may play a similar role as in Drosophila, where it activates DPE-driven promoters and represses TATA-box driven promoters [46].


In this study we scored differential expression at the level of gene sets to infer changes in the activity of transcription factors from the mRNA expression levels of the genes predicted to be under their control, based either on upstream sequence matches to cis-regulatory elements (motif-based regulons) or on occupancy by a specific transcription factor (ChIP-based regulons). We created a database of inferred regulatory activities for a large number of TFs under a wide variety of stress conditions and gene deletion mutants in budding yeast, and used it to perform TF-centric analysis of the yeast regulatory network.

Whether the ChIP-based or motif-based regulon performs better depends on the identity of the TF and possible also the expression profile analyzed. It is difficult to make a general statement. However, the t-values reported by our website make it easy for the user to compare the performance for any TF/experiment combination of interest.

We have validated our computational approach both computationally and experimentally. First, we confirmed that deletion and over-expression of two transcription factors (an activator and a repressor) resulted in the expected up- and down-regulation of their accompanying gene groups. Second, using fluorescence microscopy we were able to observe the translocation of two transcription factors to the nucleus during calcium and DTT treatment, in agreement with the T-profiler predictions.

DTT stress also activates a specific response of a gene group regulated by the Hac1p transcription factor, a response that does not occur in cells treated with calcium. In fact, querying our database for experiments, in which the Hac1p-based gene group is activated, only revealed 11 experiments with significant t-values. Four of those originate from the DTT time course, while the others are from transcription profiles of partially suppressed essential genes. Interestingly, these genes are either involved in GPI-anchor biosynthesis, GPI-anchor addition, or in GPI-protein maturation. Another example is that the Rlm1p-based gene group is mainly activated in experiments related to cell wall perturbation, caused by, for example, Calcofluor white or Zymolysase [49], or in deletion mutants defective in cell wall formation [50]. Such use of our database to query for condition specific activation bears some resemblance to the “connectivity map” approach [51], which related a compendium of drug related gene expression signatures (represented as gene sets) to the expression profiles of gene deletions and disease.

To further analyze functional relationships between TFs, we used inferred activity TF profiles across a large number of conditions to organize TFs into a “co-modulation network” consisting of a number of disjoint sub-networks. In agreement with the results of Luscombe et al. [35] we found the cell-cycle and pheromone sub-network to be separated from the other sub-networks. The advantage of inferring TF activities as hidden variables was illustrated for the transcription factors Mbp1p and Stb1p, which show poor correlation at the mRNA level but strong correlation at the regulon activity level. Recognizing that such correlation might be caused by overlap between the regulons, we removed the 23 genes that occurred in both regulons and recomputed the correlation, which remained high. Tomlins et al. [52] were able to use a method purely based on the overlap between gene groups from various sources to build an interaction network that yielded new insights on prostate cancer progression. This suggests that while our co-modulation network approach provides useful biological information about TF-TF associations even if there is no overlap between regulons, the contribution to the regulon-regulon correlation from the overlapping genes is also biologically meaningful.

In contrast to the condition-specific activity of many regulons, those based on the STRE motifs (AGGGG/CCCCT) and TBP (TATAWAWR) are activated in 50% of all conditions and are therefore regulated in a more general manner. Compared to the STRE and TBP-regulons, the PAC and rRPE regulons show opposite transcriptional behavior. The observed bipolar transcriptional regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is also found by others [42].We propose that there is a mechanistic relationship between the regulation of these motif gene groups and provide evidence that NC2, a bi-functional transcriptional regulator that binds TBP, could serve as the mechanistic link. Basehoar et al. [42] showed that approximately 20% of yeast genes contain a TATA box, and similar numbers have also been found for higher eukaryotes [53]. It might be interesting to determine to what extent this form of regulation is conserved in higher eukaryotes.

While the results reported here are limited to the yeast S. cerevisiae, we expect our approach to be valid in other organisms as well, including human. Whenever prior information about which genes are directly targeted by a TF is available, regulon-based analysis of differential expression using T-profiler should allow the “hidden variables” that represent the true post-translational activity of the TF to be estimated from the genomewide expression profile.

Materials and Methods

Definition of gene sets

We performed T-profiler analysis as described in [22] using motif and ChIP-chip based regulons. Motif-based regulons were defined as sets of genes with a match to a particular consensus motif within the 5′ 600 base pairs upstream of the ORF [54], allowing no overlap between neighboring ORFs. The consensus motifs used in T-profiler [22] are derived from three different sources. First, motifs were extracted from the SCPD database ( Next, motifs were found by comparing the genome sequence of highly related yeast species [27], [55]. Finally, motifs discovered in various microarray experiments by the REDUCE algorithm [17] were added. Most of these motifs are similar or identical to motifs described in the literature. In total, 115 motif sets have been included in T-profiler calculations. To define the ChIP-based regulons, we used the transcription factor binding data obtained by Harbison et al. [7]. This data set contains ChIP-chip results of 203 transcription factors from experiments performed in rich medium (YPD). In addition, 84 of these transcription factors were also assayed in one or more of 12 other environmental conditions; therefore, multiple ChIP-chip regulons may be defined for the same TF. A gene was considered to be part of the regulon if the p-value reported by the authors was smaller than 0.001. ChIP-based regulons were required to have at least 7 members, yielding a total of 252 gene sets that were used for T-profiler analysis.

Expression library of transcription profiles

Our compendium of S. cerevisiae expression profiles contains data for 936 cellular conditions from 19 publications, obtained using different microarray platforms such as Genefilter, Affymetrix, and spotted slides. Details can be found at (

Co-modulation network

To quantify the similarity of pairs of inferred TF activity, we computed the Pearson correlation r between the t-values for the corresponding regulons across all conditions in our expression library. For each value of r, the test statistic

equation image

was computed, and a two-tailed P-value was determined by using the t-distribution with G-2 degrees of freedom, where G is the number of genes. We only considered regulons that had significant t-values (P<0.05) in at least 5 experiments. We used the yFiles organic layout setting of Cytoscape [56] to create and visualize the co-modulation network.

Fluorescence microscopy


GFP-fused strains, YNL027W (GFP-Crz1p) and YMR037C (GFP-Msn2p) were from Invitrogen. Strain background: EY0986 ATCC 201388: MATa his3Δ1 leu2Δ0 met15Δ0 ura3Δ0 (S288C).

Medium and growth conditions

YPD (1% yeast extract, 2% Bactopeptone, 2% glucose) was used. YPD containing either 0.4 M CaCl2 or 5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT; Boehringer, Manheim) was mixed with an equal volume of YPD to achieve a final concentration of 0.2 M CaCl2 or 2.5 mM DTT. YPD containing 0.4 M CaCl2 was buffered to pH 5.0 with 7.5 mM succinate to prevent precipitation of CaPO4. Cultures were grown at 30°C and shaken at 250–300 rpm. The culture volume did not exceed 25% of the flask capacity. Cultures were grown to an OD of 0.5 before mixing with equal volumes of either CaCl2 or DTT. For CaCl2-treated cells, samples were taken at 0, 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes, and for DTT-treated cells, samples were taken at 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes. For both stress conditions, the experiments from the original papers were repeated (CaCl2 [31], DTT [27]).

Cell Fixation and Microscopy

875 µl of culture were combined with 16% EM grade paraformaldehyde to a final concentration of 2% w/v and mixed for 15 minutes at 25°C. The cells were spun down for 2 minutes. The cell pellet was resuspended and washed in 1 ml of a 0.1 M KPi (pH = 7.5)/1 M sorbitol buffer. Finally, the pellet was resuspended in 50 µl of this buffer and stored at 4°C until use.

Three µl of cell suspension were mounted on a glass slide under a coverslip. Microscopic imaging was performed using a CoolSnap fx cooled CCD camera, mounted on an Olympus BX60 fluorescence microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) using a phase-contrast 100× oil-immersion objective with NA = 1.3 (UPlan Fl). Fluorescence was excited with a 100 W mercury lamp; for GFP-pictures a U-MNB narrow-band cube (excitation 470–490 nm; emission >515 nm) was used. For DAPI-stained cells, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride hydrate (DAPI) was added to a final concentration of 0.5 µg/ml. For DAPI pictures, a U-MWU wide-band cube (excitation 330–385 nm; emission >420 nm) was used.


We would like to thank Gabor Halasz, Junbai Wang, Ron Tepper, Daniel Vis, and Gertien Smits for a critical reading of the manuscript, and Conrad Woldringh and Wijnand Takkenberg for their help with the fluorescence microscopy experiments.

Supporting Information

Figure S1

Schematic overview of RegulonProfilerDB.

(0.30 MB PDF)

Table S1

Pearson correlation across all experimental conditions in RegulonProfilerDB between the t-value of the ChIP-based regulon for a particular transcription factor and the mRNA expression log-ratio of the gene encoding the same factor.

(0.00 MB TDS)

Table S2

Pearson correlation between either the mRNA expression log-ratios or the t-values of ChIP-based regulons (YPD condition only) for all pairs of transcription factors. The ranked data was used as input for Figure 4d.

(0.26 MB XLS)

Table S3

Cytoscape input file that can be used to visualize the transcription factor co-modulation network.

(0.02 MB ZIP)


Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Funding: This work was supported by grants from the Netherlands Foundation for Technical Research (STW) to F.K. (APB.5504) and from the National Institutes of Health (R01HG003008 and U54CA121852) to HJB.


1. Schena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science. 1995;270:467–470. [PubMed]
2. Lockhart DJ, Dong H, Byrne MC, Follettie MT, Gallo MV, et al. Expression monitoring by hybridization to high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nat Biotechnol. 1996;14:1675–1680. [PubMed]
3. Brazma A, Parkinson H, Sarkans U, Shojatalab M, Vilo J, et al. ArrayExpress–a public repository for microarray gene expression data at the EBI. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:68–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Barrett T, Suzek TO, Troup DB, Wilhite SE, Ngau WC, et al. NCBI GEO: mining millions of expression profiles–database and tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33 Database Issue:D562–566. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Iyer VR, Horak CE, Scafe CS, Botstein D, Snyder M, et al. Genomic binding sites of the yeast cell-cycle transcription factors SBF and MBF. Nature. 2001;409:533–538. [PubMed]
6. Ren B, Robert F, Wyrick JJ, Aparicio O, Jennings EG, et al. Genome-wide location and function of DNA binding proteins. Science. 2000;290:2306–2309. [PubMed]
7. Harbison CT, Gordon DB, Lee TI, Rinaldi NJ, Macisaac KD, et al. Transcriptional regulatory code of a eukaryotic genome. Nature. 2004;431:99–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Birney E, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Dutta A, Guigo R, Gingeras TR, et al. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 2007;447:799–816. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Berger MF, Philippakis AA, Qureshi AM, He FS, Estep PW, 3rd, et al. Compact, universal DNA microarrays to comprehensively determine transcription-factor binding site specificities. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1429–1435. [PubMed]
10. Warren CL, Kratochvil NC, Hauschild KE, Foister S, Brezinski ML, et al. Defining the sequence-recognition profile of DNA-binding molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:867–872. [PubMed]
11. Maerkl SJ, Quake SR. A systems approach to measuring the binding energy landscapes of transcription factors. Science. 2007;315:233–237. [PubMed]
12. Chua G, Morris QD, Sopko R, Robinson MD, Ryan O, et al. Identifying transcription factor functions and targets by phenotypic activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:12045–12050. [PubMed]
13. Workman CT, Mak HC, McCuine S, Tagne JB, Agarwal M, et al. A systems approach to mapping DNA damage response pathways. Science. 2006;312:1054–1059. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Hu Z, Killion PJ, Iyer VR. Genetic reconstruction of a functional transcriptional regulatory network. Nat Genet. 2007;39:683–687. [PubMed]
15. Segal E, Shapira M, Regev A, Pe'er D, Botstein D, et al. Module networks: identifying regulatory modules and their condition-specific regulators from gene expression data. Nat Genet. 2003;34:166–176. [PubMed]
16. Margolin AA, Nemenman I, Basso K, Wiggins C, Stolovitzky G, et al. ARACNE: an algorithm for the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks in a mammalian cellular context. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7(Suppl 1):S7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Bussemaker HJ, Li H, Siggia ED. Regulatory element detection using correlation with expression. Nat Genet. 2001;27:167–171. [PubMed]
18. McCord RP, Berger MF, Philippakis AA, Bulyk ML. Inferring condition-specific transcription factor function from DNA binding and gene expression data. Mol Syst Biol. 2007;3:100. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Liao JC, Boscolo R, Yang YL, Tran LM, Sabatti C, et al. Network component analysis: reconstruction of regulatory signals in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:15522–15527. [PubMed]
20. Gao F, Foat BC, Bussemaker HJ. Defining transcriptional networks through integrative modeling of mRNA expression and transcription factor binding data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004;5:31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Bussemaker HJ, Foat BC, Ward LD. Predictive modeling of genome-wide mRNA expression: from modules to molecules. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2007;36:329–347. [PubMed]
22. Boorsma A, Foat BC, Vis D, Klis F, Bussemaker HJ. T-profiler: scoring the activity of predefined groups of genes using gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:W592–595. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Bussemaker HJ, Ward LD, Boorsma A. Dissecting complex transcriptional responses using pathway-level scores based on prior information. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8(Suppl 6):S6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:15545–15550. [PubMed]
25. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–29. [PubMed]
26. Spellman PT, Sherlock G, Zhang MQ, Iyer VR, Anders K, et al. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Mol Biol Cell. 1998;9:3273–3297. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Gasch AP, Spellman PT, Kao CM, Carmel-Harel O, Eisen MB, et al. Genomic expression programs in the response of yeast cells to environmental changes. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11:4241–4257. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Hughes TR, Marton MJ, Jones AR, Roberts CJ, Stoughton R, et al. Functional discovery via a compendium of expression profiles. Cell. 2000;102:109–126. [PubMed]
29. Mnaimneh S, Davierwala AP, Haynes J, Moffat J, Peng WT, et al. Exploration of essential gene functions via titratable promoter alleles. Cell. 2004;118:31–44. [PubMed]
30. Stathopoulos-Gerontides A, Guo JJ, Cyert MS. Yeast calcineurin regulates nuclear localization of the Crz1p transcription factor through dephosphorylation. Genes Dev. 1999;13:798–803. [PubMed]
31. Yoshimoto H, Saltsman K, Gasch AP, Li HX, Ogawa N, et al. Genome-wide analysis of gene expression regulated by the calcineurin/Crz1p signaling pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:31079–31088. [PubMed]
32. Jamsa E, Simonen M, Makarow M. Selective retention of secretory proteins in the yeast endoplasmic reticulum by treatment of cells with a reducing agent. Yeast. 1994;10:355–370. [PubMed]
33. Mori K, Kawahara T, Yoshida H, Yanagi H, Yura T. Signalling from endoplasmic reticulum to nucleus: transcription factor with a basic-leucine zipper motif is required for the unfolded protein-response pathway. Genes Cells. 1996;1:803–817. [PubMed]
34. Travers KJ, Patil CK, Wodicka L, Lockhart DJ, Weissman JS, et al. Functional and genomic analyses reveal an essential coordination between the unfolded protein response and ER-associated degradation. Cell. 2000;101:249–258. [PubMed]
35. Luscombe NM, Babu MM, Yu H, Snyder M, Teichmann SA, et al. Genomic analysis of regulatory network dynamics reveals large topological changes. Nature. 2004;431:308–312. [PubMed]
36. Raitt DC, Johnson AL, Erkine AM, Makino K, Morgan B, et al. The Skn7 response regulator of Saccharomyces cerevisiae interacts with Hsf1 in vivo and is required for the induction of heat shock genes by oxidative stress. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11:2335–2347. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Nevitt T, Pereira J, Rodrigues-Pousada C. YAP4 gene expression is induced in response to several forms of stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast. 2004;21:1365–1374. [PubMed]
38. Jorgensen P, Rupes I, Sharom JR, Schneper L, Broach JR, et al. A dynamic transcriptional network communicates growth potential to ribosome synthesis and critical cell size. Genes Dev. 2004;18:2491–2505. [PubMed]
39. Martinez-Pastor MT, Marchler G, Schuller C, Marchler-Bauer A, Ruis H, et al. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae zinc finger proteins Msn2p and Msn4p are required for transcriptional induction through the stress response element (STRE). Embo J. 1996;15:2227–2235. [PubMed]
40. Hughes JD, Estep PW, Tavazoie S, Church GM. Computational identification of cis-regulatory elements associated with groups of functionally related genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Mol Biol. 2000;296:1205–1214. [PubMed]
41. Ihmels J, Bergmann S, Gerami-Nejad M, Yanai I, McClellan M, et al. Rewiring of the yeast transcriptional network through the evolution of motif usage. Science. 2005;309:938–940. [PubMed]
42. Basehoar AD, Zanton SJ, Pugh BF. Identification and distinct regulation of yeast TATA box-containing genes. Cell. 2004;116:699–709. [PubMed]
43. Liko D, Slattery MG, Heideman W. Stb3 binds to ribosomal RNA processing element motifs that control transcriptional responses to growth in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:26623–26628. [PubMed]
44. Beer MA, Tavazoie S. Predicting gene expression from sequence. Cell. 2004;117:185–198. [PubMed]
45. Burke TW, Willy PJ, Kutach AK, Butler JE, Kadonaga JT. The DPE, a conserved downstream core promoter element that is functionally analogous to the TATA box. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1998;63:75–82. [PubMed]
46. Willy PJ, Kobayashi R, Kadonaga JT. A basal transcription factor that activates or represses transcription. Science. 2000;290:982–985. [PubMed]
47. Lee TI, Wyrick JJ, Koh SS, Jennings EG, Gadbois EL, et al. Interplay of positive and negative regulators in transcription initiation by RNA polymerase II holoenzyme. Mol Cell Biol. 1998;18:4455–4462. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Chitikila C, Huisinga KL, Irvin JD, Basehoar AD, Pugh BF. Interplay of TBP inhibitors in global transcriptional control. Mol Cell. 2002;10:871–882. [PubMed]
49. Boorsma A, de Nobel H, ter Riet B, Bargmann B, Brul S, et al. Characterization of the transcriptional response to cell wall stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast. 2004;21:413–427. [PubMed]
50. Lagorce A, Hauser NC, Labourdette D, Rodriguez C, Martin-Yken H, et al. Genome-wide analysis of the response to cell wall mutations in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:20345–20357. [PubMed]
51. Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, Modell JW, Blat IC, et al. The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science. 2006;313:1929–1935. [PubMed]
52. Tomlins SA, Mehra R, Rhodes DR, Cao X, Wang L, et al. Integrative molecular concept modeling of prostate cancer progression. Nat Genet. 2007;39:41–51. [PubMed]
53. Moshonov S, Elfakess R, Golan-Mashiach M, Sinvani H, Dikstein R. Links between core promoter and basic gene features influence gene expression. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. van Helden J, Andre B, Collado-Vides J. A web site for the computational analysis of yeast regulatory sequences. Yeast. 2000;16:177–187. [PubMed]
55. Kellis M, Patterson N, Birren B, Berger B, Lander ES. Methods in comparative genomics: genome correspondence, gene identification and regulatory motif discovery. J Comput Biol. 2004;11:319–355. [PubMed]
56. Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003;13:2498–2504. [PubMed]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science