Home
 /
Papers
 /
Genomics
 /
Codebook: sequence specificity and genomic binding of poorly-characterized human transcription factors
Preprint
Open access
V1
Top 1% · Validated by QED

Codebook: sequence specificity and genomic binding of poorly-characterized human transcription factors

Arttu Jolma, Kaitlin U. Laverty, Ali Fathi +78 more
March 2026
 ·
bioRxiv
 ·
DOI 
10.1101/2024.11.11.622097
94
%
Reproducible
QED Impressions
This paper passed independent validation.
QED's automated review checked the evidence supporting each claim, the statistical methods, and whether the results are reproducible from the data provided.

It ranks in the top 1% of preprints assessed in Genomics this quarter.
Run full QED analysis
Read paper
Save

Why this is interesting

Filling a long-standing gap in regulatory genomics, this work decodes specificities for 177 uncharacterized human TFs, expands the binding motif lexicon by ~100 entries, and maps tens of thousands of direct, conserved genomic binding sites.

QED claims analysis

Summary

Systematic characterization of 332 poorly-characterized human transcription factors using complementary in vitro and in vivo assays reveals DNA sequence specificity for 177 factors, expanding the human TF lexicon by approximately 100 distinct motifs that identify tens of thousands of evolutionarily conserved genomic binding sites concentrated in promoters and CpG islands, which predict gene expression patterns across tissues and approach completion of the human transcription factor codebook with 1,421 factors now characterized.

See full analysis
Main Claim 1 –

Half of putative human TFs show sequence-specific binding

Supporting evidence

  • In vitro motifs are enriched at in vivo ChIP-seq peaks
  • Codebook motifs predict variant-driven binding differences with 74% concordance
  • Most motif failures likely true negatives lacking canonical DNA-binding domains
Main Claim 2 –

Codebook adds ~100 novel human TF DNA motifs

Supporting evidence

  • Motif degeneracy improves accuracy; increased specificity reduces performance
  • SKI/SNO/DAC domains mediate sequence-specific DNA binding
Main Claim 3 –

Conserved TF binding sites cluster in promoters and CpG islands

Supporting evidence

  • Codebook promoter motifs predict tissue-specific gene expression programs
  • Transposon-derived Codebook TFs bind repetitive genomic dark matter
Main Claim 4 –

Sequence-specific motifs now defined for 1,421 human TFs

Abstract

Gene expression is regulated by transcription factors (TFs), which recognize specific DNA sequence motifs. Several hundred putative human TFs, identified mainly by an apparent DNA-binding domain, lack known binding motifs, and even for well-characterized TFs, it remains controversial to what degree motifs accurately reflect binding sites in living cells. Here, we describe a systematic effort (“Codebook”) to determine the sequence specificity of 332 putative and poorly characterized human TFs. Over 4,000 independent experiments, encompassing multiple in vitro and in vivo assays, produced motifs for just over half (177, or 53%), of which most are unique to a single protein, thereby extending the vocabulary of sequence recognition encoded by human TFs by ∼100 distinct motifs. Moreover, binding motifs identified in vitro are strongly enriched within cellular binding sites. Collectively, the data reveal tens of thousands of previously unknown, conserved, and direct TF binding sites across the human genome. These sites are concentrated in promoter regions, and are predictive of gene expression, illustrating that this new data atlas provides an important step forward in decoding the human genome.

Related papers

How the QED Score works

QED Score is a validated AI-based quality metric that evaluates life science papers on two dimensions: originality and validity. Each manuscript is anonymized, broken down into its claims and supporting evidence, and examined by specialized AI agents for statistical rigor, consistency across figures, and fit with the existing literature. Scores are percentile ranks, so they're comparable across fields. In blinded tests, expert professors sided with QED Score over journal rank in 75% of decisive cases.
Read the methodology

Free access for academic researchers

Create your free QED account to validate your research, strengthen grant proposals, and uncover scientific insights.
We've sent you an access link.
Please check your inbox.

Didn't get your email? Check your spam folder or reach out to info@qedscience.com

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Looking for QED for pharma, biotech or life science organizations?