Coexpression cluster:C1088

Full id: C1088_liver_giant_anaplastic_glassy_bile_Hepatocyte_prostate

Phase1 CAGE Peaks

Hg19::chr6:64237703..64237708,+	p@chr6:64237703..64237708 +
Hg19::chr6:64237756..64237769,+	p@chr6:64237756..64237769 +
Hg19::chr6:64237780..64237794,+	p@chr6:64237780..64237794 +
Hg19::chr6:64237801..64237820,+	p@chr6:64237801..64237820 +
Hg19::chr6:64237829..64237843,+	p@chr6:64237829..64237843 +
Hg19::chr6:64237863..64237874,+	p@chr6:64237863..64237874 +
Hg19::chr6:64237875..64237910,+	p@chr6:64237875..64237910 +
Hg19::chr6:64237919..64237932,+	p@chr6:64237919..64237932 +

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>disease_data<br>

---

Cell Type

Ontology term	p-value	n
epithelial cell	1.20e-17	253
endodermal cell	1.66e-15	58
metabolising cell	2.54e-10	12
endopolyploid cell	2.54e-10	12
parenchymal cell	2.54e-10	12
polyploid cell	2.54e-10	12
hepatocyte	2.54e-10	12
gingival epithelial cell	9.69e-09	3
chorionic membrane mesenchymal stem cell	1.08e-08	3
endo-epithelial cell	3.00e-08	42
sebum secreting cell	6.47e-07	2
epithelial cell of sweat gland	6.47e-07	2
epithelial cell of skin gland	6.47e-07	2
acinar cell of sebaceous gland	6.47e-07	2

Uber Anatomy

Ontology term	p-value	n
larynx	3.70e-18	9
endoderm-derived structure	1.06e-15	160
endoderm	1.06e-15	160
presumptive endoderm	1.06e-15	160
respiratory system	2.16e-13	74
exocrine gland	2.74e-12	31
exocrine system	2.74e-12	31
digestive system	1.26e-11	145
digestive tract	1.26e-11	145
primitive gut	1.26e-11	145
epithelium of foregut-midgut junction	3.94e-11	25
anatomical boundary	3.94e-11	25
hepatobiliary system	3.94e-11	25
foregut-midgut junction	3.94e-11	25
septum transversum	3.94e-11	25
gland	6.56e-11	59
hepatic diverticulum	7.17e-11	22
liver primordium	7.17e-11	22
gut epithelium	1.06e-10	54
foregut	1.31e-10	87
respiratory tract	1.71e-10	54
liver	2.52e-10	19
digestive gland	2.52e-10	19
liver bud	2.52e-10	19
digestive tract diverticulum	2.64e-10	23
upper respiratory tract	8.13e-10	19
endo-epithelium	1.58e-09	82
epithelial sac	2.61e-09	25
subdivision of digestive tract	6.90e-09	118
sac	7.18e-09	26
gingival epithelium	9.69e-09	3
acellular anatomical structure	1.08e-08	3
egg chorion	1.08e-08	3
respiratory primordium	1.20e-07	38
endoderm of foregut	1.20e-07	38
endocrine gland	2.70e-07	35
skin gland	6.47e-07	2
epidermis gland	6.47e-07	2
gland of integumental system	6.47e-07	2
sebaceous gland	6.47e-07	2
skin sebaceous gland	6.47e-07	2
sweat gland	6.47e-07	2
sweat gland placode	6.47e-07	2
sebaceous gland placode	6.47e-07	2
mouth mucosa	9.15e-07	13
segment of respiratory tract	9.57e-07	47

Disease

Ontology term	p-value	n
carcinoma	1.25e-12	106
cell type cancer	3.65e-09	143

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	#promoters	Enrichment	p-value	q-value
ATF3#467	8	22.4631745260087	1.53751153688198e-11	1.87808382924464e-09
BHLHE40#8553	8	44.8718135469774	6.04397679531981e-14	9.72614626388914e-12
BRCA1#672	8	20.1842306432238	3.61942729088439e-11	4.1448395486039e-09
CEBPB#1051	8	7.97114762582482	6.12878626083745e-08	3.7987199305377e-06
ELF1#1997	8	4.25809795880754	9.24826870984006e-06	0.000246523720211074
EP300#2033	8	6.7739417262232	2.25366016107097e-07	1.19174690411185e-05
FOS#2353	8	8.9979553088944	2.32446530602145e-08	1.63808928539524e-06
FOSL2#2355	8	16.9302006045617	1.47793326491323e-10	1.56545509385672e-08
FOXA1#3169	8	11.0814197493855	4.39110036332964e-09	3.56057555004491e-07
FOXA2#3170	8	24.6304637526652	7.35637804493982e-12	9.33527055450146e-10
GTF2F1#2962	8	12.7396608767577	1.43868108630934e-09	1.2831290689416e-07
HDAC2#3066	8	13.4156202366263	9.51254966654288e-10	8.87036763057207e-08
HEY1#23462	8	4.04011104310571	1.4081650274634e-05	0.000339255703121685
HNF4A#3172	8	23.1322903629537	1.21561011047446e-11	1.50959695990299e-09
JUN#3725	8	12.5128291923363	1.66110954195842e-09	1.45662988625185e-07
JUND#3727	8	6.99466394187103	1.74369580801501e-07	9.57968682237137e-06
MAX#4149	8	6.45255550900712	3.32496617557502e-07	1.65992419890478e-05
NR3C1#2908	8	14.973023331173	3.9500670680339e-10	3.89557180848341e-08
POLR2A#5430	8	2.14745317655807	0.00221072578897191	0.0127251978987234
RAD21#5885	8	10.3550338954563	7.55391711153941e-09	5.84821014982998e-07
RXRA#6256	8	20.0746171391333	3.7806502647693e-11	4.31999270243152e-09
SMARCC1#6599	8	43.6633593196315	7.52062965894322e-14	1.19187714863486e-11
SMC3#9126	8	15.0449328449328	3.80148882898722e-10	3.77398946588019e-08
SP1#6667	8	5.6983813781409	8.98832477855329e-07	3.86627533586214e-05
SPI1#6688	6	6.15324263139204	7.3612205654473e-05	0.00114866056272934
STAT1#6772	8	20.7065874971992	2.95008695392417e-11	3.42718722336915e-09
STAT3#6774	8	10.5194649971542	6.65923543127245e-09	5.22527339749559e-07
TBP#6908	8	3.70677068709639	2.80450451364125e-05	0.000592434560882237
TCF7L2#6934	8	10.7701765631373	5.51536816569572e-09	4.40381908147626e-07
TRIM28#10155	8	18.5905250452625	6.99051420669847e-11	7.70129022398082e-09
USF1#7391	8	6.36149927720796	3.72538670743375e-07	1.83353281026236e-05

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.