PReMod: A database of genome-wide mammalian cis-regulatory module predictions
We describe PReMod, a new database of genome-wide cis-regulatory module (CRM) predictions for both the human and the mouse genomes. The prediction algorithm, described previously in Blanchette et al. (2006) Genome Res., 16, 656–668, exploits the fact that many known CRMs are made of clusters of phylogenetically conserved and repeated transcription factors (TF) binding sites. Contrary to other existing databases, PReMod is not restricted to modules located proximal to genes, but in fact mostly contains distal predicted CRMs (pCRMs). Through its web interface, PReMod allows users to (i) identify pCRMs around a gene of interest; (ii) identify pCRMs that have binding sites for a given TF (or a set of TFs) or (iii) download the entire dataset for local analyses. Queries can also be refined by filtering for specific chromosomal regions, for specific regions relative to genes or for the presence of CpG islands. The output includes information about the binding sites predicted within the selected pCRMs, and a graphical display of their distribution within the pCRMs. It also provides a visual depiction of the chromosomal context of the selected pCRMs in terms of neighboring pCRMs and genes, all of which are linked to the UCSC Genome Browser and the NCBI. PReMod: http://genomequebec.mcgill.ca/PReMod.
PReMod: a database of genome-wide mammalian
cis-regulatory module predictions
Vincent Ferretti, Christian Poitras
, Dominique Bergeron
, Benoit Coulombe
and Mathieu Blanchette
McGill University and Genome Quebec Innovation Center, 740 Dr Penfield, Montreal, Qc, Canada H3A 1A4,
Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montre
al, 110 Pine Avenue West, Montre
al, Qc, Canada H2W 1R7
McGill Center for Bioinformatics. McGill University, 3775 University Street, room #332. Montre
Canada H3A 2B4
Received August 15, 2006; Revised October 10, 2006; Accepted October 11, 2006
We describe PReMod, a new database of genome-
wide cis-regulatory module (CRM) predictions for
both the human and the mouse genomes. The
prediction algorithm, described previously in
Blanchette et al. (2006) Genome Res., 16, 656–668,
exploits the fact that many known CRMs are made of
clusters of phylogenetically conserved and repeated
transcription factors (TF) binding sites. Contrary to
other existing databases, PReMod is not restricted
to modules located proximal to genes, but in fact
mostly contains distal predicted CRMs (pCRMs).
Through its web interface, PReMod allows users
to (i) identify pCRMs around a gene of interest;
(ii) identify pCRMs that have binding sites for a
given TF (or a set of TFs) or (iii) download the
entire dataset for local analyses. Queries can also
be refined by filtering for specific chromosomal
regions, for specific regions relative to genes or for
the presence of CpG islands. The output includes
information about the binding sites predicted within
the selected pCRMs, and a graphical display of their
distribution within the pCRMs. It also provides a
visual depiction of the chromosomal context of
the selected pCRMs in terms of neighboring pCRMs
and genes, all of which are linked to the UCSC
Genome Browser and the NCBI. PReMod: http://
The identiﬁcation of DNA regulatory regions is one of
the most important and challenging problems toward the
functional annotation of genomes. In higher eukaryotes,
transcription factor (TF) binding sites are often organized in
clusters called cis-regulatory modules (CRM), which consists
of DNA regions of up to a few hundred bases located in
the (extended) neighborhood of the gene being regulated
(1). While the prediction of individual TF-binding sites is a
notoriously difﬁcult problem, CRM predictions have proven
to be more reliable and several algorithms have been devel-
oped in the last few years.
Most predictive methods rely on prior knowledge that has
to be provided by the user. For instance, some methods will
analyze the promoters of a set of (presumably) co-regulated
genes obtained from some prior experiments in order to
identify over-represented motif combinations (2–10). Other
methods require a small set of TF position-weight matrices
(PWMs) that are expected to co-occur in modules, and identi-
fy genomic regions densely populated in putative sites for
these TFs (11–16). Because of the prior knowledge they
require, none of these approaches are able to produce an unbi-
ased, genome-wide survey of mammalian CRMs. Indeed, the
only database of predicted cis-regulatory regions currently
available for mammals, CisRed (17), is restricted to promoter
In Blanchette et al. (18), we described a new sequence-
based, genome-wide CRM identiﬁcation method that exploits
the observation that CRMs often contain several phylogeneti-
cally conserved binding sites for a few different TFs [see also
a related approach by Philippakis and Bulyk (19)]. Applying
this algorithm to the human and mouse genomes, we built
the PReMod database, which contains the complete set of
predicted CRMs (pCRMs) for those two genomes. Together
with the recently published regulatory potential estimation
from the Hardison group (20,21), our method represents
the only computational approach that has been used for
de novo, genome-wide prediction of CRMs.
PReMod will be useful for several types of investigations.
First, researchers interested in the regulation of a speciﬁc
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 514 398 5209; Fax: 514 398 3387; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors
2006 The Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
D122–D126 Nucleic Acids Research, 2007, Vol. 35, Database issue Published online 5 December 2006
gene can use PReMod to identify putative CRMs in the vicin-
ity of that gene. The PReMod information is complementary
to other types of data like inter-species conservation, CpG
islands, regulatory potential, etc. However, it provides a
richer annotation, as it predicts the TFs likely to be involved.
Second, researchers interested in identifying the targets of
a particular TF or TF family will ﬁnd PReMod useful as it
provides a ranked list of putative targets for all TFs for
which PWMs are available in Transfac. Modules are ranked
by their total binding site concentration for that factor. The
list of pCRMs associated to a particular TF can then be
used to validate experimentally some of the predictions. For
example, Blanchette et al. (18) used the modules predicted to
be bound by E2F4 and estrogen receptor (ER) to build a DNA
microarray for chromatin immunoprecipation (ChIP) -chip.
A total of 55 and 433 modules were thus validated for ER
and E2F4, respectively. While this corresponds to a relatively
low fraction of the total number of modules tested (17% for
E2F4 and 3% for ER), it is expected that testing binding
under different experimental conditions will validate a
much larger number of pCRMs since TFs (and in particular
ER) are known to regulate different genes in different cellular
contexts (22,23). Predicted CRMs can also be tested for
function using lower-throughput approaches, such as reporter
assays [e.g. Wooﬂe et al. (24) and the Vista Enhancer Data-
base (http://enhancer.lbl.gov)], and their predicted binding
sites can be conﬁrmed via gel shifts or mutagenesis. Finally,
PReMod can be used as a data source for data mining efforts
to understand the relationship between TFs (e.g. through co-
occurrence of binding sites) or between TFs and genes of a
particular function or expression pattern [e.g. see Ref. (18)].
By providing TF target predictions that are more accurate
than individual binding site predictions, PReMod affords
the researchers a better dataset from which subtle patterns
can emerge. For example, using PReMod, Blanchette et al.
(18) highlighted a surprising enrichment of pCRMs near the
end of genes; a results that is corroborated by a growing
number of experimental evidence (25,26).
Users need to keep in mind that the different types of
predictions contained within PReMod are associated with
different expected speciﬁcity. We ﬁrst clarify that PReMod
is not meant to be an exhaustive list of CRMs, and that
CRMs that would not ﬁt the signature described above
would go undetected. Among all the predictions contained
in PReMod, those of individual TF-binding sites have the
lowest expected accuracy. More accurate are the predictions
of the interaction between a TF (or a family of TFs) and a
particular module (but without specifying the exact position
of the binding sites). Finally, the most accurate predictions
of the location of the pCRMs themselves, although the pre-
cise boundaries of the modules remain difﬁcult to establish.
The pCRMs contained in PReMod were computed using the
method described by Blanchette et al. (18). We only provide
a short overview of the method, and refer the interested
reader to that article for more details. At the base of PReMod
is a set of individual binding site predictions for TFs
whose binding preferences are described by PWMs from
the Transfac 7.2 database (27). Putative human binding
sites are scored based on how well the human site and its
orthologs in mouse and rat match the matrix [orthology is
based on Multiz genome-wide alignments (28)]. Putative
mouse sites are computed based on an alignment to the
human and dog genomes. More precisely, a binding site’s
score is a weighted sum of the log-likelihood ratio scores
in the three species. The score of the modules reported in
PReMod reﬂect the presence, in a region of 100–1000 bp,
of a surprisingly large number of binding sites (or, more
precisely, a surprisingly large sum of their individual scores),
for a few different PWMs. Speciﬁcally, to assign a score to
a given genomic region, each PWM is ﬁrst assigned a
‘matrixScore’, which reﬂects the surprise associated with
the density and quality of predicted sites in that region.
This surprise (P-value) depends, among other things, on the
length and GC-content of the region and the genome-wide
number and scores of predicted sites for the same PWM.
The PWM with the highest matrixScore is chosen as ﬁrst
‘tag’ for the region. Its occurrences are then masked, and
the process is repeated, selecting a second tag. Up to ﬁve
tags can be selected for a given module. In the end, the region
is assigned a ‘moduleScore’, which reﬂects the surprise asso-
ciated with the combined scores of the tags. Depending on
which number of tags gives the most signiﬁcant result, the
lower-scoring tags may be rejected. It is important to mention
here that although PWMs chosen as tags for a module are
likely to be of interest, other PWMs that were not selected
could also correspond to factors binding the module. This
is particularly true in the case where two or more different
PWMs represent binding sites for factors of the same family
(e.g. STAT1 and STAT3). Because factors from the same
family tend to have similar PWMs, it is very difﬁcult to
distinguish between their binding sites. Since their predicted
sites will heavily overlap, only one member of the family will
be reported as tag. However, this should not be interpreted as
an indication that this member is signiﬁcantly more likely
than its homologs to bind the module. Instead, the user should
refer to the ‘matrixScore’ to assess the binding potential of
a particular TF.
Genomic regions obtaining signiﬁcant moduleScores
(P-value below e
) are reported in PReMod. We should
however emphasize that the prediction algorithm is not very
good at identifying the correct boundaries of the CRMs,
and that one pCRM may sometimes actually contain two
functionally distinct modules, or one module may be split
between two CRMs. We encourage the user to consider all
types of evidence, (e.g. regions of inter-species conservation)
to decide on the correct CRM boundaries.
THE PREMOD DATABASE
Table 1 reports the key statistics for the human and mouse
versions of PReMod. The human version contains more
than 123 000 predicted modules, slightly more than the
91 000 modules of mouse version. The difference is largely
due to the fact that the mouse binding site predictions
use the dog genome for comparison, resulting in more strin-
gent predictions. Approximately 1.9% of the human genome
Nucleic Acids Research, 2007, Vol. 35, Database issue D123
(and 1.7% of the mouse genome) is covered by pCRMs,
consistent with the hypothesis that a large fraction of the
non-coding functional regions has a regulatory function
(29). Note that the set of human modules in PreMod is based
on a newer assembly than the dataset originally reported in
(18). The large number of predicted sites per module is due
in part to the fact that sites are predicted separately for
each PWM, even though several matrices often represent
the same or related TF. Thus, a single DNA location can be
predicted as a binding site for more than one PWM.
A Java web-based application allows users to browse, query
or download the database. To address the various needs of the
users, PReMod can be queried in a number of ways using an
advanced search form (Figure 1A). First, users can request
regulatory modules related to a given gene. Although there is
currently no way to conﬁdently assigning pCRMs to the gene
they regulate, PReMod assumes that the gene whose transcrip-
tion start site (TSS) is the closest to the module is the most
likely target. However, this association is likely to often
be incorrect, in particular for very-long-range regulators.
The second type of PReMod queries is TF-centric. Specif-
ically, the user can request to see all the pCRMs containing
predicted binding sites for one or more TFs (only TFs with
Transfac matrices can be sought). By default, all modules
containing predicted sites for the speciﬁed TF will be
reported, although the search can also be restricted to only
the PWMs used as tags for the pCRMs. An example of this
type of query is shown in Figure 1A. Here, the user wants
to identify the pCRMs containing tags for two nuclear recep-
tor TFs, ER (M00191) and androgen receptor (M00447). All
queries can be reﬁned further by restricting the search to
some chromosomal regions, to pCRMs that have a particular
moduleScore, to located modules around speciﬁc genes, or
to modules overlapping CpG islands.
Upon submitting a query, the user receives the list of
modules satisfying the given constraints. All outputs can be
viewed as HTML ﬁles or exported to an Excel spreadsheet.
For each module reported, the module identiﬁer, genomic
position, length and score are given. Also given are the
genes with the closest TSS upstream or downstream of the
pCRM. Finally, the list of Transfac matrices selected as
tags for the module is shown.
For example, given the query described above, the list of
four modules produced as output is shown in Figure 1B.
The second is a module located next to the progesterone
receptor gene, which we showed to be bound by ER (18).
However, we focus here on the fourth module reported,
which is interesting for a number of reasons. First, not only
are the estrogen and androgen receptors predicted to bind
this module, but a third nuclear receptor, RORalpha1,
which was not included in our query, is selected as ﬁrst tag
for this module. Given that different nuclear receptors are
known to cooperatively (or antagonistically) bind regulatory
regions (30), this association is promising. Second, this
region is located within an intron of the ERBB4 gene
(v-erb-a erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene), a key
growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inducing cell differen-
tiation (31). The ERBB family is a key player in hormone-
dependent breast (and other types of) cancer.
For each module, a details page is obtained by clicking the
module name, as is exempliﬁed in Figure 1C–E, for the
module described above. This page contains all the binding
site information about the selected module, starting with a
visual representation of the position of the predicted binding
sites for the TFs selected as tags (Figure 1D). The page gives
the complete list of matrices with predicted sites in the mod-
ule, and the position of these predicted sites can be visualized
in the graphical display (Figure 1C). We emphasize again
that, although the selection of TF tags for the modules is a
necessary step algorithmically, the fact that a TF was not
selected as a tag should not necessarily be interpreted as
the TF being of less interest. Therefore, we recommend that
users consider the matrix’s total score as an indication of
the binding potential.
Each module can be visualized in its genomic context,
together with the genes nearby and the other surrounding
modules (Figure 1E). By clicking the other modules in
the image, one can explore their binding site content and
properties. Quite often, interesting patterns will emerge by
considering together several neighboring modules. For exam-
ple, the module located upstream of the module described
above is also predicted to be bound by several nuclear recep-
tors. Finally, to explore the selected module in the context
other types of annotations, a link to the UCSC genome
browser is provided, where the pCRMs are displayed using
a custom track.
Several features will be added to PReMod in the near future.
Predicted CRMs will soon be made available for other
mammalian species (rat, dog, etc.), and orthologous pCRMs
from different species will be linked to each other, allowing
easy jumps from one species to the other. As new genome
assemblies come out, new versions of the database will be
released. To simplify querying the database, a BLAST server
will be made available, allowing the quick identiﬁcation of
pCRMs homologous to a given query sequence. Finally, the
Table 1. Key statistics on the PReMod 1.0 database
Genome assembly Build 34—May
Transfac version 7.2 7.2
Number of pCRMs 123 510 91 412
Fraction of genome
contained in pCRMs
Average module length 481 bp 479 bp
Fraction of modules that are
proximal (<2 kb from TSS) 10.8% 8.4%
distal (2–10 kb from TSS) 7.7% 8.3%
long-range (>10 kb from TSS) 81.6% 83.4%
Average number of tags per module 3.3 3.5
Average number of different
PWMs per module
Average number of predicted
sites per module
Average number of module
containing sites for a given TF
D124 Nucleic Acids Research, 2007, Vol. 35, Database issue
Figure 1. Sample screenshots of a query input and its related outputs generated by PReMod. (A) The Advanced Search page. By clicking on ‘Search Predicted
Modules’, users access a page that allows searching pCRMs by module name, matrix name, gene name or Entrez gene Id. In the example shown here, the user
wants to identify the pCRMs containing tags for both the ER (M00191) and the androgen receptor (M00447). Output can be ordered by name, position or score,
and can be displayed in HTML or exported as an Excel file. (B) Query output page. Upon submitting a query, the list of modules satisfying the given constraints
is displayed. ‘B’ shows the result of the query shown in ‘A’. For each module reported, the module identifier, genomic position, length, and score are given. Also
given are the genes with the closest TSS upstream or downstream of the pCRM. Finally, the list of Transfac matrices selected as tags for the module is shown.
(C) Module Information page. By clicking on a module name in the Query output page (B), a details page is obtained that contains all the binding site information
about the selected module. The page includes the list of all the matrices that were used to calculate the moduleScore (Tag Matrices) as well as all the other
matrices found in that pCRM (Other Matrices). The page also includes a list of the surrounding genes (within a 100 kb window) and the DNA sequence of the
module. (D) The Module view. The Module Information page also contains a graphical representation of the position of the predicted binding sites for the TFs
selected as tags. Any matrices present in that module (those listed in Tag Matrices and in Other Matrices) can be added to (or removed from) the display bya
simple click. (E) The Genomic Context view. The genomic context of the selected module can also be visualized within the Module Information page. In this
display, the selected pCRM, together with any other pCRMs and genes present within a 100 kb window are shown. By clicking on any module in that image the
user is sent to the appropriate Module Information page.
Nucleic Acids Research, 2007, Vol. 35, Database issue D125
module prediction algorithm is under constant reﬁnement and
new releases of PReMod will likely improve the speciﬁcity of
The authors thank Diane Bourque, Johanne Duhaime,
Nathalie Edmond and Martin Leboeuf for their technical
support, as well as the UCSC genome browser group for their
support. The authors also thank Vincent Gigue
re for his
advice about the nuclear receptor analysis. This work was
funded by grants from Ge
bec and Ge
(M.B., B.C. and F.R.). F.R. holds a new investigator award
from the CIHR. Funding to pay the Open Access publication
charges for this article was provided by NSERC and CIHR.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
1. Levine,M. and Davidson,E.H. (2005) Gene regulatory networks for
development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 4936–4942.
2. Aerts,S., Van Loo,P., Thijs,G., Moreau,Y. and De Moor,B. (2003)
Computational detection of cis-regulatory modules. Bioinformatics, 19,
3. Aerts,S., Van Loo,P., Moreau,Y. and De Moor,B. (2004) A genetic
algorithm for the detection of new cis-regulatory modules in sets of
coregulated genes. Bioinformatics, 20, 1974–1976.
4. Gupta,M. and Liu,J.S. (2005) De novo cis-regulatory module elicitation
for eukaryotic genomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 7079–7084.
5. Krivan,W. and Wasserman,W.W. (2001) A predictive model for
regulatory sequences directing liver-specific transcription. Genome
Res., 11, 1559–1566.
6. Segal,E. and Sharan,R. (2005) A discriminative model for identifying
spatial cis-regulatory modules. J. Comput. Biol., 12, 822–834.
7. Sharan,R., Ben Hur,A., Loots,G.G. and Ovcharenko,I. (2004) CREME:
cis-regulatory module explorer for the human genome. Nucleic Acids
Res., 32, W253–W256.
8. Thompson,W., Palumbo,M.J., Wasserman,W.W., Liu,J.S. and
Lawrence,C.E. (2004) Decoding human regulatory circuits. Genome
Res., 14, 1967–1974.
9. Wasserman,W.W. and Fickett,J.W. (1998) Identification of regulatory
regions which confer muscle-specific gene expression. J. Mol. Biol.,
10. Zhou,Q. and Wong,W.H. (2004) CisModule: de novo discovery of
cis-regulatory modules by hierarchical mixture modeling. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 12114–12119.
11. Alkema,W.B., Johansson,O., Lagergren,J. and Wasserman,W.W.
(2004) MSCAN: identification of functional clusters of transcription
factor binding sites. Nucleic Acids Res., 32, W195–W198.
12. Bailey,T.L. and Noble,W.S. (2003) Searching for statistically
significant regulatory modules. Bioinformatics, 19, II16–II25.
13. Frith,M.C., Li,M.C. and Weng,Z. (2003) Cluster-Buster: finding dense
clusters of motifs in DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res., 31,
14. Johansson,O., Alkema,W., Wasserman,W.W. and Lagergren,J. (2003)
Identification of functional clusters of transcription factor binding
motifs in genome sequences: the MSCAN algorithm. Bioinformatics,
15. Sinha,S., Schroeder,M.D., Unnerstall,U., Gaul,U. and Siggia,E.D.
(2004) Cross-species comparison significantly improves genome-wide
prediction of cis-regulatory modules in Drosophila. BMC
Bioinformatics, 5, 129.
16. Sinha,S., van Nimwegen,E. and Siggia,E.D. (2003) A
probabilistic method to detect regulatory modules. Bioinformatics, 19,
17. Robertson,G., Bilenky,M., Lin,K., He,A., Yuen,W., Dagpinar,M.,
Varhol,R., Teague,K., Griffith,O.L., Zhang,X. et al. (2006) cisRED: a
database system for genome-scale computational discovery of
regulatory elements. Nucleic Acids Res., 34, D68–D73.
18. Blanchette,M., Bataille,A.R., Chen,X., Poitras,C., Laganiere,J.,
Lefebvre,C., Deblois,G., Giguere,V., Ferretti,V., Bergeron,D. et al.
(2006) Genome-wide computational prediction of transcriptional
regulatory modules reveals new insights into human gene expression.
Genome Res., 16, 656–668.
19. Bulyk,M.L. (2003) Computational prediction of transcription-factor
binding site locations. Genome Biol., 5, 201.
20. Kolbe,D., Taylor,J., Elnitski,L., Eswara,P., Li,J., Miller,W.,
Hardison,R. and Chiaromonte,F. (2004) Regulatory potential scores
from genome-wide three-way alignments of human, mouse and rat.
Genome Res., 14, 700–707.
21. King,D.C., Taylor,J., Elnitski,L., Chiaromonte,F., Miller,W. and
Hardison,R.C. (2005) Evaluation of regulatory potential and
conservation scores for detecting cis-regulatory modules in
aligned mammalian genome sequences. Genome Res., 15,
22. Hartman,S.E., Bertone,P., Nath,A.K., Royce,T.E., Gerstein,M.,
Weissman,S. and Snyder,M. (2005) Global changes in STAT target
selection and transcription regulation upon interferon treatments. Genes
Dev., 19, 2953–2968.
23. Zeitlinger,J., Simon,I., Harbison,C.T., Hannett,N.M., Volkert,T.L.,
Fink,G.R. and Young,R.A. (2003) Program-specific distribution of a
transcription factor dependent on partner transcription factor and
MAPK signaling. Cell, 113, 395–404.
24. Woolfe,A., Goodson,M., Goode,D.K., Snell,P., McEwen,G.K.,
Vavouri,T., Smith,S.F., North,P., Callaway,H., Kelly,K. et al. (2005)
Highly conserved non-coding sequences are associated with vertebrate
development. PLoS Biol., 3, e7.
25. Cawley,S., Bekiranov,S., Ng,H.H., Kapranov,P., Sekinger,E.A.,
Kampa,D., Piccolboni,A., Sementchenko,V., Cheng,J., Williams,A.J.
et al. (2004) Unbiased mapping of transcription factor binding sites
along human chromosomes 21 and 22 points to widespread regulation
of noncoding RNAs. Cell, 116, 499–509.
26. Carninci,P., Sandelin,A., Lenhard,B., Katayama,S., Shimokawa,K.,
Ponjavic,J., Semple,C.A., Taylor,M.S., Engstrom,P.G., Frith,M.C. et al.
(2006) Genome-wide analysis of mammalian promoter architecture and
evolution. Nature Genet., 38, 626–635.
27. Matys,V., Fricke,E., Geffers,R., Gossling,E., Haubrock,M., Hehl,R.,
Hornischer,K., Karas,D., Kel,A.E., Kel-Margoulis,O.V. et al. (2003)
TRANSFAC: transcriptional regulation, from patterns to profiles.
Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 374–378.
28. Blanchette,M., Kent,W.J., Riemer,C., Elnitski,L., Smit,A.F.,
Roskin,K.M., Baertsch,R., Rosenbloom,K., Clawson,H., Green,E.D.
et al. (2004) Aligning multiple genomic sequences with the threaded
blockset aligner. Genome Res., 14, 708–715.
29. Lander,E.S., Linton,L.M., Birren,B., Nusbaum,C., Zody,M.C.,
Baldwin,J., Devon,K., Dewar,K., Doyle,M., FitzHugh,W. et al. (2001)
Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409,
30. Laganiere,J., Deblois,G., Lefebvre,C., Bataille,A.R., Robert,F. and
Giguere,V. (2005) From the cover: location analysis of estrogen
receptor alpha target promoters reveals that FOXA1 defines a domain
of the estrogen response. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102,
31. Grant,S., Qiao,L. and Dent,P. (2002) Roles of ERBB family receptor
tyrosine kinases, and downstream signaling pathways, in the control of
cell growth and survival. Front Biosci., 7, d376–d389.
D126 Nucleic Acids Research, 2007, Vol. 35, Database issue