Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Excluding 41 identical pairs, 12.8% (21 of 164) human ECM domain pairs were bidirectional compared with previous estimates of 3 6% for all proteins (Kummerfeld and Teichmann 2009).
Similar(59)
CpG-islands were present in 90% of bidirectional promoters compared to 45% of non-bidirectional promoters and only 9% of tail-to-tail regions.
It was found that specific cis-motifs were over-represented in bidirectional promoters compared with unidirectional promoters (5), and that the co-regulation of bidirectional genes may involve different h2h pairs (7).
As expected, the RNA Pol II-signal was higher upstream of the TSS in the bidirectional genes compared with the unidirectional, which agrees with higher antisense transcription in the bidirectional genes.
We found that H3K4me3, H3K9ac, and H3K27ac were significantly more enriched upstream of the TSS in bidirectional genes compared with the unidirectional ones.
The HMs H3K4me3, H3K9ac, H3K27ac, and H3K4me2 were identified to be more enriched upstream of the TSS in bidirectional genes compared with unidirectional genes.
This result was consistent with previous reports [ 5], which suggested that the TATA occurrence was depleted in bidirectional promoters compared to the genome average.
Further, H3K4me3 modification density was greater at both types of bidirectional promoters compared to UniPs (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.0001; Figure 5d).
We found that the promoter marks H3K4me3, H3K9ac, and H3K27ac had higher signal upstream of the TSS in bidirectional genes compared with unidirectional.
The higher proportion of expression values in CpG-island bidirectional promoters compared to nonCpG-island promoters (Fig. 4) was consistent with the higher recruitment of RNA POLII shown here by the ChIP-seq data (Fig. 5A).
TAF1 and NELFe had ChIP-seq signals similar to that of RNA Pol II with higher signal upstream of the TSS of the bidirectional genes compared with the unidirectional ones.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com