Skip to main content

Table 5 Motif similarity between neighboring unique promoters

From: Complex organizational structure of the genome revealed by genome-wide analysis of single and alternative promoters in Drosophila melanogaster

 

Similara

Intermediatea

Differenta

# of used pairs

# of omitted pairs

 

allb

high qualityc

capd

all

high quality

cap

all

high quality

cap

all

high quality

cap

all

high quality

cap

Observed value (shared motifs allowed)

17.81

16.44

15.47

16.36

16.90

21.13

65.83

66.67

63.40

1516

1083

530

8224

4200

983

Observed value (shared motifs not allowed)

16.64

15.06

14.34

15.50

15.91

19.96

67.86

69.03

65.70

1484

1056

516

8256

4227

997

Random meane

8.48

8.25

7.60

10.45

10.96

11.96

81.07

80.79

80.44

1516

1083

530

8224

4200

983

p-valuef (random >= observed value, shared motifs allowed)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

--

--

--

--

--

--

p-valuef (random <= observed value, shared motifs allowed)

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

--

--

--

--

--

--

p-valuef (random >= observed value, shared motifs not allowed)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

--

--

--

--

--

--

p-valuef (random <= observed value, shared motifs not allowed)

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

--

--

--

--

--

--

  1. apercentage of promoter pairs defined as similar, intermediate, and different (see Methods).
  2. bThe promoter set contains all promoters from Drosophila genome annotation release 5.5.
  3. cThe promoter set contains only high quality promoters in fly genome; see Methods.
  4. dThe promoter set contains only cap-supported promoters in fly genome; see Methods.
  5. emean of 10,000 randomizations.
  6. fempirical p-value calculated as the proportion of sampled randomizations where the percentage of the promoter pairs in each of the three similarity levels was no less than/no greater than the observed values.