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.