Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of the linear mapping on module size and enrichment

From: Exploiting combinatorial cultivation conditions to infer transcriptional regulation

Cultivation parameter Linear mapping applied No linear mapping
  Disc.Expr.Pattern # genes # TF(pairs) # Ann.cat Disc. Expr. Pattern # genes # TF(pairs) # Ann.cat
Carbon 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 x 169 1 48 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 59 - 5
  -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 x 69 - - -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 23 - -
Nitrogen 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 x 100 2(1) 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 42 2(1) 8
  0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 x 2 - - 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 - -
Sulfur 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 x 52 2(1) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 39 2(1) 6
  0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 x 2 - - 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 1 - -
Phosphorus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 x 93 6(3) 27 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 59 5(3) 27
  0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 x 4 - - 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 1 - -
Oxygen x x x x x x x x 1 638 2 75 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 115 2 19
  x x x x x x x x -1 383 5(6) 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 76 - 5
  1. For the modules that are most straightforwardly related to one of the the cultivation parameters (the four nutrient limitations and the oxygen availability) this table indicates the size of the respective module, the number of associated TFs, TF pairs and annotation categories; both with and without appliance of the linear mapping. (Note that when no linear mapping is applied the original continuous expression levels are discretized and no oxygen effect can be computed, resulting in a discretized expression pattern of length eight.)
\