<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Motifs on Pierre-François Roux</title>
    <link>https://www.pierre-francois-roux.com/tags/motifs/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Motifs on Pierre-François Roux</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>&amp;copy; 2021 Pierre-François Roux</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:50:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="https://www.pierre-francois-roux.com/tags/motifs/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>Rank transcription factors by evidence, not only by enrichment</title>
      <link>https://www.pierre-francois-roux.com/2026/06/19/rank-transcription-factors-by-evidence-not-only-by-enrichment/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.pierre-francois-roux.com/2026/06/19/rank-transcription-factors-by-evidence-not-only-by-enrichment/</guid>
      <description>Motif enrichment is a good starting point, but it is a weak ending point. A motif can be enriched because many related transcription factors share the same binding preference, because the region set is GC-rich, or because accessibility has changed without direct TF binding.
When I try to prioritize candidate regulators, I prefer to build an evidence table. Each transcription factor gets several independent scores, and the interesting candidates are those supported by multiple layers.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>