Talk:Transcription factor

Regarding the need for revision and use of Template:Confusing

I think this article needs a greater level of detail devoted to framing transcription and transcription factors in their relevant context.

I'm going to annotate the first sentence in order to clarify what sort of information seems missing.

"In molecular biology, a transcription factor is a protein that regulates* the activation** of transcription*** in the eukaryotic nucleus****."

* The word regulates is either ambiguous or inconsistent with the word activation. In this context, does it mean triggers? or maybe schedules?

** Be careful about making references to concepts that have not yet been treated in this article. A stickler would never do it. And a pragmatist would almost never do it, and make sure that exceptions to the rule are at least linked to a wiki article that does explain the concept.

*** When I found this article, I was actually (apparently) looking for an article that defined transcription; this is another good reason to try hard to frame Transcription factor in the context of Transcription. Put another way, it seems like transcription is a process with an end goal (duping dna subsequences out into new proteins?), and like transcription factor is a catalyst or an agent in that effort. I think readers would benefit from seeing some info about the nature of the end goal and what exact role transcription factors play in the pursuit.

**** eh, what? this bullet is redundant with the second one. however, its more critical to address. when I read the word activation, I thought hmmm, hope that gets cleared up... and when I read eukaryotic nucleus, I was ambushed by garbled high school memories of eukaryotes vs prokaryotes vs mitochondria, and my head fell off.

Kierah 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first off, regulates is a good word, especially since it is the typical term used in the field to describe the actions of transcription factors. It does regulate the "activation" of transcription. TFs are not truly associated with transcription itself as that is accomplished primarily by the RNA polymerase enzyme. They rather act to control the level of transcription of a particular gene...ie regulating the activation of the gene to produce its protein or other end product. Trigger and schedule are both too narrow as TFs can promote transcription or suppress it. I'll add links in the text to appropriate articles for activation and eukaryotic nuclei as those seem to be unmarked and are better explained in their own articles since this one should focus on how TFs work.Cquan 23:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Molecular Biology has haphazardly invented an entirely new language for itself, re-defining words like "activation", "regulation", "transcription", and so on, to the point where any new student entering the field is presented with a sheer cliff of a learning-curve. In saying this, I mean to point out that the use of these terms is not the fault of the article writer, but rather the fault of the field itself. A logical naming convention, such as that formulated for Organic Chemistry (IUPAC system) would greatly benefit this field. Until then, we are left with a legacy of hopelessly ill-defined words and terms which, to the scientist, layman, and student all, paint a sad picture of confusion and ambiguity. Dbsanfte 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree that it is not the fault of the author for adopting the language of the field to describe the topic. On the other hand, both Wikipedia and science in general strive to make what was previously not understood, clear to anyone (paraphrasing Paul Dirac). So if the fields terminology is unclear and confusing, it is our job to try to do better. The added glossary is my humble attempt to make things clearer. Boghog2 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Confusing

The bit about the "transcription factor being a protein that regulates the activation of transcription in the eukaryotic nucleus" is very accurate, though a little abstract. I added a few sentences to try to explain specifically where TFs attach and how they interact with RNA pol and the promoter. There is room for a lot more though. For example, we haven't discussed interactions between TFs and the more distal control elements. Some activators promote transcription by attracting proteins that acetylate the surrounding histones (and some repressors vis-versa). That isn't part of the initiation complex. Cheers Doub1etap 22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between eukaryotes, archea, and bacteria?

I suppose the article requires a terse definition of transcription factor. According to Lewin, Genes VIII a transcription factor is a molecule required by RNA polymerase to initiate transcription, that is not itself part of RNApol. Following this definition, there are no bacterial transcription factors in the strict sense (sigma is part of rnapol).

I do not know whether this definition is the one to follow, but maybe it could help to clarify things, because regulation is a only a consequence of the primary effect: enabling the machinery.

Also, according to this definition, activators and repressors in bacteria are not TFs in the strict sense, but just trans-acting elements. The article should thus not refer to them as examples. All other examples in the article come from eukarya, hence they could be kept. The list of DNA-binding domains imho also contains mostly domains from eukarya. In conclusion I vote for more restricted definition but do not dare to add it, because I'm neither a native speaker nor biologist. What do you think?

Intro paragraph

Added intro paragraph for a very general audience. However, I'm relying a bit more on my skills as a writer than strict knowledge of molecular biology, so it would be a good idea for a true expert to dig in and check this very carefully, not just whether it sounds good, and revise accordingly - hopefully keeping things simple however.

Also, as it stood, the text below seem to imply that T factors ALSO regulated DNA expression; so I've made it clear that this is exactly what they do, and what is being discussed - however someone more expert may wish to clarify further here. Ndaniels 19:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is, frankly, dumbing down a little much and speaks a lot more on transcription in general than TFs. I've removed it, added a link in the intro paragraph to transcription and a little more to clarify what TFs actually do. -Cquan 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I am a little puzzled why this and similar articles do not have references. Obviously any detailed refs to research articles go on the most specific page, but shouldn't the articles at each level have at least some appropriate textbook chapters or review articles in easily found sources? There must have been a policy decision at some point ,because this practice seems fairly uniform in this general topic area.DGG 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Breadth

When trying to track down appropriate references, I quickly came to the conclusion that the main problem with this topic is that it is too broad. Transcription factors cover a very large and mechanistically heterogeneous set of regulatory proteins. There were very few references that I could find that attempted to review the entire class as a whole. It might be better just to give a general definition and list the major classes of transcription factors (e.g., figure 1 of [1]) with the appropriate internal Wikipedia links.Boghog2 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What are some major classes of transcription factors?Laurennnnnnnl (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

• To get things rolling, some relatively recent and hopefully relevant publications which we might try to work into this Wiki article:

My biggest problem still is finding good review articles that cover the entire area of transcription factors. Once one finds a good source, the article almost writes itself. Any suggestions? Boghog2 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have made some fairly significant changes to the article including adding new references and deleting the details on the STAT proteins which I think would be better to include in the STAT specific articles. Comments, suggestions, and especially help in directly editing the article would be greatly appreciated. Boghog2 22:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for reorganization

For me, this article seems needlessly complicated. In particular, DNA binding domains/motifs are discussed in at least 4 different sections/subsections. I propose the following headings:

-- Intro

-- DNA binding domains (a general discussion of a transcription factor's sequence/structure that binds DNA. Maybe keep the short DBD list currently found in Classes:Structural)

-- DNA sequence motifs (I might have the wrong name for this, but characteristics of the DNA sequences transcription factors bind to and the chemical nature of the interaction. So far there's almost no discussion on this)

-- Mechanisms of regulation (Talk about the various ways transcription factors regulate transcription. Combine the current sections Mechanisms of Action and Classes:Mechanistic Functional. Fold in info about TADs and SSDs.)

-- Transcription factors in different organisms (Put info from Significance here. Maybe mention role/lack of role in bacteria and viruses. Conservation/lack of conservation among eukaryotes, including plants)

-- Classification based on DBD (Put the list from Classes:Homology here)

Maybe even a section on important roles, giving a nod to HOX genes in Drosophila, heat shock transcription factors, etc.?

Any suggestions/comments are appreciated! --Forluvoft 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your edits so far are greatly appreciated and your suggestions about reorganization sound good to me. This Medicine Collaboration of the Week has finally turned into a collaboration! I agree that adding section on "DNA sequence motifs/response elements" which also included information on the physicochemical nature of the various types DNA/transcription factor interactions would be very appropriate. This is the area I would be most comfortable/qualified to contribute. I have a definite bias towards mammalian proteins so any info you could add concerning bacteria and plants would be most welcome. Boghog2 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although a genuinely gallant intent is undoubtedly behind the desire to enumerate the specifics of transcription factor/DNA association, this is far too broad a field for which to develop such generalizations. The nature of the associations between transcription factors and the DNA sequences to which they bind is not only highly varied and complex in nature, but also relatively poorly understood. I think the general idea of certain amino acid residues in particular proteins possessing the ability to bind to certain base residues in DNA is sufficient. To launch into a list of how, where, and why such interactions occurs begs perusal of NCBI databases, and would be far too voluminous to justify its inclusion in a general knowledge article. Otherwise, your suggestions are great. Time permitting, I would be more than happy to help beef up this article. Eganio 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem with layout

In Firefox, the "Transcription factor glossary" table is overlayed on the "Contents" table, making both unreadable, unless Firefox is put into full screen mode. In IE, the overlaying doesn't happen usually, but the "Contents" table is long and skinny except in full screen mode; but if the browser window is made a little narrower, the "Transcription factor glossary" DOES overlay "Contents" and obscures it.

I don't know how to fix this, but it would be good if it is addressed by someone with technical expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.220.9 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In Firefox version 2.0.0.9 for the Macintosh, the glossary and table of contents tables only overlay if the browser window is very narrow. I have decreased the width of the glossary table from 500 to 450 pixels. This allows viewing with slightly narrower window widths without overlap. Is this any better? Other than this, I can't do much else except to display the glossary in the next section the article, but I think the glossary is better near the top of the article, and in particular adjacent to the table of contents to make more efficient use of screen real estate. Boghog2 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Non DNA binding factors

Should there be a mention of transcription factors that do not bind to DNA? Also what can be said about non-protein transcription factors? Though they make up the small minority there should be a mention of these as exceptions and redirections to their specific function and activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.49.78 (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, a protein which regulates transcription but does not directly bind DNA is not a transcription factor, but rather a transcription coregulator. RNA can also regulate gene expression, however (and correct me if I am wrong) this only occurs at the level of mRNA (see RNA interference) and not at the level of transcription of DNA into RNA. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reassess

Looks good, as a suggestion, you could discuss one of the TFs in detail to give a better idea of how they work, there are still a lot of 1-2 sentence sections, which looks a bit odd. Otherwise great. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reassessment. Per your suggestion, I will try to expand the short sections when I get a chance. Boghog2 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mark Ptashne book "A Genetic Switch: Phage Lambda Revisited" was the best treatment of this I ever read, a model to aim for in explaining how these things work! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there are still sections in this article, especially the sections following the lead until "Interaction with methylated cytosine," that need more information. These sections can be expanded further, and perhaps include more examples from the literature. Bluechemist22 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice Page

I don't know why I haven't stumbled across this page before....but I think it totally rocks! Nice job! I'm no expert, but it seems to provide a cohesive organization to a topic I find very frustrating doctorwolfie (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What happens with the transcription factor once it "played its part in transcription" ?

Hi, I have to make mathematical models for my bachelors project about gene regulating networks. While trying to understand how different kinds of gene regulation work and what kind of differential equations they map to I could not find explicit statements that would justify specific differential equations. For example, what happens with the transcription factor after polymerase starts transscribing? Is it destroyed, deactivated or simply released? This makes quite a difference, seeing that feedback networks can stabilize, but so do feedforward systems, both kinds have advantages and disadvantages...

If the transcription factors are destroyed or deactivated then the rate of gene translation is proportional to the rate of TF production, while if simply released the rate of gene translation is proportional to TF concentration. Both can give rise to stabilizing feedback networks, etc...

I dont need more math to understand this, but a more accurate description of the working of TF, and what the polymerization complex directly does with the TF...

Or are articles on fundamental biology above the unimportant differences between a time derivative more or less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.90.22 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting project. Transcription factors like all proteins are eventually degraded by the proteasome. However it appears that most transcription factors can initiate many rounds of transcription before they are destroyed. In addition, a "hit and run" mechanism has been proposed (PMID 10678832) where the transcription factor interacts transiently with the DNA response element recruiting a secondary set of factors that in turn form a stable complex at the regulatory site of the gene. The transcription factor is then free to initiate a second round of transcription at different gene before the first one has even been completed. See for example PMID 18930837. Boghog (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the glossary sidebar!

Very helpful! I hope other articles will do this also. -- DBooth (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Entry on evolution?

There is a very interesting article in the recent issue of Science (7;2014) on the LEAFY (plant specific) transcription factor and its possible role in evolution, through retaining function despite changes in variable regions and DNA binding. I found this worthy of an entry, but had to correct a few of my own typos. So, I apologize for the three versions in the article history. If this entry on evolution and phylogenetic concepts is not essential to the subject matter, please feel free to delete it.(Osterluzei (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transcription factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130619202726/http://www.jsbi.org/journal/GIW04/GIW04F028.html to http://www.jsbi.org/journal/GIW04/GIW04F028.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transcription factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071221181225/http://8e.devbio.com:80/article.php?ch=5&id=39 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=5&id=39
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080809141508/http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/ecb/ecb_images/08_10_transcription_factors.jpg to http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/ecb/ecb_images/08_10_transcription_factors.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Transcription factor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Changed rating to "high" as this is high school/SAT biology content and central to molecular biology. The article needs serious attention, e.g. an explanation how transcription factors work, more general expansion on classes of transcription factors etc. - tameeria 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links - spam magnet?

The External link section is starting to sprawl with an unexplained selection of databases (would be far better in a short section that said how each one relates to Transcription Factors, if indeed they do), and an apparently random selection of papers (advertising?), probably best simply deleted, unless someone thinks they urgently belong in the text (in which case we remove them from the External links, and cite them inline). In short, I shall give the section the chop unless there are good explicit reasons why not! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the abstract

I think that the sentence "This ensures that embryos develop as they should." right at the end of the first abrstract is used out of a understandable context and is thus very missleading if not wrong. Please put it into context or remove it. --2001:638:208:5602:E8AB:5197:8AE6:8151 (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Linked embryogenesis directly (not via pipe). Maybe we should also mention evolutionary developmental biology in text and lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

TF

According to this website http://www.abbreviations.com/serp.php?st=gata%20transcription%20factors&qtype=3, TF is an accepted abbreviation for transfer factor. I'm going to use it in the Lead to give the oppotunity for anyone to object. If there are no objections, it can be used throughout the Article. IiKkEe (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Overbuilt sentence in lead

Groups of TFs function in a coordinated fashion to direct cell division, cell growth, and cell death throughout life; cell migration and organization (body plan) during embryonic development; and intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

Let's break that apart:

Groups of TFs function in a coordinated fashion to direct:

• cell division, cell growth, and cell death throughout life
• cell migration and organization (body plan) during embryonic development; and,
• intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

Now let's remove two optional elements from the parallel triple:

Groups of TFs function in a coordinated fashion to direct:

• intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

And put it back together again:

Groups of TFs function in a coordinated fashion to direct intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

Really? — MaxEnt 17:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A little late, I figured out what it was trying to do:

Groups of TFs function:

• in a coordinated fashion
  • to direct:
    • cell division, cell growth, and cell death throughout life;
    • cell migration and organization (body plan) during embryonic development;;
• and, intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

I was slow on the uptake of the implied double-semicolon. Not a viable parse for a casual reader. — MaxEnt 17:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Man, this is killing me. I tried to fix my own copy as follows:

Groups of TFs function in a coordinated fashion to direct:

• cell division, cell growth, and cell death throughout life;
• cell migration and organization (body plan) during embryonic development.

Groups of TFs [also] function intermittently in response to signals from outside the cell, such as a hormone.

So is the intermittent function coordinated, or not? And does the intermittent function direct cell division or cell migration, or not? And is it really groups of TFs that function intermittently, as my proposed private edit states?

Now the semantics are a mess. This sentence seems to conflate orthogonal concerns. — MaxEnt 17:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The coordinated function is intermittent. And intermittent function directs both cell division and cell migration. There are two issues here: (1) what is actually happening and (2) how to describe it. Biology is complex and my reading of the sentence is that it is basically correct (fulfills criteria #1) but is overly complex (fails criteria #2). My suggestion is to remove the word "intermittently" from the lead. Boghog (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

On the number of TF's

I stumbled on the missing citation on the number of TFs in the Intro section. as the number reappears in the number section with a citation to. But in this paper there is no 2600 as a number, only a 2,765 which is the number of potential proteins they screened and a final number of "1,639 known or likely human TFs". There is though a citation in another paper which apparently cites the 2600 from on the very first page. I assume someone took the number with the citation from and did not check the actual source.

My edit should reflect the actual numbers of the original paper in both the introduction and the number section and fix the missing citation.

References

Ref. 86 to PubMed start page

Looking at the references of this page, ref. 86 just links back to the landing page of PubMed. In the spot it's referenced, I do not see how this is relevant. Is this a copy/paste error or am I missing something, and should that reference be removed? I think the latter would be fine, as the claim is backed up by ref. 87 cited in the same sentence. Best, 2001:4CA0:0:F234:1F5D:C9EC:FFAF:3908 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the meaningless ref that points to PubMed. Boghog (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)