mimosa-tool 1.1.2

Model-Independent Motif Similarity Assessment tool

MIMOSA

Model-Independent Motif Similarity Assessment (MIMOSA) is tool designed to support comparisons across different motif model types.

Introduction

Transcription factors (TFs) serve as fundamental regulators of gene expression levels. These proteins modulate the activity of the RNA polymerase complex by binding to specific DNA sequences located within regulatory regions, such as promoters and enhancers [1]. The specific DNA segment recognized by a TF is termed a transcription factor binding site (TFBS). TFBSs for a given TF are typically similar but not identical; therefore, they are described using motifs that capture the variability of the recognized sequences [2]. A variety of high-throughput experimental methods, including ChIP-seq, HT-SELEX, and DAP-seq, are currently used to identify TFBS motifs [3-5]. While motifs are most frequently represented as Position Weight Matrices (PWMs), a standard supported by widely used de novo motif discovery tools like MEME [6], STREME [7], and HOMER [8], the field has increasingly adopted alternative models to capture complex nucleotide dependencies. These include diverse variants of Markov Models (BaMMs, InMoDe, DIMONT etc.) [9-14], which account for higher-order dependencies that PWMs ignore, as well as models based on locally positioned dinucleotides (SiteGA) [15-16] and deep learning architectures (DeepBind, DeeperBind, DeepGRN and etc.) [17-21].

The identification of a motif is only the first step; establishing its biological context requires robust comparison methods. Comparing motifs is essential for determining whether a newly discovered pattern represents a novel specificity or a variation of a known factor, for clustering redundant motifs identified across different experiments, and for inferring functional relationships between TFs based on binding similarity. Several established tools address this need, including Tomtom [22], STAMP [23], MACRO-APE [24] and MoSBAT [25]. These tools utilize various metrics and algorithms to quantify similarity, ranging from column-wise matrix correlations to Jaccard index-based comparisons of recognized site sets. However, a significant limitation of the current software ecosystem is its heavy reliance on matrix-based representations (PFMs or PWMs). This constraint makes it challenging to directly compare alternative models, such as Markov models or dinucleotide models, without converting them into simpler matrix formats, a process that often results in information loss.

To address these limitations, we introduce MIMOSA, a comprehensive framework designed to facilitate the comparison of diverse motif models beyond standard frequency matrices. MIMOSA implements four distinct modes of comparison to accommodate various analytical needs. The first and most universal mode involves the direct comparison of TFBS recognition profiles generated by different motifs, conceptually similar to affinity-based approaches [25]. This allows for the assessment of similarity based on the functional output of the models—the scores assigned to sequences—rather than their internal parameters. The second mode leverages the same underlying approach but allows the user to explicitly define the model architecture; currently, MIMOSA supports three specific model types: PWM, BMM, and SiteGA, with an extensible architecture designed to accommodate future model types. The third mode incorporates MoTaLi (see details). Finally, the fourth mode provides a Tomtom-like functionality for scenarios where models can be represented as N-dimensional matrix. In this mode, if the models are compatible matrix formats, they are compared using standard metrics such as Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC), Euclidean Distance (ED), and Cosine similarity. Crucially, if the models are of heterogeneous types (e.g., comparing a BaMM to a PWM), MIMOSA employs a strategy of scanning sequences to generate recognition profiles, which are then used to reconstruct compatible Position Frequency Matrices for comparison, ensuring that even fundamentally different model types can be quantitatively evaluated within a single framework.

Methodology

Similarity Metrics

MIMOSA implements several metrics to quantify the resemblance between motif importance profiles or matrix columns.

Continuous Jaccard (CJ) The Continuous Jaccard index extends the classical Jaccard similarity to continuous-valued vectors $v_1, v_2$. It is defined as the ratio of the sum of element-wise intersections to the sum of element-wise unions: $$\text{CJ}(v_1, v_2) = \frac{\sum_i \min(v_1^i, v_2^i)}{\sum_i \max(v_1^i, v_2^i)}$$ This metric is equivalent to averaging the binary Jaccard index across all possible thresholds, providing a threshold-independent measure of profile similarity.

Continuous Overlap (CO) The Continuous Overlap coefficient (or Szymkiewicz-Simpson coefficient) measures the sub-set relationship between two profiles, normalizing the intersection by the smaller of the two total affinities: $$\text{CO}(v_1, v_2) = \frac{\sum_i \min(v_1^i, v_2^i)}{\min\left(\sum_i v_1^i, \sum_i v_2^i\right)}$$

Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) For linear correlation between profiles or motif columns, the PCC is calculated as: $$\text{PCC}(v_1, v_2) = \frac{\sum_i (v_1^i - \bar{v}_1)(v_2^i - \bar{v}_2)}{\sqrt{\sum_i (v_1^i - \bar{v}_1)^2 \sum_i (v_2^i - \bar{v}_2)^2}}$$

Null Hypothesis and Surrogate Generation

To estimate the statistical significance (p-values) of observed similarity scores, MIMOSA employs a Surrogate Null Model. Unlike simple permutations that destroy local dependencies, our tool generates synthetic "surrogate" profiles that preserve the marginal properties and biological plausibility (smoothness) of the original data.

1. Convolutional Distortion: For profile-based surrogates, a sophisticated distortion logic is applied:

   • Kernel Selection: A base kernel (smooth, edge, or double-peak) is selected to represent typical profile features.
   • Controlled Perturbation: Noise and gradient bias are added to introduce variation while maintaining structural integrity.
   • Smoothing: Convolution ensures the surrogate remains biologically realistic.
   • Convex Combination: The final surrogate is a blend of the identity kernel and the distorted kernel, controlled by a user-defined distortion parameter.

2. Permutation: For matrix-based comparisons (tomtom-like), the tool performs random column-wise permutations.

This methodology ensures that the null distribution reflects realistic background similarity.

Installation

MIMOSA requires Python 3.10 or higher.

From PyPI (Recommended)

The easiest way to install MIMOSA is via pip or uv. This will automatically download and install all required dependencies.

# Using uv (Fastest)
uv pip install mimosa-tool

# Using pip
pip install mimosa-tool

From Source

If you want to contribute to development or build the latest version from the repository, you will need a C++ compiler with C++17 support (e.g., GCC, Clang, or MSVC).

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/ubercomrade/mimosa.git
cd mimosa

# Install in editable mode
pip install -e .

Dependencies

When installing via pip, the following dependencies are resolved automatically:

• numpy (>= 2.0, < 2.4)
• numba (>= 0.62.0)
• scipy (>= 1.14.1)
• pandas (>= 2.2.3)
• joblib (>= 1.5.3)

Build Requirements (Source only)

To build the C++ extension from source, the following tools are used:

• scikit-build-core (>= 0.10)
• nanobind (>= 2.0)

CLI Reference

The mimosa tool provides four main operation modes.

profile mode

Compare motifs based on pre-calculated score profiles.

Input: Text files with numerical scores (comma, tab, or space-separated). Example Data: examples/scores_1.fasta

# in the `examples` directory
mimosa profile scores_1.fasta scores_2.fasta \
  --metric cj \
  --permutations 1000 \
  --distortion 0.5 \
  --search-range 10

All parameters for profile mode:

Flag	Value	Comment
profile1	Path	Path to the first profile file (FASTA-like format).
profile2	Path	Path to the second profile file (FASTA-like format).
--metric	cj, co, corr	Similarity metric: Continuous Jaccard, Continuous Overlap, or Pearson Correlation (default: cj).
--permutations	Integer	Number of permutations for p-value calculation (default: 0).
--distortion	Float	Distortion level (0.0-1.0) for surrogate generation (default: 0.4).
--search-range	Integer	Maximum offset range to explore when aligning profiles (default: 10).
--min-kernel-size	Integer	Minimum kernel size for surrogate convolution (default: 3).
--max-kernel-size	Integer	Maximum kernel size for surrogate convolution (default: 11).
--seed	Integer	Global random seed for reproducibility.
--jobs	Integer	Number of parallel jobs (-1 uses all cores) (default: -1).
-v, --verbose	Flag	Enable verbose logging.

motif mode

Compare motifs by scanning sequences with models and comparing the resulting profiles.

Input: Motif model files (PWM: .meme, .pfm; BaMM: .ihbcp + .hbcp; SiteGA: .mat). Example Models: examples/foxa2.meme, examples/gata4.meme

# in the `examples` directory
mimosa foxa2.meme gata4.meme \
  --model1-type pwm \
  --model2-type pwm \
  --fasta examples/foreground.fa \
  --metric co \
  --permutations 1000 \
  --distortion 0.3

All parameters for motif mode:

Flag	Value	Comment
model1	Path	Path to the first motif model file.
model2	Path	Path to the second motif model file.
--model1-type	pwm, bamm, sitega	Format of the first model (Required).
--model2-type	pwm, bamm, sitega	Format of the second model (Required).
--fasta	Path	FASTA file with target sequences. If omitted, random sequences are generated.
--promoters	Path	FASTA file with promoter sequences for threshold calculation.
--num-sequences	Integer	Number of random sequences to generate (default: 1000).
--seq-length	Integer	Length of random sequences (default: 200).
--metric	cj, co, corr	Similarity metric (default: cj).
--permutations	Integer	Number of permutations (default: 0).
--distortion	Float	Distortion level (default: 0.4).
--search-range	Integer	Maximum alignment offset (default: 10).
--seed	Integer	Global random seed.
--jobs	Integer	Number of parallel jobs (default: -1).

motali mode

Compare motifs by calculating Precision-Recall Curve (PRC) AUC derived from scanning sequences.

Example Models: examples/sitega_gata2.mat, examples/gata2.meme

# in the `examples` directory
mimosa motali sitega_gata2.mat gata2.meme \
  --model1-type sitega \
  --model2-type pwm \
  --fasta foreground.fa \
  --promoters background.fa \
  --num-sequences 5000 \
  --seq-length 150

All parameters for motali mode:

Flag	Value	Comment
model1	Path	Path to the first motif model file.
model2	Path	Path to the second motif model file.
--model1-type	pwm, sitega	Format of the first model (Required).
--model2-type	pwm, sitega	Format of the second model (Required).
--fasta	Path	FASTA file with target sequences.
--promoters	Path	FASTA file with promoter sequences (Required for thresholds).
--num-sequences	Integer	Number of random sequences (default: 10000).
--seq-length	Integer	Length of random sequences (default: 200).
--tmp-dir	Path	Directory for temporary files (default: /tmp).

tomtom-like mode

Compare motifs by direct N-dimetional matrix comparison (column-wise).

Example Models: examples/pif4.pfm, examples/pif4.meme

# in the `examples` directory
mimosa tomtom-like pif4.pfm pif4.meme \
  --model1-type pwm \
  --model2-type pwm \
  --metric cosine \
  --permutations 1000 \
  --pfm-mode \
  --num-sequences 10000 \
  --seq-length 100

All parameters for tomtom-like mode:

Flag	Value	Comment
model1	Path	Path to the first motif model file.
model2	Path	Path to the second motif model file.
--model1-type	pwm, bamm, sitega	Format of the first model (Required).
--model2-type	pwm, bamm, sitega	Format of the second model (Required).
--metric	pcc, ed, cosine	Column-wise metric: Pearson Correlation, Euclidean Distance, or Cosine Similarity (default: pcc).
--permutations	Integer	Number of Monte Carlo permutations for p-value (default: 0).
--permute-rows	Flag	Shuffle values within columns during permutation.
--pfm-mode	Flag	Derive PFM by scanning sequences (useful for comparing different model types).
--num-sequences	Integer	Sequences for PFM mode (default: 20000).
--seq-length	Integer	Sequence length for PFM mode (default: 100).
--seed	Integer	Global random seed.
--jobs	Integer	Number of parallel jobs (default: -1).

Library Usage

MIMOSA exposes a functional API. The core building blocks are:

• GenericModel (mimosa.models) as an immutable model container.
• read_model(...), scan_model(...), get_sites(...), get_pfm(...) (mimosa.models) for model I/O and scanning.
• create_comparator_config(...) and compare(...) (mimosa.comparison) for direct strategy execution.
• compare_motifs(...), create_config(...), run_comparison(...) (mimosa) as high-level entry points.

Implementing a Custom Model Type

Custom models are added through the model strategy registry (mimosa.models.registry), not by subclassing a base model class.

import os
import joblib
import numpy as np

from mimosa.models import GenericModel
from mimosa.models import registry as model_registry
from mimosa.ragged import RaggedData, ragged_from_list


def scan_dinuc_scores(sequences: RaggedData, matrix: np.ndarray, strand: str) -> RaggedData:
    """Scan sequences with a dinucleotide matrix of shape (16, motif_length-1)."""
    motif_len = matrix.shape[1] + 1
    rc_table = np.array([3, 2, 1, 0, 4], dtype=np.int8)
    result = []

    for i in range(sequences.num_sequences):
        seq = sequences.get_slice(i)
        if strand == "-":
            seq = rc_table[seq[::-1]]

        if len(seq) < motif_len:
            result.append(np.array([], dtype=np.float32))
            continue

        n_pos = len(seq) - motif_len + 1
        scores = np.zeros(n_pos, dtype=np.float32)

        for pos in range(n_pos):
            window = seq[pos : pos + motif_len]
            score = 0.0
            for k in range(motif_len - 1):
                a = int(window[k])
                b = int(window[k + 1])
                if a < 4 and b < 4:
                    dinuc_idx = a * 4 + b
                    score += matrix[dinuc_idx, k]
            scores[pos] = score

        result.append(scores)

    return ragged_from_list(result, dtype=np.float32)


@model_registry.register("dinuc")
class DinucStrategy:
    """Example custom strategy for a dinucleotide model."""

    @staticmethod
    def scan(model: GenericModel, sequences: RaggedData, strand: str) -> RaggedData:
        representation = model.representation.astype(np.float32)
        if strand == "+":
            return scan_dinuc_scores(sequences, representation, "+")
        if strand == "-":
            return scan_dinuc_scores(sequences, representation, "-")
        if strand == "best":
            sf = scan_dinuc_scores(sequences, representation, "+")
            sr = scan_dinuc_scores(sequences, representation, "-")
            return RaggedData(np.maximum(sf.data, sr.data), sf.offsets)
        raise ValueError(f"Invalid strand mode: {strand}")

    @staticmethod
    def write(model: GenericModel, path: str) -> None:
        joblib.dump(model, path)

    @staticmethod
    def score_bounds(model: GenericModel) -> tuple[float, float]:
        # Approximation: valid for many practical cases, but not a strict bound
        # for all dependency-aware models.
        rep = model.representation
        min_score = rep.min(axis=0).sum()
        max_score = rep.max(axis=0).sum()
        return float(min_score), float(max_score)

    @staticmethod
    def load(path: str, kwargs: dict) -> GenericModel:
        if path.endswith(".pkl"):
            return joblib.load(path)
        matrix = np.load(path)  # expected shape: (16, motif_length-1)
        name = kwargs.get("name", os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(path))[0])
        length = int(matrix.shape[-1] + 1)
        return GenericModel(
            type_key="dinuc",
            name=name,
            length=length,
            representation=matrix.astype(np.float32),
            config={"kmer": 2},
        )

Important: this module must be imported before calling read_model(..., "dinuc") or any comparison that relies on this model type. Registration happens at import time.

from mimosa import compare_motifs
from mimosa.io import read_fasta
from mimosa.models import read_model

# Ensure DinucStrategy registration code above has already run in this process.
model1 = read_model("my_custom.npy", "dinuc")
model2 = read_model("examples/pif4.meme", "pwm")
sequences = read_fasta("examples/foreground.fa")

result = compare_motifs(
    model1=model1,
    model2=model2,
    strategy="motif",
    sequences=sequences,
    metric="co",
    n_permutations=100,
    seed=42,
)
print(result)

Strategy Contract

A model strategy registered in mimosa.models.registry must provide:

Method	Description
scan(model, sequences, strand)	Required. Returns RaggedData with positional scores.
write(model, path)	Required. Serializes model data.
score_bounds(model)	Required for threshold table generation.
load(path, kwargs)	Required. Builds and returns a GenericModel.

Recommended: Unified Config API

from mimosa import compare_motifs
from mimosa.io import read_fasta
from mimosa.models import read_model

model1 = read_model("examples/pif4.meme", "pwm")
model2 = read_model("examples/gata2.ihbcp", "bamm")
sequences = read_fasta("examples/foreground.fa")

result = compare_motifs(
    model1=model1,
    model2=model2,
    strategy="universal",  # "universal", "tomtom", "tomtom-like", "motali", "motif"
    sequences=sequences,
    metric="co",
    n_permutations=100,
    seed=42,
)

print(result)

Example: Direct API Comparison

from mimosa.comparison import compare, create_comparator_config
from mimosa.io import read_fasta
from mimosa.models import read_model

# Load models in supported formats (pwm, bamm, sitega, profile, or custom registered type)
model1 = read_model("examples/pif4.meme", "pwm")
model2 = read_model("examples/gata2.meme", "pwm")

# Sequences are integer-encoded (A=0, C=1, G=2, T=3, N=4)
sequences = read_fasta("examples/foreground.fa")

config = create_comparator_config(
    metric="cj",
    n_permutations=100,
    seed=42,
    search_range=10,
)

result = compare(
    model1=model1,
    model2=model2,
    strategy="universal",  # "universal", "tomtom", or "motali"
    config=config,
    sequences=sequences,
)

print(result)

Examples

The examples/ directory contains sample data and scripts (examples/run.sh, examples/run.ps1) for CLI workflows.

Bibliography

1. Lambert, S. A., Jolma, A., Campitelli, L. F., Das, P. K., Yin, Y., Albu, M., ... & Weirauch, M. T. (2018). The human transcription factors. Cell, 172(4), 650-665.

2. Wasserman, W. W., & Sandelin, A. (2004). Applied bioinformatics for the identification of regulatory elements. _Nature Reviews Genetics, 5 (4), 276-287.

3. Park, P. J. (2009). ChIP–seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology. Nature reviews genetics, 10(10), 669-680.

4. Jolma, A., Kivioja, T., Toivonen, J., Cheng, L., Wei, G., Enge, M., Taipale, M., Vaquerizas, J. M., Yan, J., Sillanpää, M. J., Bonke, M., Palin, K., Talukder, S., Hughes, T. R., Luscombe, N. M., Ukkonen, E., & Taipale, J. (2010). Multiplexed massively parallel SELEX for characterization of human transcription factor binding specificities. Genome research, 20(6), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.100552.109

5. O'Malley, R. C., Huang, S. C., Song, L., Lewsey, M. G., Bartlett, A., Nery, J. R., Galli, M., Gallavotti, A., & Ecker, J. R. (2016). Cistrome and Epicistrome Features Shape the Regulatory DNA Landscape. Cell, 165(5), 1280–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.038

6. Bailey, T. L., & Elkan, C. (1994). Fitting a mixture model by expectation maximization to discover motifs in biopolymers.Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology_, 2, 28–36.

7. Bailey T. L. (2021). STREME: accurate and versatile sequence motif discovery. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 37(18), 2834–2840. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab203

8. Heinz, S., Benner, C., Spann, N., Bertolino, E., Lin, Y. C., Laslo, P., Cheng, J. X., Murre, C., Singh, H., & Glass, C. K. (2010). Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Molecular cell, 38(4), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004

9. Grau J, Posch S, Grosse I, Keilwagen J. A general approach for discriminative de novo motif discovery from high-throughput data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Nov;41(21):e197. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt831. Epub 2013 Sep 20. PMID: 24057214; PMCID: PMC3834837.

10. Eggeling R, Grosse I, Grau J. InMoDe: tools for learning and visualizing intra-motif dependencies of DNA binding sites. Bioinformatics. 2017 Feb 15;33(4):580-582. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw689. PMID: 28035026; PMCID: PMC5408807.

11. Siebert, M., & Söding, J. (2016). Bayesian Markov models consistently outperform PWMs at predicting motifs in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic acids research, 44(13), 6055–6069. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw521

12. Ge, W., Meier, M., Roth, C., & Söding, J. (2021). Bayesian Markov models improve the prediction of binding motifs beyond first order. NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 3(2), lqab026. https://doi.org/10.1093/nargab/lqab026

13. Toivonen J, Das PK, Taipale J, Ukkonen E. MODER2: first-order Markov modeling and discovery of monomeric and dimeric binding motifs. Bioinformatics. 2020 May 1;36(9):2690-2696. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa045. PMID: 31999322; PMCID: PMC7203737.

14. Mathelier, A., & Wasserman, W. W. (2013). The next generation of transcription factor binding site prediction. PLoS computational biology, 9(9), e1003214. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003214

15. Levitsky, V. G., Ignatieva, E. V., Ananko, E. A., Turnaev, I. I., Merkulova, T. I., Kolchanov, N. A., & Hodgman, T. C. (2007). Effective transcription factor binding site prediction using a combination of optimization, a genetic algorithm and discriminant analysis to capture distant interactions. BMC bioinformatics, 8, 481. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-481

16. Tsukanov, A. V., Mironova, V. V., & Levitsky, V. G. (2022). Motif models proposing independent and interdependent impacts of nucleotides are related to high and low affinity transcription factor binding sites in Arabidopsis. Frontiers in plant science, 13, 938545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.938545

17. Alipanahi, B., Delong, A., Weirauch, M. T., & Frey, B. J. (2015). Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning. Nature biotechnology, 33(8), 831–838. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3300

18. Hassanzadeh, H. R., & Wang, M. D. (2016). DeeperBind: Enhancing Prediction of Sequence Specificities of DNA Binding Proteins. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, 2016, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1109/bibm.2016.7822515

19. Chen, C., Hou, J., Shi, X., Yang, H., Birchler, J. A., & Cheng, J. (2021). DeepGRN: prediction of transcription factor binding site across cell-types using attention-based deep neural networks. BMC bioinformatics, 22(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03952-1

20. Wang, K., Zeng, X., Zhou, J., Liu, F., Luan, X., & Wang, X. (2024). BERT-TFBS: a novel BERT-based model for predicting transcription factor binding sites by transfer learning. Briefings in bioinformatics, 25(3), bbae195. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbae195

21. Jing Zhang, F., Zhang, S. W., & Zhang, S. (2022). Prediction of Transcription Factor Binding Sites With an Attention Augmented Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics, 19(6), 3614–3623. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2021.3126623

22. Gupta, S., Stamatoyannopoulos, J. A., Bailey, T. L., & Noble, W. S. (2007). Quantifying similarity between motifs. Genome biology, 8(2), R24. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r24

23. Mahony, S., & Benos, P. V. (2007). STAMP: a web tool for exploring DNA-binding motif similarities. Nucleic acids research, 35(Web Server issue), W253–W258. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm272

24. Vorontsov, I. E., Kulakovskiy, I. V., & Makeev, V. J. (2013). Jaccard index based similarity measure to compare transcription factor binding site models. Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 8(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7188-8-23

25. Lambert, S. A., Albu, M., Hughes, T. R., & Najafabadi, H. S. (2016). Motif comparison based on similarity of binding affinity profiles. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 32(22), 3504–3506. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw489