Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20602746›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2010

ChIP on Chip: surprising results are often artifacts.

Torsten Waldminghaus, Kirsten Skarstad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Phenotypes ofJournal of bacteriology · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Torsten WaldminghausDepartment of Cell Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, 0310 Oslo, Norway.
Kirsten Skarstad

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe method of chromatin immunoprecipitation combined with microarrays (ChIP-Chip) is a powerful tool for genome-wide analysis of protein binding. However, a high background signal is a common phenomenon.

resultsReinvestigation of the chromatin immunoprecipitation procedure led us to discover four causes of high background: i) non-unique sequences, ii) incomplete reversion of crosslinks, iii) retention of protein in spin-columns and iv) insufficient RNase treatment. The chromatin immunoprecipitation method was modified and applied to analyze genome-wide binding of SeqA and sigma(32) in Escherichia coli.

conclusionsFalse positive findings originating from these shortcomings of the method could explain surprising and contradictory findings in published ChIP-Chip studies. We present a modified chromatin immunoprecipitation method greatly reducing the background signal.

Indexed as

ArtifactsBacterial Outer Membrane ProteinsBase SequenceChromatin ImmunoprecipitationChromosomes, BacterialDNA-Binding ProteinsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsFalse Positive ReactionsGenome, BacterialHeat-Shock ProteinsProtein Array AnalysisRibonucleasesSigma FactorBacterial Outer Membrane ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsEscherichia coli ProteinsHeat-Shock Proteinsheat-shock sigma factor 32RibonucleasesSeqA protein, E coliSigma Factor

Identifiers

PMID20602746
PMCPMC2996942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.