ArticleBMC genomics2012
An evaluation of two-channel ChIP-on-chip and DNA methylation microarray normalization strategies.
Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines for the design, analysis and interpretation of 'omics' data: focus on human endometrium.Human reproduction updatePooled it
- Simultaneous Improvement in the Precision, Accuracy, and Robustness of Label-free Proteome Quantification by Optimizing Data Manipulation Chains.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2019Article
- Effects of developmental lead exposure on the hippocampal methylome: Influences of sex and timing and level of exposure.Toxicology letters · 2018Article
- Novel Epigenetic Biomarkers Mediating Bisphenol A Exposure and Metabolic Phenotypes in Female Mice.Endocrinology · 2017Article
- Gene promoter DNA methylation patterns have a limited role in orchestrating transcriptional changes in the fetal liver in response to maternal folate depletion during pregnancy.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2016Article
- Comparison of pre-processing methods for multiplex bead-based immunoassays.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Methylation Landscape of Human Breast Cancer Cells in Response to Dietary Compound Resveratrol.PloS one · 2016Article
- Novel technologies and emerging biomarkers for personalized cancer immunotherapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2016Review
- Developmental profiles of the murine palatal methylome.Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 2013Article
- Epigenetics and childhood asthma: current evidence and future research directions.Epigenomics · 2012Review
- Survey of the Applications of NGS to Whole-Genome Sequencing and Expression Profiling.Genomics & informatics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of chromatin immunoprecipitation with two-channel microarray technology enables genome-wide mapping of binding sites of DNA-interacting proteins (ChIP-on-chip) or sites with methylated CpG di-nucleotides (DNA methylation microarray). These powerful tools are the gateway to understanding gene transcription regulation. Since the goals of such studies, the sample preparation procedures, the microarray content and study design are all different from transcriptomics microarrays, the data pre-processing strategies traditionally applied to transcriptomics microarrays may not be appropriate. Particularly, the main challenge of the normalization of "regulation microarrays" is (i) to make the data of individual microarrays quantitatively comparable and (ii) to keep the signals of the enriched probes, representing DNA sequences from the precipitate, as distinguishable as possible from the signals of the un-enriched probes, representing DNA sequences largely absent from the precipitate.
resultsWe compare several widely used normalization approaches (VSN, LOWESS, quantile, T-quantile, Tukey's biweight scaling, Peng's method) applied to a selection of regulation microarray datasets, ranging from DNA methylation to transcription factor binding and histone modification studies. Through comparison of the data distributions of control probes and gene promoter probes before and after normalization, and assessment of the power to identify known enriched genomic regions after normalization, we demonstrate that there are clear differences in performance between normalization procedures.
conclusionT-quantile normalization applied separately on the channels and Tukey's biweight scaling outperform other methods in terms of the conservation of enriched and un-enriched signal separation, as well as in identification of genomic regions known to be enriched. T-quantile normalization is preferable as it additionally improves comparability between microarrays. In contrast, popular normalization approaches like quantile, LOWESS, Peng's method and VSN normalization alter the data distributions of regulation microarrays to such an extent that using these approaches will impact the reliability of the downstream analysis substantially.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.