Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23171294›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

Limitations and possibilities of low cell number ChIP-seq.

Gregor D Gilfillan, Timothy Hughes, Ying Sheng, Hanne S Hjorthaug, Tobias Straub, Kristina Gervin, Jennifer R Harris, Dag E Undlien, Robert Lyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Epigenetic Analysis in Ewing Sarcoma.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Methods for Investigating the Sperm Epigenome.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cell division in the shoot apical meristem is a trigger for miR156 decline and vegetative phase transition inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. An inhibitor screen identifies histone-modifying enzymes as mediators of polymer-mediated transgene expression from plasmid DNA.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2018
    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

9 authors.

Gregor D GilfillanDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Norway. gregor.gilfillan@medisin.uio.no
Timothy Hughes
Ying Sheng
Hanne S Hjorthaug
Tobias Straub
Kristina Gervin
Jennifer R Harris
Dag E Undlien
Robert Lyle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with high-throughput DNA sequencing (ChIP-seq) offers high resolution, genome-wide analysis of DNA-protein interactions. However, current standard methods require abundant starting material in the range of 1-20 million cells per immunoprecipitation, and remain a bottleneck to the acquisition of biologically relevant epigenetic data. Using a ChIP-seq protocol optimised for low cell numbers (down to 100,000 cells/IP), we examined the performance of the ChIP-seq technique on a series of decreasing cell numbers.

resultsWe present an enhanced native ChIP-seq method tailored to low cell numbers that represents a 200-fold reduction in input requirements over existing protocols. The protocol was tested over a range of starting cell numbers covering three orders of magnitude, enabling determination of the lower limit of the technique. At low input cell numbers, increased levels of unmapped and duplicate reads reduce the number of unique reads generated, and can drive up sequencing costs and affect sensitivity if ChIP is attempted from too few cells.

conclusionsThe optimised method presented here considerably reduces the input requirements for performing native ChIP-seq. It extends the applicability of the technique to isolated primary cells and rare cell populations (e.g. biobank samples, stem cells), and in many cases will alleviate the need for cell culture and any associated alteration of epigenetic marks. However, this study highlights a challenge inherent to ChIP-seq from low cell numbers: as cell input numbers fall, levels of unmapped sequence reads and PCR-generated duplicate reads rise. We discuss a number of solutions to overcome the effects of reducing cell number that may aid further improvements to ChIP performance.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesCell CountChromatin ImmunoprecipitationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLimit of DetectionPrimary Cell CultureReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNATwins, Monozygotic

Identifiers

PMID23171294
PMCPMC3533509

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.