ArticleBMC genomics2013
Comparative analysis of 4C-Seq data generated from enzyme-based and sonication-based methods.
Article in BMC genomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptional regulation of human NMNAT2: insights from 3D genome sequencing and bioinformatics.The FEBS journal · 2026Article
- Exploring high-resolution chromatin interaction changes and functional enhancers of myogenic marker genes during myogenic differentiation.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2022Article
- Long-distance chromatin interaction of IGF1 during embryonic and postnatal development in the liver of Sus scrofa.Functional & integrative genomics · 2021Article
- Determination of local chromatin interactions using a combined CRISPR and peroxidase APEX2 system.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Locus-specific ChIP combined with NGS analysis reveals genomic regulatory regions that physically interact with the Pax5 promoter in a chicken B cell line.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2017Article
- w4CSeq: software and web application to analyze 4C-seq data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Article
- 4C-seq revealed long-range interactions of a functional enhancer at the 8q24 prostate cancer risk locus.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Analysis of a transgenic Oct4 enhancer reveals high fidelity long-range chromosomal interactions.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Three-Dimensional Image of Cleavage Bodies in Nuclei Is Configured Using Gas Cluster Ion Beam with Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Assessing the permeability of landscape features to animal movement: using genetic structure to infer functional connectivity.PloS one · 2015Article
- Biological implications and regulatory mechanisms of long-range chromosomal interactions.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCircular chromosome conformation capture, when coupled with next-generation sequencing (4C-Seq), can be used to identify genome-wide interaction of a given locus (a "bait" sequence) with all of its interacting partners. Conventional 4C approaches used restriction enzyme digestion to fragment chromatin, and recently sonication approach was also applied for this purpose. However, bioinformatics pipelines for analyzing sonication-based 4C-Seq data are not well developed. In addition, data consistency as well as similarity between the two methods has not been explored previously. Here we present a comparative analysis of 4C-Seq data generated by both methods, using an enhancer element of Pou5f1 gene in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells.
resultsFrom biological replicates, we found good correlation (r>0.6) for inter-chromosomal interactions identified in either enzyme or sonication method. Compared to enzyme approach, sonication method generated less distal intra-chromosomal interactions, possibly due to the difference in chromatin fragmentation. From all mapped interactions, we further applied statistical models to identify enriched interacting regions. Interestingly, data generated from the two methods showed 30% overlap of the reproducible interacting regions. The interacting sites in the reproducible regions from both methods are similarly enriched with active histone marks. In addition, the interacting sites identified from sonication-based data are enriched with ChIP-Seq signals of transcription factors Oct4, Klf4, Esrrb, Tcfcp2i1, and Zfx that are critical for reprogramming and pluripotency.
conclusionsBoth enzyme-based and sonication-based 4C-Seq methods are valuable tools to explore long-range chromosomal interactions. Due to the nature of sonication-based method, correlation analysis of the 4C interactions with transcription factor binding should be more straightforward.
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.