Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24053571›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2013

"Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts": response.

Daniel Schindler, Torsten Waldminghaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Daniel SchindlerLOEWE-Center for Synthetic Microbiology (SYNMIKRO), Philipps-Universität Marburg, Hans-Meerwein-Str, 6, D-35043, Marburg, Germany. Torsten.Waldminghaus@synmikro.uni-marburg.de.
Torsten Waldminghaus

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies of protein association with DNA on a genome wide scale are possible through methods like ChIP-Chip or ChIP-Seq. Massive problems with false positive signals in our own experiments motivated us to revise the standard ChIP-Chip protocol. Analysis of chromosome wide binding of the alternative sigma factor σ³² in Escherichia coli with this new protocol resulted in detection of only a subset of binding sites found in a previous study by Wade and colleagues. We suggested that the remainder of binding sites detected in the previous study are likely to be false positives. In a recent article the Wade group claimed that our conclusion is wrong and that the disputed sites are genuine σ³² binding sites. They further claimed that the non-detection of these sites in our study was due to low data quality. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: We respond to the criticism of Wade and colleagues and discuss some general questions of ChIP-based studies. We outline why the quality of our data is sufficient to derive meaningful results. Specific points are: (i) the modifications we introduced into the standard ChIP-Chip protocol do not necessarily result in a low dynamic range, (ii) correlation between ChIP-Chip replicates should not be calculated based on the whole data set as done in transcript analysis, (iii) control experiments are essential for identifying false positives. Suggestions are made how ChIP-based methods could be further optimized and which alternative approaches can be used to strengthen conclusions.

conclusionWe appreciate the ongoing discussion about the ChIP-Chip method and hope that it helps other scientist to analyze and interpret their results. The modifications we introduced into the ChIP-Chip protocol are a first step towards reducing false positive signals but there is certainly potential for further optimization. The discussion about the σ³² binding sites in question highlights the need for alternative approaches and further investigation of appropriate methods for verification.

Indexed as

ArtifactsBinding SitesChromatin ImmunoprecipitationHeat-Shock ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSigma FactorHeat-Shock Proteinsheat-shock sigma factor 32Sigma Factor

Identifiers

PMID24053571
PMCPMC3870955

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.