ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2014
Leveraging biological replicates to improve analysis in ChIP-seq experiments.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines for Genome-Scale Analysis of Biological Rhythms.Journal of biological rhythms · 2017Guideline
- UnlockingNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- CUT&Tag for High-Resolution Epigenomic Profiling From a Low Amount ofPlant direct · 2026Article
- Evaluating Reproducibility and Best Practices for Replicate Design in G-Quadruplex ChIP-Seq Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Genomic and Transcriptomic Signatures of SETD1A Disruption in Human Excitatory Neuron Development and Psychiatric Disease Risk.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- IRF8 defines the epigenetic landscape in postnatal microglia, thereby directing their transcriptome programs.Nature immunology · 2024Article
- IRF8 configures enhancer landscape in postnatal microglia and directs microglia specific transcriptional programs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Exhaustive identification of genome-wide binding events of transcriptional regulators.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Understanding the redundant functions of the mRNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- ROCCO: a robust method for detection of open chromatin via convex optimization.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- ATF4 renders human T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia cell resistance to FGFR1 inhibitors through amino acid metabolic reprogramming.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Towards a comprehensive regulatory map of Mammalian Genomes.Research square · 2023Article
- Rescuing biologically relevant consensus regions across replicated samples.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Sex-Biased Expression Is Associated With Chromatin State in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Sex-biased expression is associated with chromatin state inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- A new CUT&RUN low volume-urea (LoV-U) protocol optimized for transcriptional co-factors uncovers Wnt/β-catenin tissue-specific genomic targets.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2022Article
- Greenscreen: A simple method to remove artifactual signals and enrich for true peaks in genomic datasets including ChIP-seq data.The Plant cell · 2022Article
- Changes in chromatin accessibility are not concordant with transcriptional changes for single-factor perturbations.Molecular systems biology · 2022Article
- The MADS-domain factor AGAMOUS-Like18 promotes somatic embryogenesis.Plant physiology · 2022Article
- Bioinformatics Methods for ChIP-seq Histone Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
ChIP-seq experiments identify genome-wide profiles of DNA-binding molecules including transcription factors, enzymes and epigenetic marks. Biological replicates are critical for reliable site discovery and are required for the deposition of data in the ENCODE and modENCODE projects. While early reports suggested two replicates were sufficient, the widespread application of the technique has led to emerging consensus that the technique is noisy and that increasing replication may be worthwhile. Additional biological replicates also allow for quantitative assessment of differences between conditions. To date it has remained controversial about how to confirm peak identification and to determine signal strength across biological replicates, particularly when the number of replicates is greater than two. Using objective metrics, we evaluate the consistency of biological replicates in ChIP-seq experiments with more than two replicates. We compare several approaches for binding site determination, including two popular but disparate peak callers, CisGenome and MACS2. Here we propose read coverage as a quantitative measurement of signal strength for estimating sample concordance. Determining binding based on genomic features, such as promoters, is also examined. We find that increasing the number of biological replicates increases the reliability of peak identification. Critically, binding sites with strong biological evidence may be missed if researchers rely on only two biological replicates. When more than two replicates are performed, a simple majority rule (>50% of samples identify a peak) identifies peaks more reliably in all biological replicates than the absolute concordance of peak identification between any two replicates, further demonstrating the utility of increasing replicate numbers in ChIP-seq experiments.
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.