Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25957089›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Is this the right normalization? A diagnostic tool for ChIP-seq normalization.

Claudia Angelini, Ruth Heller, Rita Volkinshtein, Daniel Yekutieli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Claudia AngeliniIstituto per le Applicazioni del Calcolo "Mauro Picone", Via Pietro Castellino, 111, Naples, 80131, Italy. c.angelini@iac.cnr.it.
Ruth HellerDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel. ruheller@post.tau.ac.il.
Rita VolkinshteinDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel. spirita123@gmail.com.
Daniel YekutieliDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel. yekutiel@post.tau.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChip-seq experiments are becoming a standard approach for genome-wide profiling protein-DNA interactions, such as detecting transcription factor binding sites, histone modification marks and RNA Polymerase II occupancy. However, when comparing a ChIP sample versus a control sample, such as Input DNA, normalization procedures have to be applied in order to remove experimental source of biases. Despite the substantial impact that the choice of the normalization method can have on the results of a ChIP-seq data analysis, their assessment is not fully explored in the literature. In particular, there are no diagnostic tools that show whether the applied normalization is indeed appropriate for the data being analyzed.

resultsIn this work we propose a novel diagnostic tool to examine the appropriateness of the estimated normalization procedure. By plotting the empirical densities of log relative risks in bins of equal read count, along with the estimated normalization constant, after logarithmic transformation, the researcher is able to assess the appropriateness of the estimated normalization constant. We use the diagnostic plot to evaluate the appropriateness of the estimates obtained by CisGenome, NCIS and CCAT on several real data examples. Moreover, we show the impact that the choice of the normalization constant can have on standard tools for peak calling such as MACS or SICER. Finally, we propose a novel procedure for controlling the FDR using sample swapping. This procedure makes use of the estimated normalization constant in order to gain power over the naive choice of constant (used in MACS and SICER), which is the ratio of the total number of reads in the ChIP and Input samples.

conclusionsLinear normalization approaches aim to estimate a scale factor, r, to adjust for different sequencing depths when comparing ChIP versus Input samples. The estimated scaling factor can easily be incorporated in many peak caller algorithms to improve the accuracy of the peak identification. The diagnostic plot proposed in this paper can be used to assess how adequate ChIP/Input normalization constants are, and thus it allows the user to choose the most adequate estimate for the analysis.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBinding SitesChromatin ImmunoprecipitationData Interpretation, StatisticalGenome, FungalHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHistonesRNA Polymerase IISaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSequence Analysis, DNATranscription FactorsHistonesRNA Polymerase IISaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID25957089
PMCPMC4448883

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.