Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25972895›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2015

Identifying differential transcription factor binding in ChIP-seq.

Dai-Ying Wu, Danielle Bittencourt, Michael R Stallcup, Kimberly D Siegmund

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Dai-Ying WuDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Danielle BittencourtDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael R StallcupDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kimberly D SiegmundDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
Transcription activation by nuclear coactivatorsR01DK043093 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI STALLCUP, MICHAEL R · 1990 to 2019
$6.5M
Training in Genetic, Molecular and Cellular BiologyT32GM067587 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI STALLCUP, MICHAEL R · 2003 to 2012
$1.8M
Statistical Models in EpigenomicsR01CA097346 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI SIEGMUND, KIMBERLY D · 2002 to 2011
$1.6M
Statistical Analysis of Epigenomics DataR01HG006705 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI SIEGMUND, KIMBERLY D · 2013 to 2015
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS R01 CA097346NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006705NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK043093NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM067587
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ChIP seq is a widely used assay to measure genome-wide protein binding. The decrease in costs associated with sequencing has led to a rise in the number of studies that investigate protein binding across treatment conditions or cell lines. In addition to the identification of binding sites, new studies evaluate the variation in protein binding between conditions. A number of approaches to study differential transcription factor binding have recently been developed. Several of these methods build upon established methods from RNA-seq to quantify differences in read counts. We compare how these new approaches perform on different data sets from the ENCODE project to illustrate the impact of data processing pipelines under different study designs. The performance of normalization methods for differential ChIP-seq depends strongly on the variation in total amount of protein bound between conditions, with total read count outperforming effective library size, or variants thereof, when a large variation in binding was studied. Use of input subtraction to correct for non-specific binding showed a relatively modest impact on the number of differential peaks found and the fold change accuracy to biological validation, however a larger impact might be expected for samples with more extreme copy number variations between them. Still, it did identify a small subset of novel differential regions while excluding some differential peaks in regions with high background signal. These results highlight proper scaling for between-sample data normalization as critical for differential transcription factor binding analysis and suggest bioinformaticians need to know about the variation in level of total protein binding between conditions to select the best analysis method. At the same time, validation using fold-change estimates from qRT-PCR suggests there is still room for further method improvement.

Indexed as

ChIP-seqdifferential bindingmethods comparisonnormalizationvalidation

Identifiers

PMID25972895
PMCPMC4413818

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.