ArticleBMC genomics2015
Direct ChIP-Seq significance analysis improves target prediction.
Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tubular FoxP2 and Kidney Fibrosis.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Article
- White-opaque switching inMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2024Review
- Genome-Wide Analysis of MAMSTR Transcription Factor-Binding Sites via ChIP-Seq in Porcine Skeletal Muscle Fibroblasts.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- ChIP-seq identifiesFrontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Article
- CIRCADIAN CLOCK-ASSOCIATED1 Controls Resistance to Aphids by Altering Indole Glucosinolate Production.Plant physiology · 2019Article
- Pan-Cancer Analysis of lncRNA Regulation Supports Their Targeting of Cancer Genes in Each Tumor Context.Cell reports · 2018Article
- Binding Sites in the EFG1 Promoter for Transcription Factors in a Proposed Regulatory Network: A Functional Analysis in the White and Opaque Phases of Candida albicans.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing of protein-bound DNA fragments (ChIP-Seq) is an effective high-throughput methodology for the identification of context specific DNA fragments that are bound by specific proteins in vivo. Despite significant progress in the bioinformatics analysis of this genome-scale data, a number of challenges remain as technology-dependent biases, including variable target accessibility and mappability, sequence-dependent variability, and non-specific binding affinity must be accounted for. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We introduce a nonparametric method for scoring consensus regions of aligned immunoprecipitated DNA fragments when appropriate control experiments are available. Our method uses local models for null binding; these are necessary because binding prediction scores based on global models alone fail to properly account for specialized features of genomic regions and chance pull downs of specific DNA fragments, thus disproportionally rewarding some genomic regions and decreasing prediction accuracy. We make no assumptions about the structure or amplitude of bound peaks, yet we show that our method outperforms leading methods developed using either global or local null hypothesis models for random binding. We test prediction performance by comparing analyses of ChIP-seq, ChIP-chip, motif-based binding-site prediction, and shRNA assays, showing high reproducibility, binding-site enrichment in predicted target regions, and functional regulation of predicted targets.
conclusionsGiven appropriate controls, a direct nonparametric method for identifying transcription-factor targets from ChIP-Seq assays may lead to both higher sensitivity and higher specificity, and should be preferred or used in conjunction with methods that use parametric models for null binding.
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.