Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26594335›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2015

A ChIP on the shoulder? Chromatin immunoprecipitation and validation strategies for ChIP antibodies.

Fiona C Wardle, Haihan Tan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Inferring Gene Regulatory Networks in Stem Cells: Methods and Applications.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Review
  2. Versatile SMAD2 and SMAD3 epitope-tagged mouse models for genomic profiling of TGFβ signaling: Uncovering GDF9-SMAD2/3 targets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Fiona C WardleRandall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, New Hunt's House, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, SE1 1UL, UK.
Haihan TanRandall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, New Hunt's House, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, SE1 1UL, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/13/19/30059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) is a technique widely used in the study of epigenetics and transcriptional regulation of gene expression. However, its antibody-centric nature exposes it to similar challenges faced by other antibody-based procedures, of which the most prominent are issues of specificity and affinity in antigen recognition. As with other techniques that make use of antibodies, recent studies have shown the need for validation of ChIP antibodies in order to be sure they recognize the advertised protein or epitope. We summarize here the issues surrounding ChIP antibody usage, and highlight the toolkit of validation methods that can be employed by investigators looking to appraise these reagents.

Indexed as

antibodyChromatin immunoprecipitationmodified histonetranscription factorvalidation

Identifiers

PMID26594335
PMCPMC4648227

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.