Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26979602›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2017

Recent advances in ChIP-seq analysis: from quality management to whole-genome annotation.

Ryuichiro Nakato, Katsuhiko Shirahige

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A rapid test for protein-DNA interactions.Nucleic acids research · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Churros: a Docker-based pipeline for large-scale epigenomic analysis.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ryuichiro NakatoResearch Center for Epigenetic Disease, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsuhiko ShirahigeResearch Center for Epigenetic Disease, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) analysis can detect protein/DNA-binding and histone-modification sites across an entire genome. Recent advances in sequencing technologies and analyses enable us to compare hundreds of samples simultaneously; such large-scale analysis has potential to reveal the high-dimensional interrelationship level for regulatory elements and annotate novel functional genomic regions de novo. Because many experimental considerations are relevant to the choice of a method in a ChIP-seq analysis, the overall design and quality management of the experiment are of critical importance. This review offers guiding principles of computation and sample preparation for ChIP-seq analyses, highlighting the validity and limitations of the state-of-the-art procedures at each step. We also discuss the latest challenges of single-cell analysis that will encourage a new era in this field.

Indexed as

GenomeBinding SitesChromatin ImmunoprecipitationDNAHumansProtein BindingSequence Analysis, DNADNAchromatin immunoprecipitationdifferential analysisexperimental designlarge-scale analysisquality managementsingle-cell analysis

Identifiers

PMID26979602
PMCPMC5444249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.