ArticleF1000Research2016
Antibody performance in ChIP-sequencing assays: From quality scores of public data sets to quantitative certification.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated chromatin profiling with spa-ChIP-seq uncovers the impacts of condition variations.Genome research · 2026Article
- Automated chromatin profiling with spa-ChIP-seq uncovers the impacts of condition variations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Epigenomic signatures of cis-regulatory elements in the developing mouse and pig forelimb.Scientific data · 2025Article
- [The improvewment of DNA library construction in non-crosslinked chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with next-generation sequencing].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2019Article
- EpiDenovo: a platform for linking regulatory de novo mutations to developmental epigenetics and diseases.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- GTRD: a database of transcription factor binding sites identified by ChIP-seq experiments.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have established a certification system for antibodies to be used in chromatin immunoprecipitation assays coupled to massive parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq). This certification comprises a standardized ChIP procedure and the attribution of a numerical quality control indicator (QCi) to biological replicate experiments. The QCi computation is based on a universally applicable quality assessment that quantitates the global deviation of randomly sampled subsets of ChIP-seq dataset with the original genome-aligned sequence reads. Comparison with a QCi database for >28,000 ChIP-seq assays were used to attribute quality grades (ranging from 'AAA' to 'DDD') to a given dataset. In the present report we used the numerical QC system to assess the factors influencing the quality of ChIP-seq assays, including the nature of the target, the sequencing depth and the commercial source of the antibody. We have used this approach specifically to certify mono and polyclonal antibodies obtained from Active Motif directed against the histone modification marks H3K4me3, H3K27ac and H3K9ac for ChIP-seq. The antibodies received the grades AAA to BBC ( www.ngs-qc.org). We propose to attribute such quantitative grading of all antibodies attributed with the label "ChIP-seq grade".
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.