ArticleBMC genomics2016
A comparative study of ChIP-seq sequencing library preparation methods.
Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autophagy mediated by ROS-AKT-FoxO pathway is required for intestinal regeneration in echinoderms.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2025Article
- Commercial ChIP-Seq Library Preparation Kits Performed Differently for Different Classes of Protein Targets.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
- ChIP-Seq Assays from Mammalian Cartilage and Chondrocytes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Mutational profiling of micro-dissected pre-malignant lesions from archived specimens.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
- An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits.RNA biology · 2020Article
- Microfluidic Platform for Next-Generation Sequencing Library Preparation with Low-Input Samples.Analytical chemistry · 2020Article
- Review of applications of high-throughput sequencing in personalized medicine: barriers and facilitators of future progress in research and clinical application.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Review
- [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
- Enhanced and controlled chromatin extraction from FFPE tissues and the application to ChIP-seq.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- ChIPulate: A comprehensive ChIP-seq simulation pipeline.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- High-throughput ChIPmentation: freely scalable, single day ChIPseq data generation from very low cell-numbers.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Article
- SMARTcleaner: identify and clean off-target signals in SMART ChIP-seq analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChIP-seq is the primary technique used to investigate genome-wide protein-DNA interactions. As part of this procedure, immunoprecipitated DNA must undergo "library preparation" to enable subsequent high-throughput sequencing. To facilitate the analysis of biopsy samples and rare cell populations, there has been a recent proliferation of methods allowing sequencing library preparation from low-input DNA amounts. However, little information exists on the relative merits, performance, comparability and biases inherent to these procedures. Notably, recently developed single-cell ChIP procedures employing microfluidics must also employ library preparation reagents to allow downstream sequencing.
resultsIn this study, seven methods designed for low-input DNA/ChIP-seq sample preparation (Accel-NGS® 2S, Bowman-method, HTML-PCR, SeqPlex™, DNA SMART™, TELP and ThruPLEX®) were performed on five replicates of 1 ng and 0.1 ng input H3K4me3 ChIP material, and compared to a "gold standard" reference PCR-free dataset. The performance of each method was examined for the prevalence of unmappable reads, amplification-derived duplicate reads, reproducibility, and for the sensitivity and specificity of peak calling.
conclusionsWe identified consistent high performance in a subset of the tested reagents, which should aid researchers in choosing the most appropriate reagents for their studies. Furthermore, we expect this work to drive future advances by identifying and encouraging use of the most promising methods and reagents. The results may also aid judgements on how comparable are existing datasets that have been prepared with different sample library preparation reagents.
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.