ArticleJournal of bioinformatics and computational biology2017
Utilizing networks for differential analysis of chromatin interactions.
Article in Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network-based method for regions with statistically frequent interchromosomal interactions at single-cell resolution.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Chicdiff: a computational pipeline for detecting differential chromosomal interactions in Capture Hi-C data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- An Integrated Approach to Knowledge and Prediction Modeling of Breast Cancer Metastasis Using Gene Regulatory Networks.IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromatin conformation capture with high-throughput sequencing (Hi-C) is a powerful technique to detect genome-wide chromatin interactions. In this paper, we introduce two novel approaches to detect differentially interacting genomic regions between two Hi-C experiments using a network model. To make input data from multiple experiments comparable, we propose a normalization strategy guided by network topological properties. We then devise two measurements, using local and global connectivity information from the chromatin interaction networks, respectively, to assess the interaction differences between two experiments. When multiple replicates are present in experiments, our approaches provide the flexibility for users to either pool all replicates together to therefore increase the network coverage, or to use the replicates in parallel to increase the signal to noise ratio. We show that while the local method works better in detecting changes from simulated networks, the global method performs better on real Hi-C data. The local and global methods, regardless of pooling, are always superior to two existing methods. Furthermore, our methods work well on both unweighted and weighted networks and our normalization strategy significantly improves the performance compared with raw networks without normalization. Therefore, we believe our methods will be useful for identifying differentially interacting genomic regions.
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.