Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29848293›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Improved accuracy assessment for 3D genome reconstructions.

Mark R Segal, Henrik L Bengtsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark R SegalDivision of Bioinformatics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, 16th Street, San Francisco, 94158, USA. mark.segal@ucsf.edu.
Henrik L BengtssonDivision of Bioinformatics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, 16th Street, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Institute of Bioinformatics · IN

Funding

Reconstruction of 3D Genome Architecture from Chromatin Conformation Capture DataR01GM109457 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SEGAL, MARK R · 2013 to 2020
$2.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree dimensional (3D) genome spatial organization is critical for numerous cellular functions, including transcription, while certain conformation-driven structural alterations are frequently oncogenic. Genome conformation had been difficult to elucidate but the advent chromatin conformation capture assays, notably Hi-C, has transformed understanding of chromatin architecture and yielded numerous biological insights. Although most of these findings have flowed from analysis of proximity data produced by these assays, added value in generating 3D reconstructions has been demonstrated, deriving, in part, from superposing genomic features on the reconstruction. However, advantages of 3D structure-based analyses are clearly conditional on the accuracy of the attendant reconstructions, which is difficult to assess. Proponents of competing reconstruction algorithms have evaluated their accuracy by recourse to simulation of toy structures and/or limited fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) imaging that features a handful of low resolution probes. Accordingly, new methods of reconstruction accuracy assessment are needed.

resultsHere we utilize two recently devised assays to develop methodology for assessing 3D reconstruction accuracy. Multiplex FISH increases the number of probes by an order of magnitude and hence the number of inter-probe distances by two orders, providing sufficient information for structure-level evaluation via mean-squared deviations (MSD). Crucially, underscoring multiplex FISH applications are large numbers of coordinate-system aligned replicates that provide the basis for a referent distribution for MSD statistics. Using this system we show that reconstructions based on Hi-C data for IMR90 cells are accurate for some chromosomes but not others. The second new assay, genome architecture mapping, utilizes large numbers of thin cryosections to obtain a measure of proximity. We exploit the planarity of the cryosections - not used in inferring proximity - to obtain measures of reconstruction accuracy, with referents provided via resampling. Application to mouse embryonic stem cells shows reconstruction accuracies that vary by chromosome.

conclusionsWe have developed methods for assessing the accuracy of 3D genome reconstructions that exploit features of recently advanced multiplex FISH and genome architecture mapping assays. These approaches can help overcome the absence of gold standards for making such assessments which are important in view of the considerable uncertainties surrounding 3D genome reconstruction.

Indexed as

GenomeAnimalsChromosomes, MammalianData AccuracyGenomicsIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMiceMolecular ConformationChromatin conformation captureGenome architecture mappingMultiplex FISHPrincipal components analysisProcrustes alignment

Identifiers

PMID29848293
PMCPMC5977474
OpenAlexW2807079153

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.