ReviewBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019
On the problem of confounders in modeling gene expression.
Review in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The adapted Activity-By-Contact model for enhancer-gene assignment and its application to single-cell data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Integrative analysis of epigenetics data identifies gene-specific regulatory elements.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- CpG content-dependent associations between transcription factors and histone modifications.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- NAUTICA: classifying transcription factor interactions by positional and protein-protein interaction information.Biology direct · 2020Article
- Integrative prediction of gene expression with chromatin accessibility and conformation data.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2020Article
- Unique and assay specific features of NOMe-, ATAC- and DNase I-seq data.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationModeling of Transcription Factor (TF) binding from both ChIP-seq and chromatin accessibility data has become prevalent in computational biology. Several models have been proposed to generate new hypotheses on transcriptional regulation. However, there is no distinct approach to derive TF binding scores from ChIP-seq and open chromatin experiments. Here, we review biases of various scoring approaches and their effects on the interpretation and reliability of predictive gene expression models.
resultsWe generated predictive models for gene expression using ChIP-seq and DNase1-seq data from DEEP and ENCODE. Via randomization experiments, we identified confounders in TF gene scores derived from both ChIP-seq and DNase1-seq data. We reviewed correction approaches for both data types, which reduced the influence of identified confounders without harm to model performance. Also, our analyses highlighted further quality control measures, in addition to model performance, that may help to assure model reliability and to avoid misinterpretation in future studies. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The software used in this study is available online at https://github.com/SchulzLab/TEPIC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.