Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30084962›Full record

ReviewBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

On the problem of confounders in modeling gene expression.

Florian Schmidt, Marcel H Schulz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Florian SchmidtHigh-througput Genomics and Systems Biology, Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Marcel H SchulzHigh-througput Genomics and Systems Biology, Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyGene ExpressionHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingTranscription FactorsBinding SitesChromatinChromatin ImmunoprecipitationReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNAChromatinTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID30084962
PMCPMC6530814

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.