ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019
RECAP reveals the true statistical significance of ChIP-seq peak calls.
Article 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.
- Towards personalized epigenomics: learning shared chromatin landscapes and joint de-noising of histone modification assays.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Anomaly detection in genomic catalogues using unsupervised multi-view autoencoders.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Molecular and computational approaches to map regulatory elements in 3D chromatin structure.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2021Review
- A deep learning framework combined with word embedding to identify DNA replication origins.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A physical basis for quantitative ChIP-sequencing.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
- Chromatin changes in Anopheles gambiae induced by Plasmodium falciparum infection.Epigenetics & chromatin · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationChromatin Immunopreciptation (ChIP)-seq is used extensively to identify sites of transcription factor binding or regions of epigenetic modifications to the genome. A key step in ChIP-seq analysis is peak calling, where genomic regions enriched for ChIP versus control reads are identified. Many programs have been designed to solve this task, but nearly all fall into the statistical trap of using the data twice-once to determine candidate enriched regions, and again to assess enrichment by classical statistical hypothesis testing. This double use of the data invalidates the statistical significance assigned to enriched regions, thus the true significance or reliability of peak calls remains unknown.
resultsUsing simulated and real ChIP-seq data, we show that three well-known peak callers, MACS, SICER and diffReps, output biased P-values and false discovery rate estimates that can be many orders of magnitude too optimistic. We propose a wrapper algorithm, RECAP, that uses resampling of ChIP-seq and control data to estimate a monotone transform correcting for biases built into peak calling algorithms. When applied to null hypothesis data, where there is no enrichment between ChIP-seq and control, P-values recalibrated by RECAP are approximately uniformly distributed. On data where there is genuine enrichment, RECAP P-values give a better estimate of the true statistical significance of candidate peaks and better false discovery rate estimates, which correlate better with empirical reproducibility. RECAP is a powerful new tool for assessing the true statistical significance of ChIP-seq peak calls. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The RECAP software is available through www.perkinslab.ca or on github at https://github.com/theodorejperkins/RECAP. 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.