ArticleNucleic acids research2019
AIControl: replacing matched control experiments with machine learning improves ChIP-seq peak identification.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 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.
- Exploitation of epigenetic variation of crop wild relatives for crop improvement and agrobiodiversity preservation.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Review
- Genome-Wide Chromatin Analysis of FFPE Tissues Using a Dual-Arm Robot with Clinical Potential.Cancers · 2021Article
- F-Seq2: improving the feature density based peak caller with dynamic statistics.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- WACS: improving ChIP-seq peak calling by optimally weighting controls.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- AI applications in functional genomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Machine Learning for Integrating Data in Biology and Medicine: Principles, Practice, and Opportunities.An international journal on information fusion · 2019Article
- RECAP reveals the true statistical significance of ChIP-seq peak calls.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
Abstract
ChIP-seq is a technique to determine binding locations of transcription factors, which remains a central challenge in molecular biology. Current practice is to use a 'control' dataset to remove background signals from a immunoprecipitation (IP) 'target' dataset. We introduce the AIControl framework, which eliminates the need to obtain a control dataset and instead identifies binding peaks by estimating the distributions of background signals from many publicly available control ChIP-seq datasets. We thereby avoid the cost of running control experiments while simultaneously increasing the accuracy of binding location identification. Specifically, AIControl can (i) estimate background signals at fine resolution, (ii) systematically weigh the most appropriate control datasets in a data-driven way, (iii) capture sources of potential biases that may be missed by one control dataset and (iv) remove the need for costly and time-consuming control experiments. We applied AIControl to 410 IP datasets in the ENCODE ChIP-seq database, using 440 control datasets from 107 cell types to impute background signal. Without using matched control datasets, AIControl identified peaks that were more enriched for putative binding sites than those identified by other popular peak callers that used a matched control dataset. We also demonstrated that our framework identifies binding sites that recover documented protein interactions more accurately.
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.