ArticlePloS one2019
Identification of factors associated with duplicate rate in ChIP-seq data.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fastq-dupaway: a fast and memory-efficient tool for deduplication of single- and paired-end NGS data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Polymerization of ZBTB transcription factors regulates chromatin occupancy.Molecular cell · 2024Article
- Greenscreen: A simple method to remove artifactual signals and enrich for true peaks in genomic datasets including ChIP-seq data.The Plant cell · 2022Article
- Bioinformatics Methods for ChIP-seq Histone Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- The dynamic broad epigenetic (H3K4me3, H3K27ac) domain as a mark of essential genes.Clinical epigenetics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq) has been widely used to map DNA-binding proteins, histone proteins and their modifications. ChIP-seq data contains redundant reads termed duplicates, referring to those mapping to the same genomic location and strand. There are two main sources of duplicates: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) duplicates and natural duplicates. Unlike natural duplicates that represent true signals from sequencing of independent DNA templates, PCR duplicates are artifacts originating from sequencing of identical copies amplified from the same DNA template. In analysis, duplicates are removed from peak calling and signal quantification. Nevertheless, a significant portion of the duplicates is believed to represent true signals. Obviously, removing all duplicates will underestimate the signal level in peaks and impact the identification of signal changes across samples. Therefore, an in-depth evaluation of the impact from duplicate removal is needed. Using eight public ChIP-seq datasets from three narrow-peak and two broad-peak marks, we tried to understand the distribution of duplicates in the genome, the extent by which duplicate removal impacts peak calling and signal estimation, and the factors associated with duplicate level in peaks. The three PCR-free histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) ChIP-seq data had about 40% duplicates and 97% of them were within peaks. For the other datasets generated with PCR amplification of ChIP DNA, as expected, the narrow-peak marks have a much higher proportion of duplicates than the broad-peak marks. We found that duplicates are enriched in peaks and largely represent true signals, more conspicuous in those with high confidence. Furthermore, duplicate level in peaks is strongly correlated with the target enrichment level estimated using nonredundant reads, which provides the basis to properly allocate duplicates between noise and signal. Our analysis supports the feasibility of retaining the portion of signal duplicates into downstream analysis, thus alleviating the limitation of complete deduplication.
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.