ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019
Benchmarking of 4C-seq pipelines based on real and simulated data.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- fourSynergy: ensemble-based interaction calling on 4C-seq data using gradient-free optimization.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Exploring high-resolution chromatin interaction changes and functional enhancers of myogenic marker genes during myogenic differentiation.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional chromatin interactions remain stable upon CAG/CTG repeat expansion.Science advances · 2020Article
- 4See: A Flexible Browser to Explore 4C Data.Frontiers in genetics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationWith its capacity for high-resolution data output in one region of interest, chromosome conformation capture combined with high-throughput sequencing (4C-seq) is a state-of-the-art next-generation sequencing technique that provides epigenetic insights, and regularly advances current medical research. However, 4C-seq data are complex and prone to biases, and while specialized programs exist, an unbiased, extensive benchmarking is still lacking. Furthermore, neither substantial datasets with fully characterized ground truth, nor simulation programs for realistic 4C-seq data have been published.
resultsWe conducted a benchmarking study on 66 4C-seq samples from 20 datasets, and developed a novel 4C-seq simulation software, Basic4CSim, to allow for detailed comparisons of 4C-seq algorithms on 50 simulated datasets with 10-120 samples each. Simulations and benchmarking were adapted to address different characteristics of 4C-seq data. Simulated data were compared with published samples to validate simulation settings. We identified differences between 4C-seq algorithms in terms of precision, recall, interaction structure, and run time, and observed general trends. Novel differential pipeline versions of single-sample based 4C-seq algorithms were included in the benchmarking. While no single tool was optimally suited for both near-cis and far-cis, and both single-sample and differential analyses, choosing a high-performing algorithm variant did improve results considerably. For near-cis scenarios, r3Cseq, peakC and FourCSeq offered high precision, while fourSig demonstrated high overall F1 scores in far-cis analyses. Finally, 4C-seq simulations may aid in the development of improved analysis algorithms. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Basic4CSim is available at https://github.com/walter-ca/Basic4CSim. 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.