ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Benchmark of software tools for prokaryotic chromosomal interaction domain identification.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA-DNA interactomes of three prokaryotes uncovered by proximity ligation.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Hi-C Metagenomics in the ICU: Exploring Clinically Relevant Features of Gut Microbiome in Chronically Critically Ill Patients.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationThe application of genome-wide chromosome conformation capture (3C) methods to prokaryotes provided insights into the spatial organization of their genomes and identified patterns conserved across the tree of life, such as chromatin compartments and contact domains. Prokaryotic genomes vary in GC content and the density of restriction sites along the chromosome, suggesting that these properties should be considered when planning experiments and choosing appropriate software for data processing. Diverse algorithms are available for the analysis of eukaryotic chromatin contact maps, but their potential application to prokaryotic data has not yet been evaluated.
resultsHere, we present a comparative analysis of domain calling algorithms using available single-microbe experimental data. We evaluated the algorithms' intra-dataset reproducibility, concordance with other tools and sensitivity to coverage and resolution of contact maps. Using RNA-seq as an example, we showed how orthogonal biological data can be utilized to validate the reliability and significance of annotated domains. We also suggest that in silico simulations of contact maps can be used to choose optimal restriction enzymes and estimate theoretical map resolutions before the experiment. Our results provide guidelines for researchers investigating microbes and microbial communities using high-throughput 3C assays such as Hi-C and 3C-seq. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code of the analysis is available at https://github.com/magnitov/prokaryotic_cids. 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.