ArticleGigaScience2021
Chromatin conformation capture (Hi-C) sequencing of patient-derived xenografts: analysis guidelines.
Article in GigaScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Cell Hi-C Technologies and Computational Data Analysis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- The potential of epigenetic therapy to target the 3D epigenome in endocrine-resistant breast cancer.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2024Article
- Integrative approaches based on genomic techniques in the functional studies on enhancers.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Review
- Rewiring of the 3D genome during acquisition of carboplatin resistance in a triple-negative breast cancer patient-derived xenograft.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- From Samples to Germline and Somatic Sequence Variation: A Focus on Next-Generation Sequencing in Melanoma Research.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Chromatin conformation capture (Hi-C) sequencing of patient-derived xenografts: analysis guidelines.GigaScience · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequencing of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models allows investigation of the molecular mechanisms of human tumor samples engrafted in a mouse host. Thus, both human and mouse genetic material is sequenced. Several methods have been developed to remove mouse sequencing reads from RNA-seq or exome sequencing PDX data and improve the downstream signal. However, for more recent chromatin conformation capture technologies (Hi-C), the effect of mouse reads remains undefined.
resultsWe evaluated the effect of mouse read removal on the quality of Hi-C data using in silico created PDX Hi-C data with 10% and 30% mouse reads. Additionally, we generated 2 experimental PDX Hi-C datasets using different library preparation strategies. We evaluated 3 alignment strategies (Direct, Xenome, Combined) and 3 pipelines (Juicer, HiC-Pro, HiCExplorer) on Hi-C data quality.
conclusionsRemoval of mouse reads had little-to-no effect on data quality as compared with the results obtained with the Direct alignment strategy. Juicer extracted more valid chromatin interactions for Hi-C matrices, regardless of the mouse read removal strategy. However, the pipeline effect was minimal, while the library preparation strategy had the largest effect on all quality metrics. Together, our study presents comprehensive guidelines on PDX Hi-C data processing.
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.