ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2021
Characterizing batch effects and binding site-specific variability in ChIP-seq data.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2021. 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.
- Procrustes is a machine-learning approach that removes cross-platform batch effects from clinical RNA sequencing data.Communications biology · 2024Article
- An Epigenomic fingerprint of human cancers by landscape interrogation of super enhancers at the constituent level.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Quantitative Comparison of Multiple Chromatin Immunoprecipitation-Sequencing (ChIP-seq) Experiments with spikChIP.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Statistical Analysis in ChIP-seq-Related Applications.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Multiple sources of variability can bias ChIP-seq data toward inferring transcription factor (TF) binding profiles. As ChIP-seq datasets increase in public repositories, it is now possible and necessary to account for complex sources of variability in ChIP-seq data analysis. We find that two types of variability, the batch effects by sequencing laboratories and differences between biological replicates, not associated with changes in condition or state, vary across genomic sites. This implies that observed differences between samples from different conditions or states, such as cell-type, must be assessed statistically, with an understanding of the distribution of obscuring noise. We present a statistical approach that characterizes both differences of interests and these source of variability through the parameters of a mixed effects model. We demonstrate the utility of our approach on a CTCF binding dataset composed of 211 samples representing 90 different cell-types measured across three different laboratories. The results revealed that sites exhibiting large variability were associated with sequence characteristics such as GC-content and low complexity. Finally, we identified TFs associated with high-variance CTCF sites using TF motifs documented in public databases, pointing the possibility of these being false positives if the sources of variability are not properly accounted for.
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.