ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Selecting ChIP-seq normalization methods from the perspective of their technical conditions.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- GNOMES: an integrated framework for genome-wide normalization and differential binding analysis of CUT&RUN and ChIP-seq data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromatin immunoprecipitation with high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) provides insights into both the genomic location occupied by the protein of interest and the difference in DNA occupancy between experimental states. Given that ChIP-seq data are collected experimentally, an important step for determining regions with differential DNA occupancy between states is between-sample normalization. While between-sample normalization is crucial for downstream differential binding analysis, the technical conditions underlying between-sample normalization methods have yet to be examined for ChIP-seq. We identify three important technical conditions underlying ChIP-seq between-sample normalization methods: balanced differential DNA occupancy, equal total DNA occupancy, and equal background binding across states. To illustrate the importance of satisfying the selected normalization method's technical conditions for downstream differential binding analysis, we simulate ChIP-seq read count data where different combinations of the technical conditions are violated. We then externally verify our simulation results using experimental data. Based on our findings, we suggest that researchers use their understanding of the ChIP-seq experiment at hand to guide their choice of between-sample normalization method. Alternatively, researchers can use a high-confidence peakset, which is the intersection of the differentially bound peaksets obtained from using different between-sample normalization methods. In our two experimental analyses, roughly half of the called peaks were called as differentially bound for every normalization method. High-confidence peaks are less sensitive to one's choice of between-sample normalization method, and thus could be a more robust basis for identifying genomic regions with differential DNA occupancy between experimental states when there is uncertainty about which technical conditions are satisfied.
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.