ArticlePloS one2025
Can random walking on a Hi-C contact matrix lead to data quality improvement? An assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hi-C and single cell Hi-C (scHi-C) data are now routinely generated for studying an array of biological questions of interest, including whole genome chromatin organization to gain a better understanding of the chromosome three-dimensional hierarchical structure: compartments, Topologically Associated Domains (TADs), and long-range interactions. Due to concerns about data quality, especially for scHi-C because of its sparsity, data quality improvement is seen as a necessary step before performing analyses to answer biological questions. As such, methods have been developed accordingly, among them is a set of methods that are "random walk"- based, including random walk with a limited number of steps (RWS) and random walk with restart (RWR). Nevertheless, there is little justification for the use of such methods, nor quantification of their performance success. Taking correct identification of TADs as the end point, in this paper, we describe the characteristics of random-walk-based approaches and carry out empirical investigation for identifying TADs before and after random walks. Due to the lack of practical guidelines for choosing tuning parameters necessary for performing random walks, it is difficult to know how many steps of random walk for RWS or how small a restart probability for RWR should one choose to achieve good performance. Even in the unrealistic scenario when one has the hindsight to use the optimal parameter values, little improvement in downstream TAD analyses by first performing random walk was observed. This conclusion was based on extensive analytical analyses, simulation study, and real data applications. Therefore, the current study provides a cautionary note to researchers who may consider using random-walk-based approaches prior to downstream analyses.
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.