ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Evaluating Reproducibility and Best Practices for Replicate Design in G-Quadruplex ChIP-Seq Studies.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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.
- Genome-wide mapping of DNA G-quadruplexes in Trypanosoma brucei chromatin reveals enrichment in coding regions and transcription start sites.Nucleic acids research · 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
G-quadruplex (G4) ChIP-Seq data are critical for studying the roles of G4 structures in various biological processes, yet their reproducibility remains systematically uncharacterized. In this study, we evaluated the consistency of in vivo G4 peaks across multiple replicates in three publicly available datasets. We observed considerable heterogeneity in peak calls, with only a minority of peaks shared across all replicates. To address this challenge, we compared three computational methods-IDR, MSPC, and ChIP-R-for assessing reproducibility and found that MSPC is the optimal solution in reconciling inconsistent signals in G4 ChIP-Seq data. We further demonstrated that employing at least three replicates significantly improved detection accuracy compared to conventional two-replicate designs, while four replicates proved sufficient to achieve reproducible outcomes, with diminishing returns beyond this number. Moreover, we showed that the reproducibility-aware analytical strategies can partially mitigate the adverse effects of low sequencing depth, though they do not fully substitute for high-quality data. Based on our findings, we recommend 10 million mapped reads as a minimum standard for G4 ChIP-Seq experiments, with 15 million or more reads being preferable for optimal results. Our study provides practical guidelines for experimental design and data analysis in G4 studies, emphasizing the importance of replication and robust bioinformatic strategies to enhance the reliability of genome-wide G4 mapping.
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.