ArticleSerican journal of medicine2025
Appropriate normalization is critical to improve reproducibility of tissue ChIP-seq.
Article in Serican journal of medicine, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by next-generation sequencing (ChIP-seq) is a powerful technology for studying genetic and epigenetic regulation. However, ChIP-seq data can be heavily affected by variations in chromatin amount and composition, ChIP enrichment, library preparation, and sequencing depth, affecting its overall reproducibility across biological replicates. Here, we evaluated four ChIP-seq normalization methods utilizing triplicate Foxa1 ChIP-seq data performed in prostate cancer tissues from three mice. We found that count-per-million (CPM) normalization, although not affecting peak calling in individual samples, is very useful for visualization and comparison of peak distribution and intensity across samples. By contrast, equal-read normalization improves both peak identification and intensity comparison. Moreover, spike-in normalization took advantage of spike-in chromatin ChIP to correct technical variations in ChIP-seq, including ChIP enrichment, sample preparation, and sequencing. Lastly, input-adjusted spike-in normalization further accounts for differences in input chromatin amount across samples, which is especially crucial for tissue ChIP-seq that often starts with different amounts of input chromatin. Overall, our study demonstrated that appropriate normalization is essential to improve the reproducibility and comparability of ChIP-seq experiments and highlighted the importance of input-adjusted spike-in normalization for tissue ChIP-seq.
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.