ArticleBMB reports2026
Comparative analyses of ChIP-seq, CUT&RUN and CUT&Tag for Polycomb chromatin profiling.
Article in BMB reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chromatin profiling methods such as ChIP-seq, CUT&RUN, and CUT&Tag differ substantially in background structure, signal distribution, and resolution, complicating direct quantitative comparison across platforms. In this study, we systematically compared conventional and double-crosslink ChIP-seq, CUT&RUN, and CUT&Tag by profiling the Polycomb-associated histone modification H3K27me3 in human cardiomyocytes and the PRC2 catalytic subunit EZH2 in pluripotent stem cells. To enable cross-assay comparison, we developed a biologically informed normalization strategy based on stable Polycomb reference loci, allowing harmonization of signal scales while preserving assay-intrinsic signal architecture. This approach revealed CUT&RUN to preferentially capture broad H3K27me3 domains, whereas CUT&Tag provides sharper and more localized enrichment for both H3K27me3 and EZH2. Together, our results establish a practical framework for cross-platform epigenomic comparison and guide the selection of chromatin profiling strategies. [BMB Reports 2026; 59(4): 242-252].
Indexed as
Identifiers
41781185PMC13126067What 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.