ArticleCell reports methods2026
Systematic benchmarking of CUT&Tag improves the reliability and reproducibility of chromatin analysis.
Article in Cell reports methods, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cleavage under target and tagmentation (CUT&Tag) is a widely used method for profiling chromatin occupancy; however, its reproducibility is impacted by a lack of standardization in experimental and analytical procedures. This study identifies four key parameters critical for optimizing CUT&Tag performance. First, optimal cell number requirements are target and species specific: H3K27me3 detection requires ≥10K cells in both mouse and rat cells, whereas CTCF mapping needs 50K cells in mouse embryonic stem cells and 100K in rat C6 cells, reflecting potential differences in protein abundance and antibody affinity. Second, the peak-calling methodology is crucial; default model-based analysis of chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (MACS2) scaling causes a paradoxical decrease in peak numbers with decreasing IgG control size, a limitation resolved by the "scale-to-large" option. Third, duplicate removal strategies differentially affect peak callers, with MACS2 performing best using biological reads and sparse enrichment analysis for CUT&RUN (SEACR) relying on technical duplicates for accurate calling. Finally, mild crosslinking with 0.2 mM ethylene glycol bis (succinimidyl succinate) (EGS) for 5 min enhances CTCF detection and reduces variability. Together, these optimizations establish practical guidelines for reliable CUT&Tag experimental design and analysis.
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.