ArticleBMC genomics2026
Systematic assessment of sequencing depth requirements for Hi-C-derived metrics.
Article in BMC genomics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHi-C experiments produce genome-wide chromatin contact maps from which structural features can be quantified across multiple genomic scales, ranging from megabase-scale compartments to kilobase-scale boundaries and chromatin loops. Although high-resolution analyses commonly rely on hundreds of millions of sequenced read pairs, the minimum sequencing depth required for different classes of Hi-C-derived features has not been systematically established. We therefore sought to determine these depth requirements systematically.
resultsWe performed progressive random subsampling of twelve Hi-C libraries representing multiple cell types and experimental protocols. Loop-density and loop-size inference from the P(s) log-derivative was evaluated across all libraries, whereas compartment, insulation, and boundary analyses were performed on a subset of nine libraries with comparable full-depth coverage. Rather than defining a "sufficient depth" as an arbitrary fraction of the full-depth value, we introduced a biologically motivated criterion based on the variability of the metric between independent biological replicates. The required sequencing depth for each metric was defined as the point at which the subsampling scatter first reached the variability observed between independent biological replicates, representing the accuracy that additional sequencing cannot improve upon. Using this criterion, the genome-average loop-density estimate reached its biological floor at approximately 7 million read pairs, the genome-average loop-size estimate at approximately 20 million, insulation scores at approximately 80 million, and compartment eigenvectors at 100-kilobase resolution at approximately 110 million read pairs.
conclusionsDifferent Hi-C-derived metrics require substantially different sequencing depths to achieve biologically meaningful accuracy. For all metrics, depth-induced variability fell below biological replicate variability well before full sequencing depth was reached. These thresholds apply to genome-averaged characteristics, not local metrics of specific loci. They therefore provide practical guidance for genome-wide experimental design and sequencing budget allocation, suggesting that increasing the number of biological replicates is likely to improve the inference of global biophysical features more effectively than sequencing individual libraries to greater depth.
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.