Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30897079›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

ChIPulate: A comprehensive ChIP-seq simulation pipeline.

Vishaka Datta, Sridhar Hannenhalli, Rahul Siddharthan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vishaka DattaSimons Centre for the Study of Living Machines, National Centre for Biological Sciences, TIFR, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5582-3130
Sridhar HannenhalliCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States of America.
Rahul SiddharthanThe Institute of Mathematical Sciences/HBNI, Taramani, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ChIP-seq (Chromatin Immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing) is a high-throughput technique to identify genomic regions that are bound in vivo by a particular protein, e.g., a transcription factor (TF). Biological factors, such as chromatin state, indirect and cooperative binding, as well as experimental factors, such as antibody quality, cross-linking, and PCR biases, are known to affect the outcome of ChIP-seq experiments. However, the relative impact of these factors on inferences made from ChIP-seq data is not entirely clear. Here, via a detailed ChIP-seq simulation pipeline, ChIPulate, we assess the impact of various biological and experimental sources of variation on several outcomes of a ChIP-seq experiment, viz., the recoverability of the TF binding motif, accuracy of TF-DNA binding detection, the sensitivity of inferred TF-DNA binding strength, and number of replicates needed to confidently infer binding strength. We find that the TF motif can be recovered despite poor and non-uniform extraction and PCR amplification efficiencies. The recovery of the motif is, however, affected to a larger extent by the fraction of sites that are either cooperatively or indirectly bound. Importantly, our simulations reveal that the number of ChIP-seq replicates needed to accurately measure in vivo occupancy at high-affinity sites is larger than the recommended community standards. Our results establish statistical limits on the accuracy of inferences of protein-DNA binding from ChIP-seq and suggest that increasing the mean extraction efficiency, rather than amplification efficiency, would better improve sensitivity. The source code and instructions for running ChIPulate can be found at https://github.com/vishakad/chipulate.

Indexed as

SoftwareTranscription FactorsBinding SitesChromatin ImmunoprecipitationComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDNADNA-Binding ProteinsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingProtein BindingSequence Analysis, DNADNADNA-Binding ProteinsEscherichia coli ProteinsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID30897079
PMCPMC6445533

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.