ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
ChIPulate: A comprehensive ChIP-seq simulation pipeline.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Many roads lead to a plant cistrome: mapping and interpreting transcription factor binding in plants.Genome biology · 2026Review
- High-throughput capture of transcription factor-driven epigenome dynamics using PHILO ChIP-seq.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Clipper: p-value-free FDR control on high-throughput data from two conditions.Genome biology · 2021Article
- ChIP-GSM: Inferring active transcription factor modules to predict functional regulatory elements.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- A flexible ChIP-sequencing simulation toolkit.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Functional evaluation of transposable elements as enhancers in mouse embryonic and trophoblast stem cells.eLife · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.