ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Benchmark of chromatin-protein interaction methods in haploid round spermatids.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative Epigenomics: Bioinformatics Strategies for Multi-Omics Data Analysis in Health and Disease.Epigenomes · 2026Review
- Article
- IMPACTS OF DNA METHYLATION ON H2A.Z DEPOSITION AND NUCLEOSOME STABILITY.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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
Introduction: Chromatin-protein interactions are fundamental for regulation of gene transcription. While chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by deep sequencing (ChIP-seq) has long been the gold standard for mapping these interactions, emerging techniques such as CUT&RUN and CUT&Tag, which offer advantages such as low-input requirements and high signal-to-noise ratios, have aroused great attention. However, research addressing the potential biases introduced by enzyme-based tagmentation approaches and comparative assessment with ChIP-seq remain absent. Methods: This study aims to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of ChIP-seq, CUT&Tag, and CUT&RUN for profiling genome-wide transcription factors and histone modification binding. Results: Our analysis revealed that all three methods reliably detect histone modifications and transcription factor enrichment, with CUT&Tag standing out for its comparatively higher signal-to-noise ratio. Detailed peak comparison revealed unique and overlapping enrichment among the three techniques. Additionally, CUT&Tag can identify novel CTCF peaks compared with the other two methods. A strong correlation was observed between CUT&Tag signal intensity and chromatin accessibility, highlighting its ability to generate high-resolution signals in accessible regions. Discussion: The systematic comparison summarizes the differences between CUT&Tag and CUT&RUN in terms of the signal-to-noise ratio and bias toward accessible chromatin. Considering the experimental procedures, signal specificity, and inherent biases, we recommend tailoring the choice of method to the type of chromatin-protein interaction under study. CUT&Tag offers a promising alternative for applications requiring high sensitivity and reduced background noise.
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.