↓ Skip to main content

Direct ChIP-Seq significance analysis improves target prediction

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Direct ChIP-Seq significance analysis improves target prediction
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-16-s5-s4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mukesh Bansal, Geetu Mendiratta, Santosh Anand, Ritu Kushwaha, Ryan Hyunjae Kim, Manju Kustagi, Archana Iyer, Raju SK Chaganti, Andrea Califano, Pavel Sumazin

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing of protein-bound DNA fragments (ChIP-Seq) is an effective high-throughput methodology for the identification of context specific DNA fragments that are bound by specific proteins in vivo. Despite significant progress in the bioinformatics analysis of this genome-scale data, a number of challenges remain as technology-dependent biases, including variable target accessibility and mappability, sequence-dependent variability, and non-specific binding affinity must be accounted for. We introduce a nonparametric method for scoring consensus regions of aligned immunoprecipitated DNA fragments when appropriate control experiments are available. Our method uses local models for null binding; these are necessary because binding prediction scores based on global models alone fail to properly account for specialized features of genomic regions and chance pull downs of specific DNA fragments, thus disproportionally rewarding some genomic regions and decreasing prediction accuracy. We make no assumptions about the structure or amplitude of bound peaks, yet we show that our method outperforms leading methods developed using either global or local null hypothesis models for random binding. We test prediction performance by comparing analyses of ChIP-seq, ChIP-chip, motif-based binding-site prediction, and shRNA assays, showing high reproducibility, binding-site enrichment in predicted target regions, and functional regulation of predicted targets. Given appropriate controls, a direct nonparametric method for identifying transcription-factor targets from ChIP-Seq assays may lead to both higher sensitivity and higher specificity, and should be preferred or used in conjunction with methods that use parametric models for null binding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Professor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Chemistry 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,203,955
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,764
of 10,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,102
of 266,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#111
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,651 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.