↓ Skip to main content

Impact of artifact removal on ChIP quality metrics in ChIP-seq and ChIP-exo data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
214 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of artifact removal on ChIP quality metrics in ChIP-seq and ChIP-exo data
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas S. Carroll, Ziwei Liang, Rafik Salama, Rory Stark, Ines de Santiago

Abstract

With the advent of ChIP-seq multiplexing technologies and the subsequent increase in ChIP-seq throughput, the development of working standards for the quality assessment of ChIP-seq studies has received significant attention. The ENCODE consortium's large scale analysis of transcription factor binding and epigenetic marks as well as concordant work on ChIP-seq by other laboratories has established a new generation of ChIP-seq quality control measures. The use of these metrics alongside common processing steps has however not been evaluated. In this study, we investigate the effects of blacklisting and removal of duplicated reads on established metrics of ChIP-seq quality and show that the interpretation of these metrics is highly dependent on the ChIP-seq preprocessing steps applied. Further to this we perform the first investigation of the use of these metrics for ChIP-exo data and make recommendations for the adaptation of the NSC statistic to allow for the assessment of ChIP-exo efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
United States 4 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 275 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 26%
Researcher 70 24%
Student > Master 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 6%
Other 12 4%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 41 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 30%
Computer Science 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 49 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,078,561
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,242
of 12,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,161
of 229,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#20
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 229,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.