4.8 Article

PeakSeq enables systematic scoring of ChIP-seq experiments relative to controls

Journal

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 66-75

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1518

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RR19895]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [S10RR019895] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [U54HG004558] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by tag sequencing (ChIP-seq) using high-throughput next-generation instrumentation is fast, replacing chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by genome tiling array analysis (ChIP-chip) as the preferred approach for mapping of sites of transcription-factor binding and chromatin modification. Using two deeply sequenced data sets for human RNA polymerase II and STAT1, each with matching input-DNA controls, we describe a general scoring approach to address unique challenges in ChIP-seq data analysis. Our approach is based on the observation that sites of potential binding are strongly correlated with signal peaks in the control, likely revealing features of open chromatin. We develop a two-pass strategy called PeakSeq to compensate for this. A two-pass strategy compensates for signal caused by open chromatin, as revealed by inclusion of the controls. The first pass identifies putative binding sites and compensates for genomic variation in the 'mappability' of sequences. The second pass filters out sites not significantly enriched compared to the normalized control, computing precise enrichments and significances. Our scoring procedure enables us to optimize experimental design by estimating the depth of sequencing required for a desired level of coverage and demonstrating that more than two replicates provides only a marginal gain in information.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available