4.7 Article

peaksat: an R package for ChIP-seq peak saturation analysis

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-023-09109-7

关键词

Peak saturation; Read depth estimate; ChIP-Seq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

peaksat is an R package that estimates target read depth for epigenomic sequencing experiments based on peak saturation curve analysis. It provides insight into the specific read depth requirements for ChIP-seq studies of histone modifications in different cell lines. Additionally, peaksat can be applied to other sequence-based methods such as CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq.
BackgroundEpigenomic profiling assays such as ChIP-seq have been widely used to map the genome-wide enrichment profiles of chromatin-associated proteins and posttranslational histone modifications. Sequencing depth is a key parameter in experimental design and quality control. However, due to variable sequencing depth requirements across experimental conditions, it can be challenging to determine optimal sequencing depth, particularly for projects involving multiple targets or cell types.ResultsWe developed the peaksat R package to provide target read depth estimates for epigenomic experiments based on the analysis of peak saturation curves. We applied peaksat to establish the distinctive read depth requirements for ChIP-seq studies of histone modifications in different cell lines. Using peaksat, we were able to estimate the target read depth required per library to obtain high-quality peak calls for downstream analysis. In addition, peaksat was applied to other sequence-enrichment methods including CUT&RUN and ATAC-seq.Conclusionpeaksat addresses a need for researchers to make informed decisions about whether their sequencing data has been generated to an adequate depth and subsequently sufficient meaningful peaks, and failing that, how many more reads would be required per library. peaksat is applicable to other sequence-based methods that include calling peaks in their analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据