Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Bioinformaticsarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Bioinformatics
Article . 2012 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Bioinformatics
Article
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Bioinformatics
Article . 2012
DBLP
Article . 2022
Data sources: DBLP
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

An effective statistical evaluation of ChIPseq dataset similarity

Authors: Maria D. Chikina; Olga G. Troyanskaya;

An effective statistical evaluation of ChIPseq dataset similarity

Abstract

Abstract Motivation: ChIPseq is rapidly becoming a common technique for investigating protein–DNA interactions. However, results from individual experiments provide a limited understanding of chromatin structure, as various chromatin factors cooperate in complex ways to orchestrate transcription. In order to quantify chromtain interactions, it is thus necessary to devise a robust similarity metric applicable to ChIPseq data. Unfortunately, moving past simple overlap calculations to give statistically rigorous comparisons of ChIPseq datasets often involves arbitrary choices of distance metrics, with significance being estimated by computationally intensive permutation tests whose statistical power may be sensitive to non-biological experimental and post-processing variation. Results: We show that it is in fact possible to compare ChIPseq datasets through the efficient computation of exact P-values for proximity. Our method is insensitive to non-biological variation in datasets such as peak width, and can rigorously model peak location biases by evaluating similarity conditioned on a restricted set of genomic regions (such as mappable genome or promoter regions). Applying our method to the well-studied dataset of Chen et al. (2008), we elucidate novel interactions which conform well with our biological understanding. By comparing ChIPseq data in an asymmetric way, we are able to observe clear interaction differences between cofactors such as p300 and factors that bind DNA directly. Availability: Source code is available for download at http://sonorus.princeton.edu/IntervalStats/IntervalStats.tar.gz Contact: ogt@cs.princeton.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, Transcription, Genetic, Programming Languages, Genomics, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Algorithms

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    56
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
56
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
gold