Cargando…

A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments

BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with massively parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq) is increasingly being applied to study transcriptional regulation on a genome-wide scale. While numerous algorithms have recently been proposed for analysing the large ChIP-seq datasets, their relative me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laajala, Teemu D, Raghav, Sunil, Tuomela, Soile, Lahesmaa, Riitta, Aittokallio, Tero, Elo, Laura L
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20017957
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-618
_version_ 1782176169814130688
author Laajala, Teemu D
Raghav, Sunil
Tuomela, Soile
Lahesmaa, Riitta
Aittokallio, Tero
Elo, Laura L
author_facet Laajala, Teemu D
Raghav, Sunil
Tuomela, Soile
Lahesmaa, Riitta
Aittokallio, Tero
Elo, Laura L
author_sort Laajala, Teemu D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with massively parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq) is increasingly being applied to study transcriptional regulation on a genome-wide scale. While numerous algorithms have recently been proposed for analysing the large ChIP-seq datasets, their relative merits and potential limitations remain unclear in practical applications. RESULTS: The present study compares the state-of-the-art algorithms for detecting transcription factor binding sites in four diverse ChIP-seq datasets under a variety of practical research settings. First, we demonstrate how the biological conclusions may change dramatically when the different algorithms are applied. The reproducibility across biological replicates is then investigated as an internal validation of the detections. Finally, the predicted binding sites with each method are compared to high-scoring binding motifs as well as binding regions confirmed in independent qPCR experiments. CONCLUSIONS: In general, our results indicate that the optimal choice of the computational approach depends heavily on the dataset under analysis. In addition to revealing valuable information to the users of this technology about the characteristics of the binding site detection approaches, the systematic evaluation framework provides also a useful reference to the developers of improved algorithms for ChIP-seq data.
format Text
id pubmed-2804666
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28046662010-01-12 A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments Laajala, Teemu D Raghav, Sunil Tuomela, Soile Lahesmaa, Riitta Aittokallio, Tero Elo, Laura L BMC Genomics Research article BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with massively parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq) is increasingly being applied to study transcriptional regulation on a genome-wide scale. While numerous algorithms have recently been proposed for analysing the large ChIP-seq datasets, their relative merits and potential limitations remain unclear in practical applications. RESULTS: The present study compares the state-of-the-art algorithms for detecting transcription factor binding sites in four diverse ChIP-seq datasets under a variety of practical research settings. First, we demonstrate how the biological conclusions may change dramatically when the different algorithms are applied. The reproducibility across biological replicates is then investigated as an internal validation of the detections. Finally, the predicted binding sites with each method are compared to high-scoring binding motifs as well as binding regions confirmed in independent qPCR experiments. CONCLUSIONS: In general, our results indicate that the optimal choice of the computational approach depends heavily on the dataset under analysis. In addition to revealing valuable information to the users of this technology about the characteristics of the binding site detection approaches, the systematic evaluation framework provides also a useful reference to the developers of improved algorithms for ChIP-seq data. BioMed Central 2009-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC2804666/ /pubmed/20017957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-618 Text en Copyright ©2009 Laajala et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research article
Laajala, Teemu D
Raghav, Sunil
Tuomela, Soile
Lahesmaa, Riitta
Aittokallio, Tero
Elo, Laura L
A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title_full A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title_fullStr A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title_full_unstemmed A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title_short A practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in ChIP-seq experiments
title_sort practical comparison of methods for detecting transcription factor binding sites in chip-seq experiments
topic Research article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20017957
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-618
work_keys_str_mv AT laajalateemud apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT raghavsunil apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT tuomelasoile apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT lahesmaariitta apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT aittokalliotero apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT elolaural apracticalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT laajalateemud practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT raghavsunil practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT tuomelasoile practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT lahesmaariitta practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT aittokalliotero practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments
AT elolaural practicalcomparisonofmethodsfordetectingtranscriptionfactorbindingsitesinchipseqexperiments