Cargando…
ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis
BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by microarray hybridization (ChIP-chip) or high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) allows genome-wide discovery of protein-DNA interactions such as transcription factor bindings and histone modifications. Previous reports only compared a small...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21356108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-134 |
_version_ | 1782199721378447360 |
---|---|
author | Ho, Joshua WK Bishop, Eric Karchenko, Peter V Nègre, Nicolas White, Kevin P Park, Peter J |
author_facet | Ho, Joshua WK Bishop, Eric Karchenko, Peter V Nègre, Nicolas White, Kevin P Park, Peter J |
author_sort | Ho, Joshua WK |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by microarray hybridization (ChIP-chip) or high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) allows genome-wide discovery of protein-DNA interactions such as transcription factor bindings and histone modifications. Previous reports only compared a small number of profiles, and little has been done to compare histone modification profiles generated by the two technologies or to assess the impact of input DNA libraries in ChIP-seq analysis. Here, we performed a systematic analysis of a modENCODE dataset consisting of 31 pairs of ChIP-chip/ChIP-seq profiles of the coactivator CBP, RNA polymerase II (RNA PolII), and six histone modifications across four developmental stages of Drosophila melanogaster. RESULTS: Both technologies produce highly reproducible profiles within each platform, ChIP-seq generally produces profiles with a better signal-to-noise ratio, and allows detection of more peaks and narrower peaks. The set of peaks identified by the two technologies can be significantly different, but the extent to which they differ varies depending on the factor and the analysis algorithm. Importantly, we found that there is a significant variation among multiple sequencing profiles of input DNA libraries and that this variation most likely arises from both differences in experimental condition and sequencing depth. We further show that using an inappropriate input DNA profile can impact the average signal profiles around genomic features and peak calling results, highlighting the importance of having high quality input DNA data for normalization in ChIP-seq analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the biases present in each of the platforms, show the variability that can arise from both technology and analysis methods, and emphasize the importance of obtaining high quality and deeply sequenced input DNA libraries for ChIP-seq analysis. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3053263 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30532632011-04-06 ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis Ho, Joshua WK Bishop, Eric Karchenko, Peter V Nègre, Nicolas White, Kevin P Park, Peter J BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by microarray hybridization (ChIP-chip) or high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) allows genome-wide discovery of protein-DNA interactions such as transcription factor bindings and histone modifications. Previous reports only compared a small number of profiles, and little has been done to compare histone modification profiles generated by the two technologies or to assess the impact of input DNA libraries in ChIP-seq analysis. Here, we performed a systematic analysis of a modENCODE dataset consisting of 31 pairs of ChIP-chip/ChIP-seq profiles of the coactivator CBP, RNA polymerase II (RNA PolII), and six histone modifications across four developmental stages of Drosophila melanogaster. RESULTS: Both technologies produce highly reproducible profiles within each platform, ChIP-seq generally produces profiles with a better signal-to-noise ratio, and allows detection of more peaks and narrower peaks. The set of peaks identified by the two technologies can be significantly different, but the extent to which they differ varies depending on the factor and the analysis algorithm. Importantly, we found that there is a significant variation among multiple sequencing profiles of input DNA libraries and that this variation most likely arises from both differences in experimental condition and sequencing depth. We further show that using an inappropriate input DNA profile can impact the average signal profiles around genomic features and peak calling results, highlighting the importance of having high quality input DNA data for normalization in ChIP-seq analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the biases present in each of the platforms, show the variability that can arise from both technology and analysis methods, and emphasize the importance of obtaining high quality and deeply sequenced input DNA libraries for ChIP-seq analysis. BioMed Central 2011-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3053263/ /pubmed/21356108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-134 Text en Copyright ©2011 Ho 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 Ho, Joshua WK Bishop, Eric Karchenko, Peter V Nègre, Nicolas White, Kevin P Park, Peter J ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title | ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title_full | ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title_fullStr | ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title_short | ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
title_sort | chip-chip versus chip-seq: lessons for experimental design and data analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21356108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-134 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hojoshuawk chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis AT bishoperic chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis AT karchenkopeterv chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis AT negrenicolas chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis AT whitekevinp chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis AT parkpeterj chipchipversuschipseqlessonsforexperimentaldesignanddataanalysis |