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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ho, Joshua WK, Bishop, Eric, Karchenko, Peter V, Nègre, Nicolas, White, Kevin P, Park, Peter J
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