Cargando…

“Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response

BACKGROUND: Studies of protein association with DNA on a genome wide scale are possible through methods like ChIP-Chip or ChIP-Seq. Massive problems with false positive signals in our own experiments motivated us to revise the standard ChIP-Chip protocol. Analysis of chromosome wide binding of the a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schindler, Daniel, Waldminghaus, Torsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24053571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-638
_version_ 1782296745692102656
author Schindler, Daniel
Waldminghaus, Torsten
author_facet Schindler, Daniel
Waldminghaus, Torsten
author_sort Schindler, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies of protein association with DNA on a genome wide scale are possible through methods like ChIP-Chip or ChIP-Seq. Massive problems with false positive signals in our own experiments motivated us to revise the standard ChIP-Chip protocol. Analysis of chromosome wide binding of the alternative sigma factor σ(32) in Escherichia coli with this new protocol resulted in detection of only a subset of binding sites found in a previous study by Wade and colleagues. We suggested that the remainder of binding sites detected in the previous study are likely to be false positives. In a recent article the Wade group claimed that our conclusion is wrong and that the disputed sites are genuine σ(32) binding sites. They further claimed that the non-detection of these sites in our study was due to low data quality. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: We respond to the criticism of Wade and colleagues and discuss some general questions of ChIP-based studies. We outline why the quality of our data is sufficient to derive meaningful results. Specific points are: (i) the modifications we introduced into the standard ChIP-Chip protocol do not necessarily result in a low dynamic range, (ii) correlation between ChIP-Chip replicates should not be calculated based on the whole data set as done in transcript analysis, (iii) control experiments are essential for identifying false positives. Suggestions are made how ChIP-based methods could be further optimized and which alternative approaches can be used to strengthen conclusions. CONCLUSION: We appreciate the ongoing discussion about the ChIP-Chip method and hope that it helps other scientist to analyze and interpret their results. The modifications we introduced into the ChIP-Chip protocol are a first step towards reducing false positive signals but there is certainly potential for further optimization. The discussion about the σ(32) binding sites in question highlights the need for alternative approaches and further investigation of appropriate methods for verification.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3870955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38709552013-12-25 “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response Schindler, Daniel Waldminghaus, Torsten BMC Genomics Correspondence BACKGROUND: Studies of protein association with DNA on a genome wide scale are possible through methods like ChIP-Chip or ChIP-Seq. Massive problems with false positive signals in our own experiments motivated us to revise the standard ChIP-Chip protocol. Analysis of chromosome wide binding of the alternative sigma factor σ(32) in Escherichia coli with this new protocol resulted in detection of only a subset of binding sites found in a previous study by Wade and colleagues. We suggested that the remainder of binding sites detected in the previous study are likely to be false positives. In a recent article the Wade group claimed that our conclusion is wrong and that the disputed sites are genuine σ(32) binding sites. They further claimed that the non-detection of these sites in our study was due to low data quality. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: We respond to the criticism of Wade and colleagues and discuss some general questions of ChIP-based studies. We outline why the quality of our data is sufficient to derive meaningful results. Specific points are: (i) the modifications we introduced into the standard ChIP-Chip protocol do not necessarily result in a low dynamic range, (ii) correlation between ChIP-Chip replicates should not be calculated based on the whole data set as done in transcript analysis, (iii) control experiments are essential for identifying false positives. Suggestions are made how ChIP-based methods could be further optimized and which alternative approaches can be used to strengthen conclusions. CONCLUSION: We appreciate the ongoing discussion about the ChIP-Chip method and hope that it helps other scientist to analyze and interpret their results. The modifications we introduced into the ChIP-Chip protocol are a first step towards reducing false positive signals but there is certainly potential for further optimization. The discussion about the σ(32) binding sites in question highlights the need for alternative approaches and further investigation of appropriate methods for verification. BioMed Central 2013-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3870955/ /pubmed/24053571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-638 Text en Copyright © 2013 Schindler and Waldminghaus; 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 Correspondence
Schindler, Daniel
Waldminghaus, Torsten
“Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title_full “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title_fullStr “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title_full_unstemmed “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title_short “Non-canonical protein-DNA interactions identified by ChIP are not artifacts”: response
title_sort “non-canonical protein-dna interactions identified by chip are not artifacts”: response
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24053571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-638
work_keys_str_mv AT schindlerdaniel noncanonicalproteindnainteractionsidentifiedbychiparenotartifactsresponse
AT waldminghaustorsten noncanonicalproteindnainteractionsidentifiedbychiparenotartifactsresponse