Systematic evaluation of factors influencing ChIP-seq fidelity

The authors analyze how sequencing depth, choice of control sample, paired-end versus single-end reads and the selection of peak-calling algorithm influence the interpretation of chromatin immunoprecipitation–sequencing (ChIP-seq) experiments. We evaluated how variations in sequencing depth and othe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature methods 2012-06, Vol.9 (6), p.609-614
Hauptverfasser: Chen, Yiwen, Negre, Nicolas, Li, Qunhua, Mieczkowska, Joanna O, Slattery, Matthew, Liu, Tao, Zhang, Yong, Kim, Tae-Kyung, He, Housheng Hansen, Zieba, Jennifer, Ruan, Yijun, Bickel, Peter J, Myers, Richard M, Wold, Barbara J, White, Kevin P, Lieb, Jason D, Liu, X Shirley
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The authors analyze how sequencing depth, choice of control sample, paired-end versus single-end reads and the selection of peak-calling algorithm influence the interpretation of chromatin immunoprecipitation–sequencing (ChIP-seq) experiments. We evaluated how variations in sequencing depth and other parameters influence interpretation of chromatin immunoprecipitation–sequencing (ChIP-seq) experiments. Using Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells, we generated ChIP-seq data sets for a site-specific transcription factor (Suppressor of Hairy-wing) and a histone modification (H3K36me3). We detected a chromatin-state bias: open chromatin regions yielded higher coverage, which led to false positives if not corrected. This bias had a greater effect on detection specificity than any base-composition bias. Paired-end sequencing revealed that single-end data underestimated ChIP-library complexity at high coverage. Removal of reads originating at the same base reduced false-positives but had little effect on detection sensitivity. Even at mappable-genome coverage depth of ∼1 read per base pair, ∼1% of the narrow peaks detected on a tiling array were missed by ChIP-seq. Evaluation of widely used ChIP-seq analysis tools suggests that adjustments or algorithm improvements are required to handle data sets with deep coverage.
ISSN:1548-7091
1548-7105
DOI:10.1038/nmeth.1985