Literature DB >> 18258921

Systematic evaluation of variability in ChIP-chip experiments using predefined DNA targets.

David S Johnson1, Wei Li, D Benjamin Gordon, Arindam Bhattacharjee, Bo Curry, Jayati Ghosh, Leonardo Brizuela, Jason S Carroll, Myles Brown, Paul Flicek, Christoph M Koch, Ian Dunham, Mark Bieda, Xiaoqin Xu, Peggy J Farnham, Philipp Kapranov, David A Nix, Thomas R Gingeras, Xinmin Zhang, Heather Holster, Nan Jiang, Roland D Green, Jun S Song, Scott A McCuine, Elizabeth Anton, Loan Nguyen, Nathan D Trinklein, Zhen Ye, Keith Ching, David Hawkins, Bing Ren, Peter C Scacheri, Joel Rozowsky, Alexander Karpikov, Ghia Euskirchen, Sherman Weissman, Mark Gerstein, Michael Snyder, Annie Yang, Zarmik Moqtaderi, Heather Hirsch, Hennady P Shulha, Yutao Fu, Zhiping Weng, Kevin Struhl, Richard M Myers, Jason D Lieb, X Shirley Liu.   

Abstract

The most widely used method for detecting genome-wide protein-DNA interactions is chromatin immunoprecipitation on tiling microarrays, commonly known as ChIP-chip. Here, we conducted the first objective analysis of tiling array platforms, amplification procedures, and signal detection algorithms in a simulated ChIP-chip experiment. Mixtures of human genomic DNA and "spike-ins" comprised of nearly 100 human sequences at various concentrations were hybridized to four tiling array platforms by eight independent groups. Blind to the number of spike-ins, their locations, and the range of concentrations, each group made predictions of the spike-in locations. We found that microarray platform choice is not the primary determinant of overall performance. In fact, variation in performance between labs, protocols, and algorithms within the same array platform was greater than the variation in performance between array platforms. However, each array platform had unique performance characteristics that varied with tiling resolution and the number of replicates, which have implications for cost versus detection power. Long oligonucleotide arrays were slightly more sensitive at detecting very low enrichment. On all platforms, simple sequence repeats and genome redundancy tended to result in false positives. LM-PCR and WGA, the most popular sample amplification techniques, reproduced relative enrichment levels with high fidelity. Performance among signal detection algorithms was heavily dependent on array platform. The spike-in DNA samples and the data presented here provide a stable benchmark against which future ChIP platforms, protocol improvements, and analysis methods can be evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18258921      PMCID: PMC2259103          DOI: 10.1101/gr.7080508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genome Res        ISSN: 1088-9051            Impact factor:   9.043


  32 in total

1.  BLAT--the BLAST-like alignment tool.

Authors:  W James Kent
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Segmental duplications: organization and impact within the current human genome project assembly.

Authors:  J A Bailey; A M Yavor; H F Massa; B J Trask; E E Eichler
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 9.043

3.  Repbase update: a database and an electronic journal of repetitive elements.

Authors:  J Jurka
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 11.639

4.  Unbiased mapping of transcription factor binding sites along human chromosomes 21 and 22 points to widespread regulation of noncoding RNAs.

Authors:  Simon Cawley; Stefan Bekiranov; Huck H Ng; Philipp Kapranov; Edward A Sekinger; Dione Kampa; Antonio Piccolboni; Victor Sementchenko; Jill Cheng; Alan J Williams; Raymond Wheeler; Brant Wong; Jorg Drenkow; Mark Yamanaka; Sandeep Patel; Shane Brubaker; Hari Tammana; Gregg Helt; Kevin Struhl; Thomas R Gingeras
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2004-02-20       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 5.  Progress and challenges in profiling the dynamics of chromatin and transcription factor binding with DNA microarrays.

Authors:  Sean E Hanlon; Jason D Lieb
Journal:  Curr Opin Genet Dev       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.578

6.  Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms.

Authors:  Rafael A Irizarry; Daniel Warren; Forrest Spencer; Irene F Kim; Shyam Biswal; Bryan C Frank; Edward Gabrielson; Joe G N Garcia; Joel Geoghegan; Gregory Germino; Constance Griffin; Sara C Hilmer; Eric Hoffman; Anne E Jedlicka; Ernest Kawasaki; Francisco Martínez-Murillo; Laura Morsberger; Hannah Lee; David Petersen; John Quackenbush; Alan Scott; Michael Wilson; Yanqin Yang; Shui Qing Ye; Wayne Yu
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 28.547

7.  Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences.

Authors:  G Benson
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1999-01-15       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  Preferred analysis methods for Affymetrix GeneChips revealed by a wholly defined control dataset.

Authors:  Sung E Choe; Michael Boutros; Alan M Michelson; George M Church; Marc S Halfon
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2005-01-28       Impact factor: 13.583

9.  Development and validation of a T7 based linear amplification for genomic DNA.

Authors:  Chih Long Liu; Stuart L Schreiber; Bradley E Bernstein
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2003-05-09       Impact factor: 3.969

10.  Model-based analysis of two-color arrays (MA2C).

Authors:  Jun S Song; W Evan Johnson; Xiaopeng Zhu; Xinmin Zhang; Wei Li; Arjun K Manrai; Jun S Liu; Runsheng Chen; X Shirley Liu
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.583

View more
  75 in total

Review 1.  Advantages and limitations of current network inference methods.

Authors:  Riet De Smet; Kathleen Marchal
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 60.633

2.  ChIPpeakAnno: a Bioconductor package to annotate ChIP-seq and ChIP-chip data.

Authors:  Lihua J Zhu; Claude Gazin; Nathan D Lawson; Hervé Pagès; Simon M Lin; David S Lapointe; Michael R Green
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Systematic comparison of microarray profiling, real-time PCR, and next-generation sequencing technologies for measuring differential microRNA expression.

Authors:  Anna Git; Heidi Dvinge; Mali Salmon-Divon; Michelle Osborne; Claudia Kutter; James Hadfield; Paul Bertone; Carlos Caldas
Journal:  RNA       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 4.942

4.  JAMIE: joint analysis of multiple ChIP-chip experiments.

Authors:  Hao Wu; Hongkai Ji
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Evaluation of affinity-based genome-wide DNA methylation data: effects of CpG density, amplification bias, and copy number variation.

Authors:  Mark D Robinson; Clare Stirzaker; Aaron L Statham; Marcel W Coolen; Jenny Z Song; Shalima S Nair; Dario Strbenac; Terence P Speed; Susan J Clark
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Genome-wide profiling of the core clock protein BMAL1 targets reveals a strict relationship with metabolism.

Authors:  Fumiyuki Hatanaka; Chiaki Matsubara; Jihwan Myung; Takashi Yoritaka; Naoko Kamimura; Shuichi Tsutsumi; Akinori Kanai; Yutaka Suzuki; Paolo Sassone-Corsi; Hiroyuki Aburatani; Sumio Sugano; Toru Takumi
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2010-10-11       Impact factor: 4.272

7.  Comments on sequence normalization of tiling array expression.

Authors:  Don Gilbert; Andreas Rechtsteiner
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-07-04       Impact factor: 6.937

8.  E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus versus nonconsensus binding sites.

Authors:  Alina Rabinovich; Victor X Jin; Roman Rabinovich; Xiaoqin Xu; Peggy J Farnham
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2008-10-03       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  A large-scale identification of direct targets of the tomato MADS box transcription factor RIPENING INHIBITOR reveals the regulation of fruit ripening.

Authors:  Masaki Fujisawa; Toshitsugu Nakano; Yoko Shima; Yasuhiro Ito
Journal:  Plant Cell       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 11.277

Review 10.  Analysis of epigenetic alterations to chromatin during development.

Authors:  Meghan E Minard; Abhinav K Jain; Michelle Craig Barton
Journal:  Genesis       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.487

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.