MOTIVATION: Clusters of protein-DNA interaction events involving the same transcription factor are known to act as key components of invertebrate and mammalian promoters and enhancers. However, detecting closely spaced homotypic events from ChIP-Seq data is challenging because random variation in the ChIP fragmentation process obscures event locations. RESULTS: The Genome Positioning System (GPS) can predict protein-DNA interaction events at high spatial resolution from ChIP-Seq data, while retaining the ability to resolve closely spaced events that appear as a single cluster of reads. GPS models observed reads using a complexity penalized mixture model and efficiently predicts event locations with a segmented EM algorithm. An optional mode permits GPS to align common events across distinct experiments. GPS detects more joint events in synthetic and actual ChIP-Seq data and has superior spatial resolution when compared with other methods. In addition, the specificity and sensitivity of GPS are superior to or comparable with other methods. AVAILABILITY: http://cgs.csail.mit.edu/gps.
MOTIVATION: Clusters of protein-DNA interaction events involving the same transcription factor are known to act as key components of invertebrate and mammalian promoters and enhancers. However, detecting closely spaced homotypic events from ChIP-Seq data is challenging because random variation in the ChIP fragmentation process obscures event locations. RESULTS: The Genome Positioning System (GPS) can predict protein-DNA interaction events at high spatial resolution from ChIP-Seq data, while retaining the ability to resolve closely spaced events that appear as a single cluster of reads. GPS models observed reads using a complexity penalized mixture model and efficiently predicts event locations with a segmented EM algorithm. An optional mode permits GPS to align common events across distinct experiments. GPS detects more joint events in synthetic and actual ChIP-Seq data and has superior spatial resolution when compared with other methods. In addition, the specificity and sensitivity of GPS are superior to or comparable with other methods. AVAILABILITY: http://cgs.csail.mit.edu/gps.
Authors: Valer Gotea; Axel Visel; John M Westlund; Marcelo A Nobrega; Len A Pennacchio; Ivan Ovcharenko Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Joel Rozowsky; Ghia Euskirchen; Raymond K Auerbach; Zhengdong D Zhang; Theodore Gibson; Robert Bjornson; Nicholas Carriero; Michael Snyder; Mark B Gerstein Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2009-01-04 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Teemu D Laajala; Sunil Raghav; Soile Tuomela; Riitta Lahesmaa; Tero Aittokallio; Laura L Elo Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2009-12-18 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Anton Valouev; David S Johnson; Andreas Sundquist; Catherine Medina; Elizabeth Anton; Serafim Batzoglou; Richard M Myers; Arend Sidow Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Yong Zhang; Tao Liu; Clifford A Meyer; Jérôme Eeckhoute; David S Johnson; Bradley E Bernstein; Chad Nusbaum; Richard M Myers; Myles Brown; Wei Li; X Shirley Liu Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Arttu Jolma; Yimeng Yin; Kazuhiro R Nitta; Kashyap Dave; Alexander Popov; Minna Taipale; Martin Enge; Teemu Kivioja; Ekaterina Morgunova; Jussi Taipale Journal: Nature Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Anaïs F Bardet; Jonas Steinmann; Sangeeta Bafna; Juergen A Knoblich; Julia Zeitlinger; Alexander Stark Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Riku Katainen; Kashyap Dave; Esa Pitkänen; Kimmo Palin; Teemu Kivioja; Niko Välimäki; Alexandra E Gylfe; Heikki Ristolainen; Ulrika A Hänninen; Tatiana Cajuso; Johanna Kondelin; Tomas Tanskanen; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Heikki Järvinen; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Anna Lepistö; Eevi Kaasinen; Outi Kilpivaara; Sari Tuupanen; Martin Enge; Jussi Taipale; Lauri A Aaltonen Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 38.330