Abstract
A common aim in ChIP-seq experiments is to identify changes in protein binding patterns between conditions, i.e. differential binding. A number of peak- and window-based strategies have been developed to detect differential binding when the regions of interest are not known in advance. However, careful consideration of error control is needed when applying these methods. Peak-based approaches use the same data set to define peaks and to detect differential binding. Done improperly, this can result in loss of type I error control. For window-based methods, controlling the false discovery rate over all detected windows does not guarantee control across all detected regions. Misinterpreting the former as the latter can result in unexpected liberalness. Here, several solutions are presented to maintain error control for these de novo counting strategies. For peak-based methods, peak calling should be performed on pooled libraries prior to the statistical analysis. For window-based methods, a hybrid approach using Simes’ method is proposed to maintain control of the false discovery rate across regions. More generally, the relative advantages of peak- and window-based strategies are explored using a range of simulated and real data sets. Implementations of both strategies also compare favourably to existing programs for differential binding analyses.
Highlights
Chromatin immunoprecipitation with sequencing (ChIPseq) is a widely used technique for the identification of protein binding sites in the genome
This paper provides some recommendations to maintain error control for de novo counting strategies
Some consideration of error rates is necessary when peakor window-based read counting is performed for a differential binding (DB) analysis
Summary
Chromatin immunoprecipitation with sequencing (ChIPseq) is a widely used technique for the identification of protein binding sites in the genome. ChIP-seq experiments are analysed by comparing the ChIP library with a negative control [1] to detect regions of absolute enrichment. Comparisons between ChIP-seq libraries can be performed to identify changes in enrichment patterns between different biological conditions [2,3,4]. Detection of differential binding (DB) between two conditions does not require a negative control library. This lowers costs when only relative binding is of interest. A DB analysis is easier to interpret as DB regions are more likely to be relevant to the biological difference under investigation
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.