Abstract

BackgroundDNase-seq and ATAC-seq are broadly used methods to assay open chromatin regions genome-wide. The single nucleotide resolution of DNase-seq has been further exploited to infer transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) in regulatory regions through footprinting. Recent studies have demonstrated the sequence bias of DNase I and its adverse effects on footprinting efficiency. However, footprinting and the impact of sequence bias have not been extensively studied for ATAC-seq.ResultsHere, we undertake a systematic comparison of the two methods and show that a modification to the ATAC-seq protocol increases its yield and its agreement with DNase-seq data from the same cell line. We demonstrate that the two methods have distinct sequence biases and correct for these protocol-specific biases when performing footprinting. Despite the differences in footprint shapes, the locations of the inferred footprints in ATAC-seq and DNase-seq are largely concordant. However, the protocol-specific sequence biases in conjunction with the sequence content of TFBSs impact the discrimination of footprint from the background, which leads to one method outperforming the other for some TFs. Finally, we address the depth required for reproducible identification of open chromatin regions and TF footprints.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that the impact of bias correction on footprinting performance is greater for DNase-seq than for ATAC-seq and that DNase-seq footprinting leads to better performance. It is possible to infer concordant footprints by using replicates, highlighting the importance of reproducibility assessment. The results presented here provide an overview of the advantages and limitations of footprinting analyses using ATAC-seq and DNase-seq.

Highlights

  • DNase-seq and ATAC-seq are broadly used methods to assay open chromatin regions genome-wide

  • We report that Transcription factors (TFs) footprinting efficiency is closely linked to clear discrimination of the footprint from the background, which is dependent on the enzyme-specific biases and the sequence content of the transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs), making one method more preferable than the other for some TFs, with DNase-seq outperforming ATAC-seq in most cases

  • We address the largely open question on library depth that is required for identification of open chromatin regions and footprints, based on the irreproducible discovery rate (IDR) in conjunction with libraries sequenced to different depths

Read more

Summary

Introduction

DNase-seq and ATAC-seq are broadly used methods to assay open chromatin regions genome-wide. The discovery and characterization of cis-regulatory elements (CREs) such as promoters, enhancers, and insulators are instrumental in delineating the mechanisms of transcriptional gene regulation These tissue- and developmental stage-specific regulatory elements reside in nucleosome-free, accessible regions of the genome that are hypersensitive to nuclease attack [1]. A more recent technique, the assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing (ATAC-seq), employs Tn5 transposase enzymes that preferentially fragment and tag open regions [7]. Both protocols determine genome-wide chromatin accessibility and can locate distal and proximal CREs. Transcription factors (TFs) bound at CREs are major regulators of gene expression [8]. As protein-bound DNA is more resistant to cleavage with DNase I, leaving behind protected stretches of nucleotides or shortly “footprints”

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

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.