↓ Skip to main content

ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
483 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
ChIP-chip versus ChIP-seq: Lessons for experimental design and data analysis
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-12-134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua WK Ho, Eric Bishop, Peter V Karchenko, Nicolas Nègre, Kevin P White, Peter J Park

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) followed by microarray hybridization (ChIP-chip) or high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) allows genome-wide discovery of protein-DNA interactions such as transcription factor bindings and histone modifications. Previous reports only compared a small number of profiles, and little has been done to compare histone modification profiles generated by the two technologies or to assess the impact of input DNA libraries in ChIP-seq analysis. Here, we performed a systematic analysis of a modENCODE dataset consisting of 31 pairs of ChIP-chip/ChIP-seq profiles of the coactivator CBP, RNA polymerase II (RNA PolII), and six histone modifications across four developmental stages of Drosophila melanogaster.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 483 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 20 4%
United Kingdom 7 1%
France 6 1%
Switzerland 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Other 12 2%
Unknown 420 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 139 29%
Researcher 117 24%
Student > Master 60 12%
Student > Bachelor 38 8%
Other 20 4%
Other 66 14%
Unknown 43 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 250 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 102 21%
Computer Science 25 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 3%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 36 7%
Unknown 47 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2023.
All research outputs
#5,737,737
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#2,347
of 10,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,024
of 109,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#15
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,706 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.