↓ Skip to main content

Is this the right normalization? A diagnostic tool for ChIP-seq normalization

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Is this the right normalization? A diagnostic tool for ChIP-seq normalization
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0579-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Angelini, Ruth Heller, Rita Volkinshtein, Daniel Yekutieli

Abstract

Chip-seq experiments are becoming a standard approach for genome-wide profiling protein-DNA interactions, such as detecting transcription factor binding sites, histone modification marks and RNA Polymerase II occupancy. However, when comparing a ChIP sample versus a control sample, such as Input DNA, normalization procedures have to be applied in order to remove experimental source of biases. Despite the substantial impact that the choice of the normalization method can have on the results of a ChIP-seq data analysis, their assessment is not fully explored in the literature. In particular, there are no diagnostic tools that show whether the applied normalization is indeed appropriate for the data being analyzed. In this work we propose a novel diagnostic tool to examine the appropriateness of the estimated normalization procedure. By plotting the empirical densities of log relative risks in bins of equal read count, along with the estimated normalization constant, after logarithmic transformation, the researcher is able to assess the appropriateness of the estimated normalization constant. We use the diagnostic plot to evaluate the appropriateness of the estimates obtained by CisGenome, NCIS and CCAT on several real data examples. Moreover, we show the impact that the choice of the normalization constant can have on standard tools for peak calling such as MACS or SICER. Finally, we propose a novel procedure for controlling the FDR using sample swapping. This procedure makes use of the estimated normalization constant in order to gain power over the naive choice of constant (used in MACS and SICER), which is the ratio of the total number of reads in the ChIP and Input samples. Linear normalization approaches aim to estimate a scale factor, r, to adjust for different sequencing depths when comparing ChIP versus Input samples. The estimated scaling factor can easily be incorporated in many peak caller algorithms to improve the accuracy of the peak identification. The diagnostic plot proposed in this paper can be used to assess how adequate ChIP/Input normalization constants are, and thus it allows the user to choose the most adequate estimate for the analysis.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
France 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 97 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 23%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 25%
Computer Science 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 14 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,105,411
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,585
of 7,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,062
of 263,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#25
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 263,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.