↓ Skip to main content

Effective normalization for copy number variation in Hi-C data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
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
Effective normalization for copy number variation in Hi-C data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2256-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Servant, Nelle Varoquaux, Edith Heard, Emmanuel Barillot, Jean-Philippe Vert

Abstract

Normalization is essential to ensure accurate analysis and proper interpretation of sequencing data, and chromosome conformation capture data such as Hi-C have particular challenges. Although several methods have been proposed, the most widely used type of normalization of Hi-C data usually casts estimation of unwanted effects as a matrix balancing problem, relying on the assumption that all genomic regions interact equally with each other. In order to explore the effect of copy-number variations on Hi-C data normalization, we first propose a simulation model that predict the effects of large copy-number changes on a diploid Hi-C contact map. We then show that the standard approaches relying on equal visibility fail to correct for unwanted effects in the presence of copy-number variations. We thus propose a simple extension to matrix balancing methods that model these effects. Our approach can either retain the copy-number variation effects (LOIC) or remove them (CAIC). We show that this leads to better downstream analysis of the three-dimensional organization of rearranged genomes. Taken together, our results highlight the importance of using dedicated methods for the analysis of Hi-C cancer data. Both CAIC and LOIC methods perform well on simulated and real Hi-C data sets, each fulfilling different needs.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 30%
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,766,415
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,303
of 7,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,458
of 336,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#54
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.