I would be interested in discussing normalization strategies for ChIP-seq data across (a large number of) samples. More specifically, how to account for library clonality artifacts, differences in IP efficiency and other ChIP-seq specific experimental sources of bias.
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
I came here this morning to start a very similar thread. So instead will bump this one, although I admit, I am not exactly sure what this subsection of the forum is for. If I need to start a new thread I can, just please let me know.
I have multiple ChIP-seq data sets for chromatin modifications that do not so much form peaks but instead have differential enrichment over specific genomic zones. But due to the difference in the total number of mapped reads per sample, normalization by number of mapped reads skews the data in the opposite direction of the biologist's expectations. The biologists proclaim that the difference in reads per sample is because in one sample there is more binding. And so I need a method that does not use mapped read counts as a normalization strategy.
What I imagine could be an interesting strategy, as I have no input controls to work with, would be to attempt to establish a baseline signal in regions that are not enriched for binding, but I feel I am in a bit of a chicken-meets-egg scenario here and cannot find a method that explains how to proceed.
Any help or hints would be greatly appreciated.
Comment
-
>The biologists proclaim that the difference in reads per sample is because in one sample there is more binding.
So you have different treatments with the same modification and they are saying that some treatments have more binding than others?
>What I imagine could be an interesting strategy, as I have no input controls to work with, would be to attempt to establish a baseline signal in regions that are not enriched for binding
What about using regions that are enriched in binding but that are expected to remain consistent across all samples? For example, when we do ChIP-qPCR for some active histone modifications we normalize to enrichment at the Gapdh promoter since it has a strong and consistent signal in all our treatments. It'd be up to the biologists to identify these positive controls sites, and probably having several would be better than just one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by biocomputer View PostSo you have different treatments with the same modification and they are saying that some treatments have more binding than others?
Yes, we are studying multiple modifications (multiple antibodies) and have 2 conditions (treatments) so I need a way to normalize data from the same antibody in different conditions to get differential binding. And from there, I assume that I can compare the differential binding between different antibodies without further normalization (an assumption cause I am not there yet...so am not totally sure).
Originally posted by biocomputer View PostWhat about using regions that are enriched in binding but that are expected to remain consistent across all samples? For example, when we do ChIP-qPCR for some active histone modifications we normalize to enrichment at the Gapdh promoter since it has a strong and consistent signal in all our treatments. It'd be up to the biologists to identify these positive controls sites, and probably having several would be better than just one.
In any event, this is a start and we are going to try it now. Thanks again.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
While isolating and preparing single cells for sequencing was historically the bottleneck, recent technological advancements have shifted the challenge to data analysis. This highlights the rapidly evolving nature of single-cell sequencing. The inherent complexity of single-cell analysis has intensified with the surge in data volume and the incorporation of diverse and more complex datasets. This article explores the challenges in analysis, examines common pitfalls, offers...-
Channel: Articles
Yesterday, 07:15 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Technological advances have led to drastic improvements in the field of precision medicine, enabling more personalized approaches to treatment. This article explores four leading groups that are overcoming many of the challenges of genomic profiling and precision medicine through their innovative platforms and technologies.
Somatic Genomics
“We have such a tremendous amount of genetic diversity that exists within each of us, and not just between us as individuals,”...-
Channel: Articles
05-24-2024, 01:16 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, Today, 06:58 AM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Today, 06:58 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 08:18 AM
|
0 responses
19 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Yesterday, 08:18 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 08:04 AM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Yesterday, 08:04 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-03-2024, 06:55 AM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-03-2024, 06:55 AM
|
Comment