STARRPeaker: Uniform processing and accurate identification of STARR-seq active regions
Donghoon LeeiD, Manman Shi, Jennifer R. MoraniD, Martha Wall, Jing ZhangiD, Jason J. LiuiD, Dominic FitzgeraldiD, Yasuhiro KyonoiD, Lijia MaiD, Kevin P. WhiteiD, Mark GersteiniD
Abstract
BackgroundHigh-throughput reporter assays, such as self-transcribing active regulatory region sequencing (STARR-seq), allow for unbiased and quantitative assessment of enhancers at a genome-wide scale. Recent advances in STARR-seq technology have employed progressively more complex genomic libraries and increased sequencing depths, to assay larger sized regions, up to the entire human genome. These advances necessitate a reliable processing pipeline and peak-calling algorithm. ResultsMost STARR-seq studies have relied on chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) processing pipelines. However, there are key differences in STARR-seq versus ChIP-seq. First, STARR-seq uses transcribed RNA to measure the activity of an enhancer, making an accurate determination of the basal transcription rate important. Second, STARR-seq coverage is highly non-uniform, overdispersed, and often confounded by sequencing biases, such as GC content and mappability. Lastly, here, we observed a clear correlation between RNA thermodynamic stability and STARR-seq readout, suggesting that STARR-seq may be sensitive to RNA secondary structure and stability. Considering these findings, we developed a negative-binomial regression framework for uniformly processing STARR-seq data, called STARRPeaker. In support of this, we generated whole-genome STARR-seq data from the HepG2 and K562 human cell lines and applied STARRPeaker to call enhancers. ConclusionsWe show STARRPeaker can unbiasedly detect active enhancers from both captured and whole-genome STARR-seq data. Specifically, we report [~]33,000 and [~]20,000 candidate enhancers from HepG2 and K562, respectively. Moreover, we show that STARRPeaker outperforms other peak callers in terms of identifying known enhancers with fewer false positives. Overall, we demonstrate an optimized processing framework for STARR-seq experiments can identify putative enhancers while addressing potential confounders.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 62
- FWCI
- 2.59
- Field percentile
- top 9%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Underlying causes for prevalent false positives and false negatives in STARR-seq data
Pengyu Ni, Siwen Wu, Zhengchang Su·NAR Genomics and BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 5, 2023
- Resolving a Systematic Error in STARR-seq for QuantitativeEnhancer Activity Mapping
Longjian Niu, Jing Wan, … Chunhui Hou·bioRxiv·Oct 20, 2020
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Diverse Massively Parallel Reporter Assays to Functionally Characterize Human Enhancers Genome-wide
Junke Zhang, Alden King-Yung Leung, … Haiyuan Yu·Genome biologyPeer-reviewed·Nov 3, 2025
- Identification of Barley Enhancers across Genome via STARR-seq
Wanlin Zhou, Haoran Shi, … Yaxi Liu·bioRxiv·Dec 10, 2022
- Challenges and considerations for reproducibility of STARR-seq assays
Maitreya Das, Ayaan Hossain, … Santhosh Girirajan·Genome ResearchPeer-reviewed·Apr 1, 2023
- Global Quantitative Mapping of Enhancers in Rice Genome by STARR-seq
Jialei Sun, Na He, … Chunhui Hou·Genomics Proteomics & BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 1, 2019