A comparison of control samples for ChIP-seq of histone modifications
Christoffer FlensburgiD, Sarah A Kinkel, Andrew Keniry, Marnie Blewitt, Alicia OshlackiD
Abstract
The advent of high-throughput sequencing has allowed genome wide profiling of histone modifications by Chromatin ImmunoPrecipitation (ChIP) followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq). In this assay the histone mark of interest is enriched through a chromatin pull-down assay using an antibody for the mark. Due to imperfect antibodies and other factors, many of the sequenced fragments do not originate from the histone mark of interest, and are referred to as background reads. Background reads are not uniformly distributed and therefore control samples are usually used to estimate the background distribution at any given genomic position. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium guidelines suggest sequencing a whole cell extract (WCE, or \"input\") sample, or a mock ChIP reaction such as an IgG control, as a background sample. However, for a histone modification ChIP-seq investigation it is also possible to use a Histone H3 (H3) pull-down to map the underlying distribution of histones.\n\nIn this paper we generated data from a hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell population isolated from mouse foetal liver to compare WCE and H3 ChIP-seq as control samples. The quality of the control samples is estimated by a comparison to pull-downs of histone modifications and to expression data. We find minor differences between WCE and H3 ChIP-seq, such as coverage in mitochondria and behaviour close to transcription start sites. Where the two controls differ, the H3 pull-down is generally more similar to the ChIP-seq of histone modifications. However, the differences between H3 and WCE have a negligible impact on the quality of a standard analysis.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility 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
- WACS: Improving Peak Calling by Optimally Weighting Controls
Aseel Awdeh, Marcel Turcotte, Theodore J. Perkins·BMC BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 15, 2021
- To mock or not: a comprehensive comparison of mock IP and DNA input for ChIP-seq
Jinrui Xu, Michelle M. Kudron, … Mark Gerstein·Nucleic Acids ResearchPeer-reviewed·Dec 18, 2020
- Analysis of histone antibody specificity directly in sequencing data using siQ-ChIP
Ariana Kupai, Robert M. Vaughan, … Bradley M. Dickson·bioRxiv·Mar 8, 2023
- Systematic comparison of monoclonal versus polyclonal antibodies for mapping histone modifications by ChIP-seq
Michele Busby, Catherine Xue, … Alon Goren·Epigenetics & ChromatinPeer-reviewed·Nov 4, 2016
- Protocol for the development and use of spike-in control for chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) of chromatin-binding proteins
Jasbeer Singh Khanduja, Mo Motamedi·bioRxiv·May 13, 2025
- ChIPflow:from raw data to epigenomic dynamics
Maëlle Daunesse, Rachel Legendre, … Claudia Chica·bioRxiv·Feb 2, 2021