CUT&Tag recovers up to half of ENCODE ChIP-seq histone acetylation peaks
Leyla AbbasovaiD, Paulina UrbanaviciuteiD, Di HuiD, Joy N. IsmailiD, Brian M. SchilderiD, Alexi NottiD, Nathan SkeneiD, Sarah J. MarziiD
Abstract
Techniques for genome-wide epigenetic profiling have been undergoing accelerated development toward recovery of high-quality data from bulk and single cell samples. DNA-protein interactions have traditionally been profiled via chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by next generation sequencing (ChIP-seq), which has become the gold standard for studying histone modifications or transcription factor binding. Cleavage Under Targets & Tagmentation (CUT&Tag) is a rapidly expanding new technique that enables profiling of such interactions in situ at high sensitivity and is adaptable to single cell applications. However, thorough evaluation and benchmarking against established ChIP-seq datasets are lacking. Here, we comprehensively benchmarked CUT&Tag for H3K27ac and H3K27me3 against published ChIP-seq profiles from ENCODE in K562 cells. Combining multiple new and published CUT&Tag datasets, there was an average recall of 54% known ENCODE peaks for both histone modifications. To optimize data analysis steps, we tested peak callers MACS2 and SEACR and identified optimal peak calling parameters. Considering both precision and recall of known ENCODE peaks, the peak callers were comparable in their performance, although peaks produced by MACS2 match ENCODE peak width distributions more closely. We found that reducing PCR cycles during library preparation lowered duplication rates at the expense of ENCODE peak recovery. Despite the moderate ENCODE peak recovery, peaks identified by CUT&Tag represent the strongest ENCODE peaks and show the same functional and biological enrichments as ChIP-seq peaks identified by ENCODE. Our workflow systematically evaluates the merits of methodological adjustments, providing a benchmarking framework for the experimental design and analysis of CUT&Tag studies, and will facilitate future efforts to apply CUT&Tag in human tissues and single cells.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 35
- FWCI
- 8.07
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- 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
- GoPeaks: Histone Modification Peak Calling for CUT&Tag
William M. Yashar, Garth Kong, … Theodore P. Braun·bioRxiv·Jan 10, 2022
- Discrepancies between ChIP-seq and CUT&Tag histone mark profiles are explained by GC content and chromatin accessibility
Eduardo Modolo, Lauren Patel, … Alon Goren·bioRxiv·Sep 26, 2026
- CUT&Tag for high-resolution epigenomic profiling from a low amount of Arabidopsis tissue
Yixuan Fu, Marc W. Schmid, Sara Simonini·Plant DirectPeer-reviewed·Apr 1, 2026
- The CUT&RUN Blacklist of Problematic Regions of the Genome
Anna Nordin, Gianluca Zambanini, … Claudio Cantù·bioRxiv·Nov 11, 2022
- Benchmarking Peak Calling Methods for CUT&RUN
Amin Nooranikhojasteh, Ghazaleh Tavallaee, Elias Orouji·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 25, 2025
- Benchmarking CUT&RUN analysis using motif enrichment
Luomeng Tan, Coby Viner, … Michael M. Hoffman·bioRxiv·Sep 14, 2026