Hide metadata

dc.contributor.authorSundaram, Arvind Y M
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Timothy
dc.contributor.authorBiondi, Shea
dc.contributor.authorBolduc, Nathalie
dc.contributor.authorBowman, Sarah K
dc.contributor.authorCamilli, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorChew, Yap C
dc.contributor.authorCouture, Catherine
dc.contributor.authorFarmer, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorJerome, John P
dc.contributor.authorLazinski, David W
dc.contributor.authorMcUsic, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Xu
dc.contributor.authorShazand, Kamran
dc.contributor.authorXu, Feng
dc.contributor.authorLyle, Robert
dc.contributor.authorGilfillan, Gregor D
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T03:37:02Z
dc.date.available2016-10-25T03:37:02Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationBMC Genomics. 2016 Oct 21;17(1):816
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/52938
dc.description.abstractBackground ChIP-seq is the primary technique used to investigate genome-wide protein-DNA interactions. As part of this procedure, immunoprecipitated DNA must undergo “library preparation” to enable subsequent high-throughput sequencing. To facilitate the analysis of biopsy samples and rare cell populations, there has been a recent proliferation of methods allowing sequencing library preparation from low-input DNA amounts. However, little information exists on the relative merits, performance, comparability and biases inherent to these procedures. Notably, recently developed single-cell ChIP procedures employing microfluidics must also employ library preparation reagents to allow downstream sequencing. Results In this study, seven methods designed for low-input DNA/ChIP-seq sample preparation (Accel-NGS® 2S, Bowman-method, HTML-PCR, SeqPlex™, DNA SMART™, TELP and ThruPLEX®) were performed on five replicates of 1 ng and 0.1 ng input H3K4me3 ChIP material, and compared to a “gold standard” reference PCR-free dataset. The performance of each method was examined for the prevalence of unmappable reads, amplification-derived duplicate reads, reproducibility, and for the sensitivity and specificity of peak calling. Conclusions We identified consistent high performance in a subset of the tested reagents, which should aid researchers in choosing the most appropriate reagents for their studies. Furthermore, we expect this work to drive future advances by identifying and encouraging use of the most promising methods and reagents. The results may also aid judgements on how comparable are existing datasets that have been prepared with different sample library preparation reagents.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsThe Author(s).
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleA comparative study of ChIP-seq sequencing library preparation methods
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2016-10-25T03:37:03Z
dc.creator.authorSundaram, Arvind Y M
dc.creator.authorHughes, Timothy
dc.creator.authorBiondi, Shea
dc.creator.authorBolduc, Nathalie
dc.creator.authorBowman, Sarah K
dc.creator.authorCamilli, Andrew
dc.creator.authorChew, Yap C
dc.creator.authorCouture, Catherine
dc.creator.authorFarmer, Andrew
dc.creator.authorJerome, John P
dc.creator.authorLazinski, David W
dc.creator.authorMcUsic, Andrew
dc.creator.authorPeng, Xu
dc.creator.authorShazand, Kamran
dc.creator.authorXu, Feng
dc.creator.authorLyle, Robert
dc.creator.authorGilfillan, Gregor D
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3135-y
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-56279
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/52938/1/12864_2016_Article_3135.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion
cristin.articleid816


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International