PICS: Probabilistic Inference for ChIP-seq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ChIP-seq combines chromatin immunoprecipitation with massively parallel short-read sequencing. While it can profile genome-wide in vivo transcription factor-DNA association with higher sensitivity, specificity, and spatial resolution than ChIP-chip, it poses new challenges for statistical analysis that derive from the complexity of the biological systems characterized and from variability and biases in its sequence data. We propose a method called PICS (Probabilistic Inference for ChIP-seq) for identifying regions bound by transcription factors from aligned reads. PICS identifies binding event locations by modeling local concentrations of directional reads, and uses DNA fragment length prior information to discriminate closely adjacent binding events via a Bayesian hierarchical t-mixture model. It uses precalculated, whole-genome read mappability profiles and a truncated t-distribution to adjust binding event models for reads that are missing due to local genome repetitiveness. It estimates uncertainties in model parameters that can be used to define confidence regions on binding event locations and to filter estimates. Finally, PICS calculates a per-event enrichment score relative to a control sample, and can use a control sample to estimate a false discovery rate. Using published GABP and FOXA1 data from human cell lines, we show that PICS' predicted binding sites were more consistent with computationally predicted binding motifs than the alternative methods MACS, QuEST, CisGenome, and USeq. We then use a simulation study to confirm that PICS compares favorably to these methods and is robust to model misspecification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".