MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169628276 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkn735

Optimization of experimental design parameters for high-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation studies

2008· article· en· W2169628276 on OpenAlexafffund
Romina Ponzielli, Paul C. Boutros, Sigal Katz, Angelina Stojanova, Adam P. Hanley, Fereshteh Khosravi, Christina Bros, Igor Jurišica, Linda Z. Penn

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsChromatin immunoprecipitationBiologyChIP-sequencingChIP-on-chipDNA microarrayComputational biologyChipImmunoprecipitationChromatinMicroarrayTiling arrayThroughputGene chip analysisMolecular biologyGeneticsComputer scienceDNAGene expressionGenePromoterTelecommunicationsChromatin remodeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-throughput, microarray-based chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-chip) technology allows in vivo elucidation of transcriptional networks. However this complex is not yet readily accessible, in part because its many parameters have not been systematically evaluated and optimized. We address this gap by systematically assessing experimental-design parameters including antibody purity, dye-bias, array-batch, inter-day hybridization bias, amplification method and choice of hybridization control. The combined performance of these optimized parameters shows a 90% validation rate in ChIP-chip analysis of Myc genomic binding in HL60 cells using two different microarray platforms. Increased sensitivity and decreased noise in ChIP-chip assays will enable wider use of this methodology to accurately and affordably elucidate transcriptional networks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207