RECAP reveals the true statistical significance of ChIP-seq peak calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Chromatin Immunopreciptation (ChIP)-seq is used extensively to identify sites of transcription factor binding or regions of epigenetic modifications to the genome. A key step in ChIP-seq analysis is peak calling, where genomic regions enriched for ChIP versus control reads are identified. Many programs have been designed to solve this task, but nearly all fall into the statistical trap of using the data twice-once to determine candidate enriched regions, and again to assess enrichment by classical statistical hypothesis testing. This double use of the data invalidates the statistical significance assigned to enriched regions, thus the true significance or reliability of peak calls remains unknown. RESULTS: Using simulated and real ChIP-seq data, we show that three well-known peak callers, MACS, SICER and diffReps, output biased P-values and false discovery rate estimates that can be many orders of magnitude too optimistic. We propose a wrapper algorithm, RECAP, that uses resampling of ChIP-seq and control data to estimate a monotone transform correcting for biases built into peak calling algorithms. When applied to null hypothesis data, where there is no enrichment between ChIP-seq and control, P-values recalibrated by RECAP are approximately uniformly distributed. On data where there is genuine enrichment, RECAP P-values give a better estimate of the true statistical significance of candidate peaks and better false discovery rate estimates, which correlate better with empirical reproducibility. RECAP is a powerful new tool for assessing the true statistical significance of ChIP-seq peak calls. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The RECAP software is available through www.perkinslab.ca or on github at https://github.com/theodorejperkins/RECAP. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.026 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".