Benchmarking peak calling methods for CUT&RUN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Cleavage Under Targets and Release Using Nuclease (CUT&RUN) has rapidly gained prominence as an effective approach for mapping protein-DNA interactions, especially histone modifications, offering substantial improvements over conventional chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq). However, the effectiveness of this technique is contingent upon accurate peak identification, necessitating the use of optimal peak calling methods tailored to the unique characteristics of CUT&RUN data. RESULTS: Here, we benchmark four prominent peak calling tools, MACS2, SEACR, GoPeaks, and LanceOtron, evaluating their performance in identifying peaks from CUT&RUN datasets. Our analysis utilizes in-house data of three histone marks (H3K4me3, H3K27ac, and H3K27me3) from mouse brain tissue, as well as samples from the 4D Nucleome database. We systematically assess these tools based on parameters such as the number of peaks called, peak length distribution, signal enrichment, and reproducibility across biological replicates. Our findings reveal substantial variability in peak calling efficacy, with each method demonstrating distinct strengths in sensitivity, precision, and applicability depending on the histone mark in question. These insights provide a comprehensive evaluation that will assist in selecting the most suitable peak caller for high-confidence identification of regions of interest in CUT&RUN experiments, ultimately enhancing the study of chromatin dynamics and transcriptional regulation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The CUT&RUN data generated in this study have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under the accession number GSE282809. All the 4D Nucleome datasets can be obtained from the 4D Nucleome Data Portal (https://data.4dnucleome.org/). All scripts used for data processing, figure generation, and analysis are available in the following GitHub repository: https://github.com/OroujiLab/CUTandRun_Peak_Calling/, and have also been archived on Zenodo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".