Cited by 1,680Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

chromVAR: inferring transcription-factor-associated accessibility from single-cell epigenomic data

Open access
Schep, Alicia N, Wu, Beijing, Buenrostro, Jason D, Greenleaf, William J·2017·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Single-cell ATAC-seq (scATAC) yields sparse data that make conventional analysis challenging. We developed chromVAR (http://www.github.com/GreenleafLab/chromVAR), an R package for analyzing sparse chromatin-accessibility data by estimating gain or loss of accessibility within peaks sharing the same motif or annotation while controlling for technical biases. chromVAR enables accurate clustering of scATAC-seq profiles and characterization of known and de novo sequence motifs associated with variation in chromatin accessibility.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.4401

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar changes in TFBS accessibility were found using either ENCODE ChIP-seq data from K562 or predicted TF binding sites (JASPAR TF motifs and chromVAR).

    “We found similar changes in TFBS accessibility using either ENCODE ChIP-seq data from K562 or predicted TF binding sites (JASPAR TF motifs13 and chromVAR14)”
  • Prior work has shown that pooling five or more cells accurately reproduces chromatin accessibility profiles.

    “previous reports have shown that aggregation of five or more cells is sufficient toaccurately reproduce chromatin accessibility profiles (Satpathy et al., 2018; Schep et al., 2017).”
  • Single-cell chromatin accessibility data require specialized analysis methods that generate accessibility measurements either across groups of cells or across sets of genomic features.

    “Therefore, these data require specialized analysis methods that generate accessibility measurements either across groups of cells [62] or across sets of genomic features (e.g. based on ChIP-seq data or TFs) [63].”

    From Mapping gene regulatory networks from single-cell omics data (2018) · cites this paper as [63]

  • chromVAR uses predefined cistromes or determines them ab initio based on motif enrichment to calculate average bias-corrected Z-scores.

    “On the other hand, chromVAR uses predefined cistromes (defined as a set of cis-acting targets of a TF) or determines them ab initio based on motif enrichment to calculate average bias-corrected Z-scores [63].”

    From Mapping gene regulatory networks from single-cell omics data (2018) · cites this paper as [63]

  • chromVAR calculates per-cell deviation of accessibility across all motif-containing peaks while correcting for Tn5 insertion bias.

    “To obtain enrichment scores per cell, chromVAR can be used to calculate the deviation of accessibility across all motif-containing peaks per cell while correcting for the insertion bias of the Tn5 transposase”

    From Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities (2023) · cites this paper as [153]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schep, A. N., Wu, B., Buenrostro, J. D., & Greenleaf, W. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
  • Buenrostro, Jason D
  • Greenleaf, William J
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2017-08-21
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
975-978
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2750049634
Cited by
1,680
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 272 · 2025: 326 · 2024: 258 · 2023: 249 · 2022: 212 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 5
FWCI
21.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation ((DGE-114747, 114747)
  • Broad Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE-114747)
  • Society of Fellows, Harvard University
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (UM1HG009436, P50HG007735, T32HG000044)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM111990)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U19AI057266)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
chromatin accessibility, transcription factors, single-cell ATAC-seq, cell clustering
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Cell Line, Gene Expression Regulation, Software, Transcription Factors, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Epigenomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review