Cited by 169Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Active promoters give rise to false positive ‘Phantom Peaks’ in ChIP-seq experiments

Open access
Jain, Dhawal, Baldi, Sandro, Zabel, Angelika, Straub, Tobias, Becker, Peter B.·2015·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) is widely used to identify chromosomal binding sites. Chromatin proteins are cross-linked to their target sequences in living cells. The purified chromatin is sheared and the relevant protein is enriched by immunoprecipitation with specific antibodies. The co-purifying genomic DNA is then determined by massive parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq).We applied ChIP-seq to map the chromosomal binding sites for two ISWI-containing nucleosome remodeling factors, ACF and RSF, in Drosophila embryos. Employing several polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies directed against their signature subunits, ACF1 and RSF-1, robust profiles were obtained indicating that both remodelers co-occupied a large set of active promoters.Further validation included controls using chromatin of mutant embryos that do not express ACF1 or RSF-1. Surprisingly, the ChIP-seq profiles were unchanged, suggesting that they were not due to specific immunoprecipitation. Conservative analysis lists about 3000 chromosomal loci, mostly active promoters that are prone to non-specific enrichment in ChIP and appear as 'Phantom Peaks'. These peaks are not obtained with pre-immune serum and are not prominent in input chromatin.Mining the modENCODE ChIP-seq profiles identifies potential Phantom Peaks in many profiles of epigenetic regulators. These profiles and other ChIP-seq data featuring prominent Phantom Peaks must be validated with chromatin from cells in which the protein of interest has been depleted.

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 · 10.1093/nar/gkv637

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • It remains unknown what proportion of candidate enhancers identified solely by biochemical marks are technical false positives or have enhancer-like features but no meaningful impact on expression of cis-encoded genes.

    “Although unquestionably useful, it remains unknown what proportion of candidate enhancers identified solely by biochemical marks are technical false positives130-132 or a product of having enhancer-like biochemical features but no meaningful impact on the expression of cis encoded genes133.”

    From Towards a comprehensive catalogue of validated and target-linked human enhancers (2020) · cites this paper as [132]

    The Discussion reports that some ChIP-seq enrichments may be false-positive Phantom Peaks and says it cannot determine which overlapping signals represent genuine binding. The cited paper does not assess candidate enhancers identified solely by biochemical marks or estimate what proportion of them are technical false positives. The separate claim about enhancer-like features without an effect on cis-gene expression is attached to citation 133, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [51]Kuwajima K. The molten state of a-lactalhunun FASEB J. 1996 10 102 109 8566530
  2. [60]Bradbury A. Plückthun A. Standarize antibodies Used in Research Nature 2015 518 27 29 25652980

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jain, D., Baldi, S., Zabel, A., Straub, T., & Becker, P. B.
Affiliations
Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Becker, Peter B.
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2015-06-27
Volume
43
Issue
14
Pages
6959-6968
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W1610193264
Cited by
156
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 2
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
ACF, Drosophila embryo, chromatin immunoprecipitation, modENCODE
MeSH terms
RNA Splicing Factors, Animals, Binding Sites, Drosophila, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Repressor Proteins, Transcription Factors, Artifacts, RNA-Binding Proteins, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Drosophila Proteins, Databases, Genetic, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, Chromosomes, Insect, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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