CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Universal chromatin state annotation of the mouse genome

Vu, Ha, Ernst, Jason·2023·Genome Biology
DOI 10.1186/s13059-023-02994-xPMC PMC10294404

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A large-scale application of the “stacked modeling” approach for chromatin state discovery previously provides a single “universal” chromatin state annotation of the human genome based jointly on data from many cell and tissue types. Here, we produce an analogous chromatin state annotation for mouse based on 901 datasets assaying 14 chromatin marks in 26 cell or tissue types. To characterize each chromatin state, we relate the states to external annotations and compare them to analogously defined human states. We expect the universal chromatin state annotation for mouse to be a useful resource for studying this key model organism’s genome.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s13059-023-02994-x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Mouse full-stack state emission parameters. A Each of the 100 rows in the heatmap corresponds to a mouse full-stack state. Each of the 901 columns corresponds to one input dataset. For each state and each dataset, the heatmap gives the probability within the state of observing a binary present call for the dataset’s signal. Above the heatmap, the first color bar indicates the assay/chromatin mark measured by each dataset. The second color bar shows the cell type groups associated with each dataset. The corresponding color legends are shown towards the bottom. The states are displayed in 16 groups based on biological interpretations indicated by the color legend at the bottom, with white space between each group. Full characterization of states is available in Additional file 2. The model’s transition parameters between states can be found in Additional file 1: Fig. S1. Columns are ordered such that datasets profiling the same chromatin marks are next to each other. B Each row corresponds to a full-stack state as ordered in A. The columns correspond to the top 10 datasets with the highest emission value for each state, in order of decreasing ranks, colored by their associated chromatin marks as in A. C Similar to B, but datasets are colored by the associated cell type groups. The cell type groups primarily associated with some of the enhancer states are noted inside the heatmap. A fully annotated version of Fig. 2B–C is provided in Additional file 3
Fig. 1 Mouse full-stack state emission parameters. A Each of the 100 rows in the heatmap corresponds to a mouse full-stack state. Each of the 901 columns corresponds to one input dataset. For each state and each dataset, the heatmap gives the probability within the state of observing a binary present call for the dataset’s signal. Above the heatmap, the first color bar indicates the assay/chromatin mark measured by each dataset. The second color bar shows the cell type groups associated with each dataset. The corresponding color legends are shown towards the bottom. The states are displayed in 16 groups based on biological interpretations indicated by the color legend at the bottom, with white space between each group. Full characterization of states is available in Additional file 2. The model’s transition parameters between states can be found in Additional file 1: Fig. S1. Columns are ordered such that datasets profiling the same chromatin marks are next to each other. B Each row corresponds to a full-stack state as ordered in A. The columns correspond to the top 10 datasets with the highest emission value for each state, in order of decreasing ranks, colored by their associated chromatin marks as in A. C Similar to B, but datasets are colored by the associated cell type groups. The cell type groups primarily associated with some of the enhancer states are noted inside the heatmap. A fully annotated version of Fig. 2B–C is provided in Additional file 3CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Mouse full-stack state enrichments for external genomic annotations. A Fold enrichments of mouse full-stack states with external genome annotations (“Methods” section). Each row corresponds to a state and each column corresponds to one external genomic annotation: coding sequences, CpG islands, exons, gene bodies (exons and introns), transcription end sites (TES), transcription start sites (TSS), TSS and 2-kb surrounding regions, assembly gaps, pseudogenes, blacklisted regions, repeat elements, annotated Zfp genes, and PhastCons conserved elements (“Methods” section). The last row shows the percentage of the genome that each external genome annotation covers. The heatmap colors are column-normalized, i.e., within each column, the colors of the cells are such that the highest values are colored red and the lowest values are colored white. B Each row indicates the states’ average LECIF score, indicating evidence at the functional genomics level of human-mouse conservation based on epigenetic annotations [22] (“Methods” section). The list of states with top average LECIF scores and highest enrichments with PhastCons elements is in Additional file 1: Fig. S9 and Additional file 4. C Average weighted expression of genes that overlap each full-stack state in different groups of cell types (“Methods” section). Each column in the heatmap corresponds to a cell group indicated at the top. Each row corresponds to a state, as ordered in A. D, E Positional enrichments of full-stack states relative to annotated D transcription start sites (TSS) and E transcription end sites (TES). Positive coordinate values represent the number of bases downstream in the 5′ to 3′ direction of transcription, while negative values represent the number of bases upstream. Each line shows the positional enrichments in a state. Lines are colored corresponding to the state group as indicated in A. F Geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of enrichments of full-stack states CTCF elements across 28 cell types (“Methods” section). States are displayed vertically in the same order as A. The mOpenC6-7 state showed the strongest enrichment for CTCF elements in all observed cell types. The geometric mean and standard deviation are calculated such that for each state, fold enrichment values of 0 are replaced by the state’s minimum non-zero value. The fold enrichment values accompanying this plot are available in Additional file 4
Fig. 2 Mouse full-stack state enrichments for external genomic annotations. A Fold enrichments of mouse full-stack states with external genome annotations (“Methods” section). Each row corresponds to a state and each column corresponds to one external genomic annotation: coding sequences, CpG islands, exons, gene bodies (exons and introns), transcription end sites (TES), transcription start sites (TSS), TSS and 2-kb surrounding regions, assembly gaps, pseudogenes, blacklisted regions, repeat elements, annotated Zfp genes, and PhastCons conserved elements (“Methods” section). The last row shows the percentage of the genome that each external genome annotation covers. The heatmap colors are column-normalized, i.e., within each column, the colors of the cells are such that the highest values are colored red and the lowest values are colored white. B Each row indicates the states’ average LECIF score, indicating evidence at the functional genomics level of human-mouse conservation based on epigenetic annotations [22] (“Methods” section). The list of states with top average LECIF scores and highest enrichments with PhastCons elements is in Additional file 1: Fig. S9 and Additional file 4. C Average weighted expression of genes that overlap each full-stack state in different groups of cell types (“Methods” section). Each column in the heatmap corresponds to a cell group indicated at the top. Each row corresponds to a state, as ordered in A. D, E Positional enrichments of full-stack states relative to annotated D transcription start sites (TSS) and E transcription end sites (TES). Positive coordinate values represent the number of bases downstream in the 5′ to 3′ direction of transcription, while negative values represent the number of bases upstream. Each line shows the positional enrichments in a state. Lines are colored corresponding to the state group as indicated in A. F Geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of enrichments of full-stack states CTCF elements across 28 cell types (“Methods” section). States are displayed vertically in the same order as A. The mOpenC6-7 state showed the strongest enrichment for CTCF elements in all observed cell types. The geometric mean and standard deviation are calculated such that for each state, fold enrichment values of 0 are replaced by the state’s minimum non-zero value. The fold enrichment values accompanying this plot are available in Additional file 4CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Vanhooren V, Libert C. The mouse as a model organism in aging research: usefulness, pitfalls and possibilities. Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12:8–21. · DOI
  2. Aitman TJ, Boone C, Churchill GA, Hengartner MO, Mackay TFC, Stemple DL. The future of model organisms in human disease research. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:575–82. · DOI
  3. Perlman RL. Mouse models of human disease: an evolutionary perspective. Evol Med Public Health. 2016;2016:170–6.
  4. Kazachenka A, Bertozzi TM, Sjoberg-Herrera MK, Walker N, Gardner J, Gunning R, et al. Identification, characterization, and heritability of murine metastable epialleles: implications for non-genetic inheritance. Cell. 2018;175:1259-1271.e13. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Snyder M, Hardison R, Ren B, Gingeras T, Gilbert DM, et al. An encyclopedia of mouse DNA elements (Mouse ENCODE). Genome Biol. 2012;13:1–5. · DOI
  6. Hon GC, Rajagopal N, Shen Y, McCleary DF, Yue F, Dang MD, et al. Epigenetic memory at embryonic enhancers identified in DNA methylation maps from adult mouse tissues. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1198–206. · DOI
  7. Tsai H-W, Grant PA, Rissman EF. Sex differences in histone modifications in the neonatal mouse brain. Epigenetics. 2009;4:47–53. · DOI
  8. Rugg-Gunn PJ, Cox BJ, Ralston A, Rossant J. Distinct histone modifications in stem cell lines and tissue lineages from the early mouse embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:10783–90. · DOI
  9. Ernst J, Kellis M. Discovery and characterization of chromatin states for systematic annotation of the human genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:817–25. · DOI
  10. Ernst J, Kellis M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat Methods. 2012;9:215–6. · DOI
  11. Hoffman MM, Buske OJ, Wang J, Weng Z, Bilmes JA, Noble WS. Unsupervised pattern discovery in human chromatin structure through genomic segmentation. Nat Methods. 2012;9:473. · DOI
  12. Libbrecht MW, Chan RC, Hoffman MM. Segmentation and genome annotation algorithms for identifying chromatin state and other genomic patterns. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17:e1009423. · DOI
  13. ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 2012;489:57–74. · DOI · Paper page
  14. van der Velde A, Fan K, Tsuji J, Moore JE, Purcaro MJ, Pratt HE, et al. Annotation of chromatin states in 66 complete mouse epigenomes during development. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1–15. · DOI
  15. Bogu GK, Vizán P, Stanton LW, Beato M, Di Croce L, Marti-Renom MA. Chromatin and RNA maps reveal regulatory long noncoding RNAs in mouse. Mol Cell Biol. 2015;36:809–19. · DOI
  16. Sugathan A, Waxman DJ. Genome-wide analysis of chromatin states reveals distinct mechanisms of sex-dependent gene regulation in male and female mouse liver. Mol Cell Biol. 2013;33:3594–610. · DOI
  17. Gorkin DU, Barozzi I, Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Huang H, Lee AY, et al. An atlas of dynamic chromatin landscapes in mouse fetal development. Nature. 2020;583:744–51. · DOI
  18. Ernst J, Kellis M. Chromatin-state discovery and genome annotation with ChromHMM. Nat Protoc. 2017;12:2478. · DOI
  19. Vu H, Ernst J. Universal annotation of the human genome through integration of over a thousand epigenomic datasets. Genome Biol. 2022;23:1–37. · DOI
  20. Kwon SB, Ernst J. Learning a genome-wide score of human–mouse conservation at the functional genomics level. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1–14. · DOI
  21. Wutz A. Gene silencing in X-chromosome inactivation: advances in understanding facultative heterochromatin formation. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:542–53. · DOI
  22. Yen A, Kellis M. Systematic chromatin state comparison of epigenomes associated with diverse properties including sex and tissue type. Nat Commun. 2015;6:1–13. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Smit AFA, Hubley R, Green P. RepeatMasker Open-4.0. 2013–2015. 2015.
  24. Ostuni R, Piccolo V, Barozzi I, Polletti S, Termanini A, Bonifacio S, et al. Latent enhancers activated by stimulation in differentiated cells. Cell. 2013;152:157–71. · DOI · Paper page
  25. The ENCODE Project Consortium, Moore JE, Purcaro MJ, Pratt HE, Epstein CB, Shoresh N, et al. Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes. Nature. 2020;583(699):710.
  26. Rosenbloom KR, Armstrong J, Barber GP, Casper J, Clawson H, Diekhans M, et al. The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D670–81. · DOI
  27. Kent WJ, Sugnet CW, Furey TS, Roskin KM, Pringle TH, Zahler AM, et al. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 2002;12:996–1006. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Frankish A, Diekhans M, Ferreira A-M, Johnson R, Jungreis I, Loveland J, et al. GENCODE reference annotation for the human and mouse genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D766–73. · DOI
  29. Amemiya HM, Kundaje A, Boyle AP. The ENCODE blacklist: identification of problematic regions of the genome. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–5. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Davis CA, Hitz BC, Sloan CA, Chan ET, Davidson JM, Gabdank I, et al. The Encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE): data portal update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:D794-801. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hitz BC, Lee J-W, Jolanki O, Kagda MS, Graham K, Sud P, et al. The ENCODE Uniform Analysis Pipelines. bioRxiv. 2023:2023.04.04.535623. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.04.535623v1 [cited 12 Jun 2023]. · DOI
  32. Kagda MS, Lam B, Litton C, Small C, Sloan CA, Spragins E, et al. Data navigation on the ENCODE portal. arXiv; 2023. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00006 [cited 12 Jun 2023]. · arXiv
  33. Vu H, Ernst J. Universal chromatin state annotation of the mouse genome. 2023. Available from: https://github.com/ernstlab/mouse_fullStack_annotations. · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Vu, H., & Ernst, J.
Venue
Genome Biology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-06-27
Volume
24
Issue
1
ISSN
1474-760X
DOI
10.1186/s13059-023-02994-x
PMC
PMC10294404
Cited by
37
References
5
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • National Institute of Health (DP1DA044371, UH3NS104095, U01HG012079)
  • National Science Foundation (2125664, 1254200)
  • UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center and Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California Los Angeles (Ablon Scholars Program)
  • National Institutes of Health (U01MH130995, U01MH105578)
  • Rose Hills Foundation (Rose Hills Innovator Award)

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