Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jeannine
    Member
    • Sep 2009
    • 14

    ChIP-seq: distance to TSS

    Hi everyone,

    First I have to apologize for a probably stupid question, but I'm an absolute beginner in ChIP-seq data analysis. I tried to generate a graph showing the distance to TSS of my reads. I used the ENSEMBL TSS for this analysis. But now I'm not sure if I should use all the different transcripts (and hence TSS) for each gene or how do I pick the "most expressed" or "most likely" transcript?
    What is the right way to do it, or is there a way to only get the TSS of expressed/functional/main transcripts?

    Thanks,
    Jeannine
  • mudshark
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 138

    #2
    you simply need a list of expressed genes of your model system determined using RNASeq or expression microarray (look in the databases) and filter your TSS list.

    Comment

    • Simon Anders
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 995

      #3
      I assume you are referring to the TSS profile plots as used e.g. in Fig. 2 of Barksi et al. (2007).

      To get these, one usually takes a list of all TSSs and the find the reads close to the TSSs. Conceptually, you cut out the the coverage curves of your ChIP-Seq data in windows around all the TSSs, stack them on top of each other and add them up. See this thread for some options on how to do this.

      If you take all TSSs, your profile will put most weight on those TSSs which have many ChIP-Seq reads closeby. If you want to get a more detailed loo, you typically stratify the TSSs, e.g., by expression strength (which you get from RNA-Seq or microarray assays) or any other feature you hypothetize to influence your binding.

      Comment

      • ffinkernagel
        Senior Member
        • Oct 2009
        • 110

        #4
        I think Jeannine wants a plot showing the distance of each peak to the closest (annotated) TSS - ie. a histogram.

        For this she has been using the Ensembl gene starts, but is wondering whether to use the Ensembl transcript starts instead.

        Personally, I've come around to using the transcript starts - there are many instances where the ensembl genes are extended upstream from the refseq annotation and the 'internal' TSS is just as (or even more) sensible.
        I don't select among the TSS from a single gene though - I use every single (distinct) TSS for calculating the closest one to a given binding region.

        Comment

        • Simon Anders
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 995

          #5
          In a way, the TSS plots that I am talking about, approximately are histograms of distances to the closest TSS, with 1 bp bin size. So we are talking about the same thing. The trick is that you do not necessarily need to select one TSS per gene or take only the closest. If you take all the picture hardly changes, because the contribution from the "wrong" ones just adds uniform background noise, which sort of "lifts up" the curve without changing its shape. I'd probably have to draw a few pictures to make this clearer.

          Comment

          • ffinkernagel
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2009
            • 110

            #6
            Simon, I don't follow. You plot coverage, which might be up to 72 in a deduplicated 36 bp chip-seq experiment.
            But for the distance histogram plot, I'd add just one count per binding region (let's say we're using the summit).
            Plus the Distance histogram is essentially centered around binding regions, while your plot is centered around the TSS.
            How does one degenerate into the other?

            In my opinion, using less transcription start sites ('gene starts') will bias the histogram to be more flat - certainly the average distance to the next TSS will rise.

            Comment

            • mudshark
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2009
              • 138

              #7
              sorry I did not get it in the first place.

              I think that in order to appreciate all alternative TSS you should know which of the ones are actually used in the model system you are analyzing. Therefore you need for example RNA Polymerase or RNA Seq data to define the true TS start(s).

              On the other hand I agree with Simon, if you just go for the annotated gene start, you probably do not do much harm to the analysis. What's the fraction of wrongly annotated gene starts anyway?

              Comment

              • Simon Anders
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2010
                • 995

                #8
                Ok, you were talking of peaks, not reads. Sorry, I didn't read this properly.

                I had histone modifications in mind, such as in the Barski et al. paper, and there, peak calling will not work well, as these marks are often quite stretched out. Still, as you can see in this and similar papers, these "TSS profile" plots are quite informative for histone marks. I even think they may still useful in the case of more sharply peaked features such as TF binding sites, because it allows for an analysis without using a peak finder and so can sidestep issues relating to peak finding tuning parameters.

                Comment

                • ffinkernagel
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 110

                  #9
                  @simon: no harm done - just wanted to be clear whether I'd imagined the difference .

                  I also agree with you, for many datasets profile plots are more informative - especially since many TF peaks will overlap the transcription start site and you'll either use an arbitrary position for each one (such as the summit) or assign them to the '0 distance' bin.

                  @mudshark: "What's the fraction of wrongly annotated gene starts anyway?"
                  I wouldn't say wrongly annotated. There are many genes showing alternative promoter use, and ignoring these promoters will lead you to conclude that fewer of your peaks are associated with TSS.

                  I just did a quick check. Ensembl 64, Homo sapiens.
                  54013 annotated genes in the database. 14423 have transcript starts that are more than 1000 bp from each other. 9817 have transcript starts that are more than 10 kb apart.

                  So about 27% of all genes are annotated with alternative promoter usage.

                  Comment

                  • mudshark
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 138

                    #10
                    what if your ChIP target is (biologically) not preferentially associated with transcription start/PIC or RNA polymerase but is e.g. associated with splicing? wouldn't the approach to take the closest TSS bias the analysis (even more)?

                    and as regards the 27%, the question is still up how many of the alternative TSS are really used (in your model system)

                    Comment

                    • ffinkernagel
                      Senior Member
                      • Oct 2009
                      • 110

                      #11
                      I'm not sure I understand your point. If your hypothesis is 'my chip target associates with TSS', then yes, you will need to discount for the fact that 'more TSS' means 'lower average distance' - even for 'random' or non-TSS associated binding sites.
                      But a factor associated with splicing should have a large number of binding sites not overlapping a TSS.

                      and as regards the 27%, the question is still up how many of the alternative TSS are really used (in your model system)
                      I'd say the question would be which of the alternative TSS of each gene is used in a given model system.

                      Arguably, you could use the strongest / most prominent TSS for each gene in your given model system, if you had the RNA or PolII data.
                      But a gene might be 'off' (for any given value of off) while still having it's (inactive) TSS bound by your factor of choice.
                      That's still an association betwenn the factor and the TSS in my book - and you trade information about your model organism - which hopefully integrates any number of tissues and conditions - against the current cell (population) state in your particular model system.

                      I can imagine situations and questions where either view is the appropriate choice.

                      Regarding the question 'use Ensembl gene starts' vs 'use Ensembl transcript starts',
                      one should keep in mind that Ensembl will generally annotate the most 5` TSS in any condition as the gene start.
                      Last edited by ffinkernagel; 11-29-2011, 05:56 AM. Reason: adding a minor point

                      Comment

                      • mudshark
                        Senior Member
                        • Jan 2009
                        • 138

                        #12
                        it probably nails down to the question: what is your target protein?

                        if you have a general transcription factor you can assume a rather fixed distance to polymerase peaks (if there are any). but does that tell you anything about the TSS, what if you have one annotated TSS 500 bp upstream and another one 1500 bp downstream of your peak? do you take into account the 'type' of promoter?

                        if you have a specific transcription factor it already gets more problematic as you cannot assume a fixed distance to the TSS. what if the factor binds systematically to intronic enhancers?

                        if you are not sure if your factor is a bona fide transcription factor, you cannot assume anything.

                        given these uncertainties, i would settle with the idea that whatever you do is not entirely correct (as long as you don't have additional information). so why make a big fuzz about alternative TSS?

                        Comment

                        • Jeannine
                          Member
                          • Sep 2009
                          • 14

                          #13
                          What a nice discussion, thanks a lot for that, very informative!!

                          Anyway, for my purpose I decided to use all the TSS for each gene, as suggested. Even though I very much liked the idea of solely using the expressed transcripts in my system, I unfortunately only have microarray data (not transcript specific), but that will hopefully change soon (RNA-seq in work).

                          Thanks again,
                          Jeannine

                          Comment

                          • liweixie
                            Member
                            • Oct 2013
                            • 21

                            #14
                            Originally posted by mudshark View Post
                            you simply need a list of expressed genes of your model system determined using RNASeq or expression microarray (look in the databases) and filter your TSS list.
                            I would like to ask if I extract a list of interested genes from RNAseq that I would like to map their TSS region from the ChIPseq to draw a TSS plot. What can I do this?
                            Thanks!

                            Comment

                            • dpryan
                              Devon Ryan
                              • Jul 2011
                              • 3478

                              #15
                              Originally posted by liweixie View Post
                              I would like to ask if I extract a list of interested genes from RNAseq that I would like to map their TSS region from the ChIPseq to draw a TSS plot. What can I do this?
                              Thanks!
                              I would recommend using deepTools, namely the computeMatrix and plotProfile functions.

                              Comment

                              Latest Articles

                              Collapse

                              • seqadmin
                                Pathogen Surveillance with Advanced Genomic Tools
                                by seqadmin




                                The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for proactive pathogen surveillance systems. As ongoing threats like avian influenza and newly emerging infections continue to pose risks, researchers are working to improve how quickly and accurately pathogens can be identified and tracked. In a recent SEQanswers webinar, two experts discussed how next-generation sequencing (NGS) and machine learning are shaping efforts to monitor viral variation and trace the origins of infectious...
                                03-24-2025, 11:48 AM
                              • seqadmin
                                New Genomics Tools and Methods Shared at AGBT 2025
                                by seqadmin


                                This year’s Advances in Genome Biology and Technology (AGBT) General Meeting commemorated the 25th anniversary of the event at its original venue on Marco Island, Florida. While this year’s event didn’t include high-profile musical performances, the industry announcements and cutting-edge research still drew the attention of leading scientists.

                                The Headliner
                                The biggest announcement was Roche stepping back into the sequencing platform market. In the years since...
                                03-03-2025, 01:39 PM

                              ad_right_rmr

                              Collapse

                              News

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-20-2025, 05:03 AM
                              0 responses
                              49 views
                              0 reactions
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-19-2025, 07:27 AM
                              0 responses
                              57 views
                              0 reactions
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-18-2025, 12:50 PM
                              0 responses
                              50 views
                              0 reactions
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-03-2025, 01:15 PM
                              0 responses
                              201 views
                              0 reactions
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Working...