Jointly characterizing epigenetic dynamics across multiple human cell types

Nucleic Acids Research

Volumn 44, Issue 14, 2016, Pages 6721-6731

  Zhang, Yu ^a   An, Lin ^b   Yue, Feng ^c   Hardison, Ross C ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PENN STATE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CANCER CELL LINE; CELLS BY BODY ANATOMY; CHROMATIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; DYNAMICS; EPIGENETICS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; GM12878 CELL LINE; HELA CELL LINE; HEPG2 CELL LINE; HIDDEN MARKOV MODEL; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; K562 CELL LINE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RNA SEQUENCE; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; UMBILICAL VEIN ENDOTHELIAL CELL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL LINE; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC EPIGENESIS; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT;

CELL LINE; DATABASES, GENETIC; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE;

EID: 84984985081     PISSN: 03051048     EISSN: 13624962     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw278     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Church,G.M. (2006) Genomes for all. Sci. Am., 294, 46-54.
2. Schuster,S.C. (2008) Next-generation sequencing transforms today's biology. Nat. Methods, 5, 16-18.
3. The ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012) An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489, 57-74.
4. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium, Kundaje,A., Meuleman,W., Ernst,J., Bilenky,M., Yen,A., Heravi-Moussavi,A., Kheradpour,P., Zhang,Z., Wang,J., Ziller,M.J. et al. (2015) Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature, 518, 317-330.
5. Ernst,J. and Kellis,M. (2012) ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods, 9, 215-216.
6. Hoffman,M.M., Buske,O.J., Wang,J., Weng,Z., Bilmes,J.A. and Noble,W.S. (2012) Unsupervised pattern discovery in human chromatin structure through genomic segmentation. Nat. Methods, 9, 473-476.
7. Hardison,R.C. (2012) Genome-wide epigenetic data facilitate understanding of disease susceptibility association studies. J. Biol. Chem., 287, 30932-30940.
8. Zeng,X., Sanalkumar,R., Bresnick,E.H., Li,H., Chang,Q. and Keleş,S. (2013) jMOSAiCS: joint analysis of multiple ChIP-seq datasets. Genome Biol., 14, R38.
9. Hamada,M., Ono,Y., Fujimaki,R. and Asai,K. (2015) Learning chromatin states with factorized information criteria. Bioinformatics, 31, 2426-2433.
10. Mortazavi,A., Pepke,S., Jansen,C., Marinov,G.K., Ernst,J., Kellis,M., Hardison,R.C., Myers,R.M. and Wold,B.J. (2013) Integrating and mining the chromatin landscape of cell-type specificity using self-organizing maps. Genome Res., 23, 2136-2148.
11. Biesinger,J., Wang,Y. and Xie,X. (2013) Discovering and mapping chromatin states using a tree hidden Markov model. BMC Bioinformatics, 14(Suppl 5), S4.
12. Sohn,K.A., Ho,J.W., Djordjevic,D., Jeong,H.H., Park,P.J. and Kim,J.H. (2015) hiHMM: Bayesian non-parametric joint inference of chromatin state maps. Bioinformatics, 31, 2066-2074.
13. Beal,M.J., Ghahramani,Z. and Rasmussen,C.E. (2002) The infinite hidden Markov model. NIPS, 14.
14. Libbrecht,M.W., Ay,F., Hoffman,M.M., Gilbert,D.M., Bilmes,J.A. and Noble,W.S. (2015) Joint annotation of chromatin state and chromatin conformation reveals relationships among domain types and identifies domains of cell-type-specific expression. Genome Res., 25, 544-557.
15. Antoniak,C.E. (1974) Mixtures of Dirichlet processes with applications to Bayesian nonparametric problems. Ann. Stat., 2, 1152-1174.
16. Sethuraman,J. (1994) A constructive definition of Dirichlet priors. Statistica Sinica, 4, 639-650.
17. Hoffman,M.M., Ernst,J., Wilder,S.P., Kundaje,A., Harris,R.S., Libbrecht,M., Giardine,B., Ellenbogen,P.M., Bilmes,J.A., Birney,E. et al. (2013) Integrative annotation of chromatin elements from ENCODE data. Nucleic Acids Res., 41, 827-841.
18. Harrow,J., Frankish,A., Gonzalez,J.M., Tapanari,E., Diekhans,M., Kokocinski,F., Aken,B.L., Barrell,D., Zadissa,A. and Searle,S. (2012) GENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project. Genome Res., 22, 1760-1774.
19. Andersson,R., Gebhard,C.,Miguel-Escalada,I., Hoof,I., Bornholdt,J., Boyd,M., Chen,Y., Zhao,X., Schmidl,C., Suzuki,T. et al. (2014) An atlas of active enhancers across human cell types and tissues. Nature, 507, 455-461.
20. Visel,A., Minovitsky,S., Dubchak,I. and Pennacchio,L.A. (2007) VISTA Enhancer Browser-a database of tissue-specific human enhancers. Nucleic Acids Res., 35, D88-D92.
21. Ziebarth,J.D., Bhattacharya,A. and Cui,Y. (2013) CTCFBSDB 2.0: a database for CTCF-binding sites and genome organization. Nucleic Acids Res., 41, D188-D194.
22. Welter,D., MacArthur,J., Morales,J., Burdett,T., Hall,P., Junkins,H., Klemm,A., Flicek,P., Manolio,T., Hindorff,L. et al. (2014) The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic Acids Res., 42, D1001-D1006.
23. Johnson,A.D., Handsaker,R.E., Pulit,S.L., Nizzari,M.M., O'Donnell,C.J. and de Bakker,P.I. (2008) SNAP: a web-based tool for identification and annotation of proxy SNPs using HapMap. Bioinformatics, 24, 2938-2939.
24. Erwin,G.D., Oksenberg,N., Truty,R.M., Kostka,D.,Murphy,K.K., Ahituv,N., Pollard,K.S. and Capra,J.A. (2014) Integrating diverse datasets improves developmental enhancer prediction. PLoS Comput. Biol., 10, e1003677.
25. Yen,A. and Kellis,M. (2015) Systematic chromatin state comparison of epigenomes associated with diverse properties including sex and tissue type. Nat. Commun., 6, 7973.
26. Kirkpatrick,S., Gelatt,C.D. Jr and Vecchi,M.P. (1983) Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science, 220, 671-680.
27. Borland,D. and Taylor,M.R. 2nd (2007) Rainbow color map (still) considered harmful. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 27, 14-17.
28. Mammana,A. and Chung,H.R. (2015) Chromatin segmentation based on a probabilistic model for read counts explains a large portion of the epigenome. Genome Biol., 16, 151.