{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0398796087283672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024078254326561323, 'mean_word_length': 4.911111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ChEC-seq: a robust method to identify protein-DNA interactions genome-wide

Mittal et al. (2021; first brought to our attention in May 2019) have raised concerns regarding the Chromatin Endogenous Cleavage-sequencing (ChEC-seq) technique (Zentner et al., 2015) that may create a false impression that this method has fundamental flaws which prevent one from distinguishing between signal and noise. Although Mittal et al. focus on studies of the global co-activators SAGA, TFIID and Mediator that we were not involved in, we feel obliged to highlight here several of our own publications (Albert et al., 2019; Bruzzone et al., 2018; Hafner et al., 2018; Kubik et al., 2019; Kubik et al., 2018), as well as recent unpublished data, that employed ChEC-seq and directly addressed the observation raised by Mittal et al. that cleavage maps for various MNase fusion proteins often qualitatively resemble each other and those generated by “free” (unfused) MNase. Our studies lay out a clear path for determining sites of preferential factor localization by normalization of ChEC-seq experimental data to matched free-MNase controls. They also demonstrate the use of in vivo functional assays to assess ChEC-seq reliability and reveal examples where ChEC-seq identifies functional binding sites missed by conventional ChIP-seq analysis.