Supplementary data.doc (13.2 MB)
TADBD: a sensitive and fast method for detection of TAD boundaries
dataset
posted on 2020-04-07, 09:08 authored by Hongqiang Lyu, Lin Li, Zhifang Wu, Tian Wang, Jiguang Zheng, Hongda WangTable S1. Simulated Hi-C datasets involved in the paper.
Table S2. Experimental Hi-C datasets involved in the paper.
Table S3. CHIP-Seq datasets involved in the paper.
Supplementary Methods. Simulating data with different levels of sequencing depth, TAD calling methods and parameters used in this study and biological significance of TAD boundary.
Figure S1. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data.
Figure S2. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data.
Figure S3. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data.
Figure S4. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data.
Figure S5. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S6. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S7. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S8. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S9. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S10. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S11. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S12. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S13. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S14. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S15. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S16. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.
Figure S17. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.
Figure S18. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.
Figure S19. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.
Figure S20. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.
Figure S21. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.
Figure S22. Robustness of TADBD to parameters of five different sets of template sizes in a pairwise manner.
Figure S23. Comparison of robustness to changes in resolution between six different methods.
