I'm currently investigating ChIP-seq vs. ChIP-exo for finding binding sites.

As far as I can tell, ChIP-exo seems to be better in every way than ChIP-seq... but then again, I'm not strong in this area.

Are there any weaknesses in the ChIP-exo approach?

  • $\begingroup$ just as a first pass I'd say the extra ligation and primer addition steps for CHP-exo might resolve fewer hits in a given run, though that might also make your results less noisy as well. $\endgroup$
    – shigeta
    Jun 6, 2012 at 13:54

1 Answer 1


ChIP-exo does seem to be the "ChIP-seq killer." I've seen Dr. Pugh present it a few times, and the audience is pretty much always impressed.

One thing I'd do if I were of the "experimental bent" would be to add random degenerate barcodes in the library prep to control for potential PCR artifacts. I imagine that since the "peaks" in ChIP-exo seem to be quite a bit narrower than ChIP-seq, I reckon it'd harder to use some coverage-in-local-neighborhood to remove such biases (assuming you wanted to do so).

To give you an idea of what I'm thinking of -- it would be somehow similar to what is depicted here.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.