Response to the commentary by Melidis <i>et al.</i> on “Untargeted CUT&amp;Tag reads are enriched at accessible chromatin and restrict identification of potential G4-forming sequences in G4-targeted CUT&amp;Tag experiments”

In their Matters Arising commentary, Melidis et al. critically evaluate our work (Nucleic Acids Research, volume 53, gkaf678). In our response, we emphasize why our approach supports the validity of our conclusions. The authors' suggestion that we failed to include "explicit disclosure of the analytical methods and code" in our original publication is misleading; we used publicly available tools and disclosed explicit parameters and detailed methods for each process in our original publication. While the authors raise several important points, such as the difference in DNA recovery between targeted and untargeted samples, we argue that this difference does not abrogate the need to control for untargeted tagmentation. Due to the co-localization of G4s and preferential Tn5 tagmentation in accessible chromatin, our suggestion that G4 CUT&Tag data be validated is both reasonable and scientifically rigorous.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2025-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaf1338
Primary Topic
DNA Repair Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Response to the commentary by Melidis et al. on “Untargeted CUT&Tag reads are enriched at accessible chromatin and restrict identification of potential G4-forming sequences in G4-targeted CUT&Tag experiments”

Alicia K. Byrd, Matthew D. Thompson
Nucleic Acids Research
DNA Repair Mechanisms
article

Response to the commentary by Melidis et al. on “Untargeted CUT&Tag reads are enriched at accessible chromatin and restrict identification of potential G4-forming sequences in G4-targeted CUT&Tag experiments”

Alicia K. Byrd, Matthew D. Thompson
article en

Abstract

In their Matters Arising commentary, Melidis et al. critically evaluate our work (Nucleic Acids Research, volume 53, gkaf678). In our response, we emphasize why our approach supports the validity of our conclusions. The authors' suggestion that we failed to include "explicit disclosure of the analytical methods and code" in our original publication is misleading; we used publicly available tools and disclosed explicit parameters and detailed methods for each process in our original publication. While the authors raise several important points, such as the difference in DNA recovery between targeted and untargeted samples, we argue that this difference does not abrogate the need to control for untargeted tagmentation. Due to the co-localization of G4s and preferential Tn5 tagmentation in accessible chromatin, our suggestion that G4 CUT&Tag data be validated is both reasonable and scientifically rigorous.

Nucleic Acids ResearchVol. 53(22)
Lyon College (US), University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville (US), Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation (US), University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
DNA Repair Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.