|
@@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ limma
|
|
|
\begin_inset Float figure
|
|
|
wide false
|
|
|
sideways false
|
|
|
-status open
|
|
|
+status collapsed
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
\align center
|
|
@@ -1672,7 +1672,7 @@ limma
|
|
|
|
|
|
\end_inset
|
|
|
|
|
|
--like analysis features for count data
|
|
|
+-like analysis features for read count data
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -2061,7 +2061,7 @@ literal "false"
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Subsection
|
|
|
-ChIP-seq Peak calling
|
|
|
+Calling consensus peaks from ChIP-seq data
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -7350,8 +7350,8 @@ Consider also showing figure for distance to nearest peak center, and reference
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Subsection
|
|
|
-H3K4 and H3K27 promoter methylation has broadly the expected correlation
|
|
|
- with gene expression
|
|
|
+Correlations between gene expression and promoter methylation follow expected
|
|
|
+ genome-wide trends
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -7683,7 +7683,7 @@ RNA-seq
|
|
|
placement p
|
|
|
wide false
|
|
|
sideways false
|
|
|
-status open
|
|
|
+status collapsed
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
\align center
|
|
@@ -8433,8 +8433,8 @@ end{landscape}
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Subsection
|
|
|
-Effect of resting H3K4me2 and H3K4me3 promoter coverage landscapes on gene
|
|
|
- expression
|
|
|
+Association between resting H3K4me2 and H3K4me3 promoter coverage landscapes
|
|
|
+ and gene expression
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -9391,7 +9391,8 @@ end{landscape}
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Subsection
|
|
|
-Effect of resting H3K27me3 promoter coverage landscapes on gene expression
|
|
|
+Association between resting H3K27me3 promoter coverage landscapes and gene
|
|
|
+ expression
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -10052,6 +10053,22 @@ radius
|
|
|
should be selected for each direction.
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
+\begin_inset Flex TODO Note (inline)
|
|
|
+status open
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
+Sarah: I would have to search the literature, but I believe this has been
|
|
|
+ observed before.
|
|
|
+ The position relative to the TSS likely has to do with recruitment of the
|
|
|
+ transcriptional machinery and the space required for that.
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_inset
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
Figures
|
|
|
\begin_inset CommandInset ref
|
|
@@ -10922,11 +10939,15 @@ MACS
|
|
|
y.
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
+\begin_inset Note Note
|
|
|
+status open
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\begin_layout Subsection
|
|
|
Data quality issues limit conclusions
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
\begin_inset Flex TODO Note (inline)
|
|
|
status open
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -10937,6 +10958,11 @@ Is this needed?
|
|
|
\end_inset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_inset
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Section
|
|
@@ -11278,6 +11304,25 @@ resting
|
|
|
state that they started at.
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
+\begin_inset Flex TODO Note (inline)
|
|
|
+status open
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
+Sarah: Resting cells isolated straight from a person are probably never
|
|
|
+ going to look exactly the same as resting cells sitting in culture with
|
|
|
+ IL-2 to keep them alive.
|
|
|
+ I think there are valid biological reasons the two would look different.
|
|
|
+ A control one could consider would be to put resting memory cells into
|
|
|
+ culture for a few days without activation and then compare them to those
|
|
|
+ that have returned to rest.
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_inset
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
To better study the convergence hypothesis, a new experiment should be designed
|
|
|
using a model system for T-cell activation that is known to allow cells
|
|
@@ -11345,7 +11390,7 @@ not
|
|
|
\begin_inset Formula $^{+}$
|
|
|
\end_inset
|
|
|
|
|
|
- T-cells, such as ???.
|
|
|
+ T-cells, such as Th1, Th2, Treg, and Th17 cells.
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|
|
@@ -11353,7 +11398,9 @@ not
|
|
|
status open
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
-Suggest some T-cell subsets
|
|
|
+Sarah: I'm not sure such negative controls exist.
|
|
|
+ Even marks that haven't been linked to T cell differentiation are probably
|
|
|
+ just understudied.
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\end_inset
|
|
@@ -11475,6 +11522,20 @@ same
|
|
|
represents a distinct epigenetic state with a different function than either
|
|
|
double H3K4me2 or double H3K4me3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Standard
|
|
|
+\begin_inset Flex TODO Note (inline)
|
|
|
+status open
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\begin_layout Plain Layout
|
|
|
+Sarah: We don't currently have the technology to do this well, especially
|
|
|
+ not with two modifications in the same cell.
|
|
|
+\end_layout
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\end_inset
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
\end_layout
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin_layout Standard
|