Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Response clarifies the significance of analytical methods in G4-targeted CUT&Tag approaches, suggesting controls for untargeted tagmentation.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrd et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: