DOI: 10.25402/btn.12090738
title: TADBD: a sensitive and fast method for detection of TAD boundaries

description: <br>Table S1. Simulated Hi-C datasets involved in the paper.<br>Table S2. Experimental Hi-C datasets involved in the paper.<br>Table S3. CHIP-Seq datasets involved in the paper.<br>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.<br>Figure S1. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data. <br>Figure S2. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data. <br>Figure S3. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data. <br>Figure S4. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including ground-truth, TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on simulated data.<br>Figure S5. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S6. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S7. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S8. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S9. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S10. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S11. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S12. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S13. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S14. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S15. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S16. Comparison of the TADs detected by different methods, including TADBD, HiCDB, IC-Finder, EAST, TopDom and HiCseg, on experimental data.<br>Figure S17. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.<br>Figure S18. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.<br>Figure S19. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.<br>Figure S20. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.<br>Figure S21. Comparison of the TAD boundaries detected by six different methods on experimental data.<br>Figure S22. Robustness of TADBD to parameters of five different sets of template sizes in a pairwise manner.<br>Figure S23. Comparison of robustness to changes in resolution between six different methods.