ArticlePloS one2011
Statistical quantification of methylation levels by next-generation sequencing.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big data analysis using modern statistical and machine learning methods in medicine.International neurourology journal · 2014Review
- BayMeth: improved DNA methylation quantification for affinity capture sequencing data using a flexible Bayesian approach.Genome biology · 2014Article
- Epigenetics: relevance and implications for public health.Annual review of public health · 2014Review
- A novel method for identification and quantification of consistently differentially methylated regions.PloS one · 2014Article
- Characterization of undermethylated sites in Vibrio cholerae.Journal of bacteriology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRecently, next-generation sequencing-based technologies have enabled DNA methylation profiling at high resolution and low cost. Methyl-Seq and Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing (RRBS) are two such technologies that interrogate methylation levels at CpG sites throughout the entire human genome. With rapid reduction of sequencing costs, these technologies will enable epigenotyping of large cohorts for phenotypic association studies. Existing quantification methods for sequencing-based methylation profiling are simplistic and do not deal with the noise due to the random sampling nature of sequencing and various experimental artifacts. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the statistical issues related to the quantification of methylation levels for these emerging technologies, with the goal of developing an accurate quantification method.
methodsIn this paper, we propose two methods for Methyl-Seq quantification. The first method, the Maximum Likelihood estimate, is both conceptually intuitive and computationally simple. However, this estimate is biased at extreme methylation levels and does not provide variance estimation. The second method, based on bayesian hierarchical model, allows variance estimation of methylation levels, and provides a flexible framework to adjust technical bias in the sequencing process.
resultsWe compare the previously proposed binary method, the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method, and the bayesian method. In both simulation and real data analysis of Methyl-Seq data, the bayesian method offers the most accurate quantification. The ML method is slightly less accurate than the bayesian method. But both our proposed methods outperform the original binary method in Methyl-Seq. In addition, we applied these quantification methods to simulation data and show that, with sequencing depth above 40-300 (which varies with different tissue samples) per cleavage site, Methyl-Seq offers a comparable quantification consistency as microarrays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.