Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21698242›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Statistical quantification of methylation levels by next-generation sequencing.

Guodong Wu, Nengjun Yi, Devin Absher, Degui Zhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guodong WuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Nengjun Yi
Devin Absher
Degui Zhi

Funding

Epigenetic Determinants of Lipid Response to Dietary Fat and FenofibrateR01HL104135 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI ARNETT, DONNA K · 2010 to 2015
$5.5M
Bayesian Methods for Mapping Complex Epistatic GenesR01GM069430 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI YI, NENGJUN · 2005 to 2013
$2.3M
Genome-wide Structured Association Testing & Regional Admixture MappingR01GM077490 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI LIU, NIANJUN · 2007 to 2010
$1.1M
Algorithms for protein superfamily classification and function predictionR00RR024163 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI ZHI, DEGUI · 2009 to 2011
$740k
NCRR NIH HHS R00 RR024163NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL104135NIGMS NIH HHS 2R01 GM069430-06NIGMS NIH HHS GM077490NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM069430NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM077490
6 · The paper itself

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

DNA MethylationBayes TheoremCpG IslandsGenome, HumanHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID21698242
PMCPMC3115964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.