Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26156501›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

An evaluation of statistical methods for DNA methylation microarray data analysis.

Dongmei Li, Zidian Xie, Marc Le Pape, Timothy Dye

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Performance ofBMJ open · 2024
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Dongmei LiClinical and Translational Science Institute, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, 265 Crittenden Boulevard CU 420708, Rochester, 14642, NY, USA. dongmei_li@urmc.rochester.edu.
Zidian XieDepartment of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, 265 Crittenden Boulevard CU 420708, Rochester, 14642, NY, USA. xzd482@yahoo.com.
Marc Le PapeJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, 651 Ilalo Street 101, Honolulu, 96813, HI, USA. lepape@hawaii.edu.
Timothy DyeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester, 500 Red Creek Drive Suite 220, Rochester, 14623, NY, USA. Tim_Dye@URMC.Rochester.edu.

Funding

The University of Rochester's Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000042 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI BENNETT, NANCY M, KIEBURTZ, KARL D. · 2012 to 2015
$14.4M
Pacific Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases ResearchP20GM103516 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI YANAGIHARA, RICHARD · 2012 to 2014
$6.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000042NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103516NIGMS NIH HHS P20GM103516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA methylation offers an excellent example for elucidating how epigenetic information affects gene expression. β values and M values are commonly used to quantify DNA methylation. Statistical methods applicable to DNA methylation data analysis span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutation test, empirical Bayes method, and bump hunting method. Nonetheless, selection of an optimal statistical method can be challenging when different methods generate inconsistent results from the same data set.

resultsWe compared six statistical approaches relevant to DNA methylation microarray analysis in terms of false discovery rate control, statistical power, and stability through simulation studies and real data examples. Observable differences were noticed between β values and M values only when methylation levels were correlated across CpG loci. For small sample size (n=3 or 6 in each group), both the empirical Bayes and bump hunting methods showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG loci were independent. Only the bump hunting method showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG sites were correlated. For medium (n=12 in each group) and large sample sizes (n=24 in each group), all methods compared had similar power, except for the permutation test whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was low. For all sample sizes, the bump hunting method had the lowest stability in terms of standard deviation of total discoveries whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was large. The apparent test power comparisons based on raw p-values from DNA methylation studies on ovarian cancer and rheumatoid arthritis provided results as consistent as those obtained in the simulation studies. Overall, these results provide guidance for optimal statistical methods selection under different scenarios.

conclusionsFor DNA methylation studies with small sample size, the bump hunting method and the empirical Bayes method are recommended when DNA methylation levels across CpG loci are independent, while only the bump hunting method is recommended when DNA methylation levels are correlated across CpG loci. All methods are acceptable for medium or large sample sizes.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDNA MethylationModels, StatisticalArthritis, RheumatoidBayes TheoremFemaleHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsSample SizeStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

PMID26156501
PMCPMC4497424

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.