Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27556923›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

MBDDiff: an R package designed specifically for processing MBDcap-seq datasets.

Yuanhang Liu, Desiree Wilson, Robin J Leach, Yidong Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuanhang LiuGreehey Children's Cancer Research Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Desiree WilsonDepartment of Cellular and Structure Biology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Robin J LeachDepartment of Cellular and Structure Biology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Yidong ChenGreehey Children's Cancer Research Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. Cheny8@uthscsa.edu.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

TISSUE CULTURE---COREP30CA054174 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI Lei Zheng · 1991 to 2026
$59.1M
SAN ANTONIO CENTER OF BIOMARKERS OF RISK FOR PROSTATE CAU01CA086402 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI LEACH, ROBIN JEAN, THOMPSON, IAN M. · 2000 to 2018
$33.1M
Collaborative Research:Graphical models for characterizing global RNA methylationR01GM113245 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO · PI HUANG, YUFEI · 2014 to 2016
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA054174NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086402NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM113245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince its initial discovery in 1975, DNA methylation has been intensively studied and shown to be involved in various biological processes, such as development, aging and tumor progression. Many experimental techniques have been developed to measure the level of DNA methylation. Methyl-CpG binding domain-based capture followed by high-throughput sequencing (MBDCap-seq) is a widely used method for characterizing DNA methylation patterns in a genome-wide manner. However, current methods for processing MBDCap-seq datasets does not take into account of the region-specific genomic characteristics that might have an impact on the measurements of the amount of methylated DNA (signal) and background fluctuation (noise). Thus, specific software needs to be developed for MBDCap-seq experiments.

resultsA new differential methylation quantification algorithm for MBDCap-seq, MBDDiff, was implemented. To evaluate the performance of the MBDDiff algorithm, a set of simulated signal based on negative binomial and Poisson distribution with parameters estimated from real MBDCap-seq datasets accompanied with different background noises were generated, and then performed against a set of commonly used algorithms for MBDCap-seq data analysis in terms of area under the ROC curve (AUC), number of false discoveries and statistical power. In addition, we also demonstrated the effective of MBDDiff algorithm to a set of in-house prostate cancer samples, endometrial cancer samples published earlier, and a set of public-domain triple negative breast cancer samples to identify potential factors that contribute to cancer development and recurrence.

conclusionsIn this paper we developed an algorithm, MBDDiff, designed specifically for datasets derived from MBDCap-seq. MBDDiff contains three modules: quality assessment of datasets and quantification of DNA methylation; determination of differential methylation of promoter regions; and visualization functionalities. Simulation results suggest that MBDDiff performs better compared to MEDIPS and DESeq in terms of AUC and the number of false discoveries at different levels of background noise. MBDDiff outperforms MEDIPS with increased backgrounds noise, but comparable performance when noise level is lower. By applying MBDDiff to several MBDCap-seq datasets, we were able to identify potential targets that contribute to the corresponding biological processes. Taken together, MBDDiff provides user an accurate differential methylation analysis for data generated by MBDCap-seq, especially under noisy conditions.

Indexed as

SoftwareAlgorithmsComputational BiologyCpG IslandsDNA MethylationGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPoisson DistributionSequence Analysis, DNADifferentially methylationDifferential methylated regionsDNA methylationMBDCap-seqMBDDiffXBSeq

Identifiers

PMID27556923
PMCPMC5001203
OpenAlexW2514092872

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.