Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30184051›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Differential methylation values in differential methylation analysis.

Changchun Xie, Yuet-Kin Leung, Aimin Chen, Ding-Xin Long, Catherine Hoyo, Shuk-Mei Ho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Profiling Genome-Wide Methylation Patterns in Cattle Infected withInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Changchun XieDepartment of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Yuet-Kin LeungDepartment of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Aimin ChenDepartment of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Ding-Xin LongSchool of Public Health, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, China.
Catherine HoyoDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Shuk-Mei HoDepartment of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY RESEARCHP30ES006096 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI YADAV, JAGJIT S · 1992 to 2022
$35.4M
Developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphate and novel brominated flame retardants in childrenR01ES028277 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CHEN, AIMIN · 2017 to 2022
$3.4M
Longitudinal study of exposure to PBDEs and PFCs and child neurobehaviorR01ES020349 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI CHEN, AIMIN, LANPHEAR, BRUCE P · 2011 to 2015
$2.9M
Human developmental toxicity of metal mixture exposure from e-waste recyclingRC4ES019755 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI CHEN, AIMIN · 2010 to 2010
$1.7M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES006096NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES020349NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES028277NIEHS NIH HHS RC4 ES019755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationBoth β-value and M-value have been used as metrics to measure methylation levels. The M-value is more statistically valid for the differential analysis of methylation levels. However, the β-value is much more biologically interpretable and needs to be reported when M-value method is used for conducting differential methylation analysis. There is an urgent need to know how to interpret the degree of differential methylation from the M-value. In M-value linear regression model, differential methylation M-value ΔM can be easily obtained from the coefficient estimate, but it is not straightforward to get the differential methylation β-value, Δβ since it cannot be obtained from the coefficient alone.

resultsTo fill the gap, we have built a bridge to connect the statistically sound M-value linear regression model and the biologically interpretable Δβ. In this article, three methods were proposed to calculate differential methylation values, Δβ from M-value linear regression model and compared with the Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model. We showed that under the condition that M-value linear regression model is correct, the method M-model-coef is the best among the four methods. M-model-M-mean method works very well too. If the coefficients α0, α2,…αp are not given (as 'MethLAB' package), the M-model-M-mean method should be used. The Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model can give very biased results, especially when M-values are not in (-2, 2) or β-values are not in (0.2, 0.8). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The dataset for example is available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus repository, GSE104778. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationResearch DesignLinear Models

Identifiers

PMID30184051
PMCPMC6449748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.