Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30961526›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Ranking genomic features using an information-theoretic measure of epigenetic discordance.

Garrett Jenkinson, Jordi Abante, Michael A Koldobskiy, Andrew P Feinberg, John Goutsias

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Garrett JenkinsonWhitaker Biomedical Engineering Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jordi AbanteWhitaker Biomedical Engineering Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael A KoldobskiyCenter for Epigenetics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Andrew P FeinbergCenter for Epigenetics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John GoutsiasWhitaker Biomedical Engineering Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. goutsias@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-3857
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY OF WILMS TUMOR RELATED GENES 11PR01CA054358 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ANDREW P. FEINBERG · 1991 to 2026
$5.5M
Integration of Genomics and the EnvironmentRM1HG008529 · NHGRI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FEINBERG, ANDREW P., THREADGILL, DAVID W. · 2016 to 2020
$5.3M
BWS and Embryonal Tumor Suppressor Genes on 11p15R37CA054358 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FEINBERG, ANDREW P. · 2001 to 2009
$4.0M
National Cancer Institute CA054358National Human Genome Research Institute HG008529National Science Foundation CCF-1656201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablishment and maintenance of DNA methylation throughout the genome is an important epigenetic mechanism that regulates gene expression whose disruption has been implicated in human diseases like cancer. It is therefore crucial to know which genes, or other genomic features of interest, exhibit significant discordance in DNA methylation between two phenotypes. We have previously proposed an approach for ranking genes based on methylation discordance within their promoter regions, determined by centering a window of fixed size at their transcription start sites. However, we cannot use this method to identify statistically significant genomic features and handle features of variable length and with missing data.

resultsWe present a new approach for computing the statistical significance of methylation discordance within genomic features of interest in single and multiple test/reference studies. We base the proposed method on a well-articulated hypothesis testing problem that produces p- and q-values for each genomic feature, which we then use to identify and rank features based on the statistical significance of their epigenetic dysregulation. We employ the information-theoretic concept of mutual information to derive a novel test statistic, which we can evaluate by computing Jensen-Shannon distances between the probability distributions of methylation in a test and a reference sample. We design the proposed methodology to simultaneously handle biological, statistical, and technical variability in the data, as well as variable feature lengths and missing data, thus enabling its wide-spread use on any list of genomic features. This is accomplished by estimating, from reference data, the null distribution of the test statistic as a function of feature length using generalized additive regression models. Differential assessment, using normal/cancer data from healthy fetal tissue and pediatric high-grade glioma patients, illustrates the potential of our approach to greatly facilitate the exploratory phases of clinically and biologically relevant methylation studies.

conclusionsThe proposed approach provides the first computational tool for statistically testing and ranking genomic features of interest based on observed DNA methylation discordance in comparative studies that accounts, in a rigorous manner, for biological, statistical, and technical variability in methylation data, as well as for variability in feature length and for missing data.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticEpigenomicsGenomicsDNA MethylationGenome, HumanHumansNeoplasmsProbabilityDNA methylationGene rankingGenomic feature analysisInformation theoryMethylation analysisMutual InformationWGBS data analysis

Identifiers

PMID30961526
PMCPMC6454630
OpenAlexW2941199342

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.