Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32252795›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2020

Leveraging biological and statistical covariates improves the detection power in epigenome-wide association testing.

Jinyan Huang, Ling Bai, Bowen Cui, Liang Wu, Liwen Wang, Zhiyin An, Shulin Ruan, Yue Yu, Xianyang Zhang, Jun Chen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Jinyan HuangState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. huangjy@sjtu.edu.cn.
Ling BaiState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Bowen CuiState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Liang WuState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Liwen WangDepartment of General Surgery, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Zhiyin AnState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Shulin RuanState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Institute of Hematology, National Research Center for Translational Medicine, Rui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Yue YuDivision of Digital Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Xianyang ZhangDepartment of Statistics, Texas A&M University, Blocker 449D, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. zhangxiany@stat.tamu.edu.
Jun ChenDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research and Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. chen.jun2@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpigenome-wide association studies (EWAS), which seek the association between epigenetic marks and an outcome or exposure, involve multiple hypothesis testing. False discovery rate (FDR) control has been widely used for multiple testing correction. However, traditional FDR control methods do not use auxiliary covariates, and they could be less powerful if the covariates could inform the likelihood of the null hypothesis. Recently, many covariate-adaptive FDR control methods have been developed, but application of these methods to EWAS data has not yet been explored. It is not clear whether these methods can significantly improve detection power, and if so, which covariates are more relevant for EWAS data.

resultsIn this study, we evaluate the performance of five covariate-adaptive FDR control methods with EWAS-related covariates using simulated as well as real EWAS datasets. We develop an omnibus test to assess the informativeness of the covariates. We find that statistical covariates are generally more informative than biological covariates, and the covariates of methylation mean and variance are almost universally informative. In contrast, the informativeness of biological covariates depends on specific datasets. We show that the independent hypothesis weighting (IHW) and covariate adaptive multiple testing (CAMT) method are overall more powerful, especially for sparse signals, and could improve the detection power by a median of 25% and 68% on real datasets, compared to the ST procedure. We further validate the findings in various biological contexts.

conclusionsCovariate-adaptive FDR control methods with informative covariates can significantly increase the detection power for EWAS. For sparse signals, IHW and CAMT are recommended.

Indexed as

AgingCpG IslandsData Interpretation, StatisticalDNA MethylationEpigenomeEpigenomicsHumansLupus Erythematosus, SystemicPhenotypeSmokingCovariateEWASFalse discovery rateMultiple hypothesis testing

Identifiers

PMID32252795
PMCPMC7132874

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.