ArticleBMC genomics2021
Characterizing the properties of bisulfite sequencing data: maximizing power and sensitivity to identify between-group differences in DNA methylation.
Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive guide to genomeZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Review
- Cost-effective promoter methylation analysis via target long-read bisulfite sequencing: a case study in severe preterm birth.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Guidance for the design and analysis of cell-type-specific DNA methylation epidemiology studies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing Library Preparation for Sperm DNA Methylation Analyses: Manual and Automated Methods.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Mapping the epigenomic landscape of post-traumatic stress disorder in human cortical neurons.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Extensive differential DNA methylation between tuberculosis skin test positive and skin test negative cattle.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Beyond the base pairs: comparative genome-wide DNA methylation profiling across sequencing technologies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- CRISPR/dCas9 DNA methylation editing is heritable during human hematopoiesis and shapes immune progeny.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- DNA Methylation Analysis Identifies Novel Epigenetic Loci in Dilated Murine Heart upon Exposure to Volume Overload.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- An overview of DNA methylation-derived trait score methods and applications.Genome biology · 2023Review
- Comparative epigenome analysis using Infinium DNA methylation BeadChips.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Evaluation of nanopore sequencing for epigenetic epidemiology: a comparison with DNA methylation microarrays.Human molecular genetics · 2022Article
- Predicting male fertility from the sperm methylome: application to 120 bulls with hundreds of artificial insemination records.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Article
- A mammalian methylation array for profiling methylation levels at conserved sequences.Nature communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of sodium bisulfite treatment with highly-parallel sequencing is a common method for quantifying DNA methylation across the genome. The power to detect between-group differences in DNA methylation using bisulfite-sequencing approaches is influenced by both experimental (e.g. read depth, missing data and sample size) and biological (e.g. mean level of DNA methylation and difference between groups) parameters. There is, however, no consensus about the optimal thresholds for filtering bisulfite sequencing data with implications for the reproducibility of findings in epigenetic epidemiology.
resultsWe used a large reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) dataset to assess the distribution of read depth across DNA methylation sites and the extent of missing data. To investigate how various study variables influence power to identify DNA methylation differences between groups, we developed a framework for simulating bisulfite sequencing data. As expected, sequencing read depth, group size, and the magnitude of DNA methylation difference between groups all impacted upon statistical power. The influence on power was not dependent on one specific parameter, but reflected the combination of study-specific variables. As a resource to the community, we have developed a tool, POWEREDBiSeq, which utilizes our simulation framework to predict study-specific power for the identification of DNAm differences between groups, taking into account user-defined read depth filtering parameters and the minimum sample size per group.
conclusionsOur data-driven approach highlights the importance of filtering bisulfite-sequencing data by minimum read depth and illustrates how the choice of threshold is influenced by the specific study design and the expected differences between groups being compared. The POWEREDBiSeq tool, which can be applied to different types of bisulfite sequencing data (e.g. RRBS, whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS), targeted bisulfite sequencing and amplicon-based bisulfite sequencing), can help users identify the level of data filtering needed to optimize power and aims to improve the reproducibility of bisulfite sequencing studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.