Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34126923›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

Characterizing the properties of bisulfite sequencing data: maximizing power and sensitivity to identify between-group differences in DNA methylation.

Dorothea Seiler Vellame, Isabel Castanho, Aisha Dahir, Jonathan Mill, Eilis Hannon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A comprehensive guide to genomeZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Dorothea Seiler VellameCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. ds420@exeter.ac.uk.
Isabel CastanhoCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Aisha DahirCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Jonathan Mill *College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. j.mill@exeter.ac.uk.
Eilis Hannon *College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. e.j.hannon@exeter.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_14127Medical Research Council MR/M008924/1Medical Research Council MR/R005176/1
6 · The paper itself

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

DNA MethylationSulfitesEpigenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNAhydrogen sulfiteSulfitesBisulfite sequencingDNA methylationEpigeneticsPowerRead depthRRBSSample size

Identifiers

PMID34126923
PMCPMC8204428

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.