Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34320181›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2021

Calling differentially methylated regions from whole genome bisulphite sequencing with DMRcate.

Timothy J Peters, Michael J Buckley, Yunshun Chen, Gordon K Smyth, Christopher C Goodnow, Susan J Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. metileneNature communications · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Timothy J PetersThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3690-5293
Michael J BuckleyThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.
Yunshun ChenThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Gordon K SmythThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Christopher C GoodnowThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.
Susan J ClarkThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria St, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5925-5030

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole genome bisulphite sequencing (WGBS) permits the genome-wide study of single molecule methylation patterns. One of the key goals of mammalian cell-type identity studies, in both normal differentiation and disease, is to locate differential methylation patterns across the genome. We discuss the most desirable characteristics for DML (differentially methylated locus) and DMR (differentially methylated region) detection tools in a genome-wide context and choose a set of statistical methods that fully or partially satisfy these considerations to compare for benchmarking. Our data simulation strategy is both biologically informed-employing distribution parameters derived from large-scale consortium datasets-and thorough. We report DML detection ability with respect to coverage, group methylation difference, sample size, variability and covariate size, both marginally and jointly, and exhaustively with respect to parameter combination. We also benchmark these methods on FDR control and computational time. We use this result to backend and introduce an expanded version of DMRcate: an existing DMR detection tool for microarray data that we have extended to now call DMRs from WGBS data. We compare DMRcate to a set of alternative DMR callers using a similarly realistic simulation strategy. We find DMRcate and RADmeth are the best predictors of DMRs, and conclusively find DMRcate the fastest.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticGenome, HumanBenchmarkingComputer SimulationCpG IslandsDNAGenomicsHumansSample SizeSequence Analysis, DNASulfitesWhole Genome SequencingDNAhydrogen sulfiteSulfites

Identifiers

PMID34320181
PMCPMC8565305

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.