Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794707›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022

Systematic evaluation of cell-type deconvolution pipelines for sequencing-based bulk DNA methylomes.

Yunhee Jeong, Lisa Barros de Andrade E Sousa, Dominik Thalmeier, Reka Toth, Marlene Ganslmeier, Kersten Breuer, Christoph Plass, Pavlo Lutsik

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yunhee JeongDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lisa Barros de Andrade E SousaHelmholtz AI, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraβ e 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Dominik ThalmeierHelmholtz AI, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstraβ e 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Reka TothDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marlene GanslmeierDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kersten BreuerDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph PlassDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pavlo LutsikDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEEpigenomics (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation analysis by sequencing is becoming increasingly popular, yielding methylomes at single-base pair and single-molecule resolution. It has tremendous potential for cell-type heterogeneity analysis using intrinsic read-level information. Although diverse deconvolution methods were developed to infer cell-type composition based on bulk sequencing-based methylomes, systematic evaluation has not been performed yet. Here, we thoroughly benchmark six previously published methods: Bayesian epiallele detection, DXM, PRISM, csmFinder+coMethy, ClubCpG and MethylPurify, together with two array-based methods, MeDeCom and Houseman, as a comparison group. Sequencing-based deconvolution methods consist of two main steps, informative region selection and cell-type composition estimation, thus each was individually assessed. With this elaborate evaluation, we aimed to establish which method achieves the highest performance in different scenarios of synthetic bulk samples. We found that cell-type deconvolution performance is influenced by different factors depending on the number of cell types within the mixture. Finally, we propose a best-practice deconvolution strategy for sequencing data and point out limitations that need to be handled. Array-based methods-both reference-based and reference-free-generally outperformed sequencing-based methods, despite the absence of read-level information. This implies that the current sequencing-based methods still struggle with correctly identifying cell-type-specific signals and eliminating confounding methylation patterns, which needs to be handled in future studies.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyEpigenomeAlgorithmsBayes TheoremDNA Methylationcomputational epigeneticsdeconvolutionDNA methylomesheterogeneitysequencing

Identifiers

PMID35794707
PMCPMC9294431
OpenAlexW4284889914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.