Cargando…

Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods

RNA methylation has emerged recently as an active research domain to study post-transcriptional alteration in gene expression regulation. Various types of RNA methylation, including N6-methyladenosine (m(6)A), are involved in human disease development. As a newly developed sequencing biotechnology t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duan, Daoyu, Tang, Wen, Wang, Runshu, Guo, Zhenxing, Feng, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10199761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37039682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad139
_version_ 1785044999842299904
author Duan, Daoyu
Tang, Wen
Wang, Runshu
Guo, Zhenxing
Feng, Hao
author_facet Duan, Daoyu
Tang, Wen
Wang, Runshu
Guo, Zhenxing
Feng, Hao
author_sort Duan, Daoyu
collection PubMed
description RNA methylation has emerged recently as an active research domain to study post-transcriptional alteration in gene expression regulation. Various types of RNA methylation, including N6-methyladenosine (m(6)A), are involved in human disease development. As a newly developed sequencing biotechnology to quantify the m(6)A level on a transcriptome-wide scale, MeRIP-seq expands RNA epigenetics study in both basic and clinical applications, with an upward trend. One of the fundamental questions in RNA methylation data analysis is to identify the Differentially Methylated Regions (DMRs), by contrasting cases and controls. Multiple statistical approaches have been recently developed for DMR detection, but there is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for these analytical methods. Here, we thoroughly assess all eight existing methods for DMR calling, using both synthetic and real data. Our simulation adopts a Gamma–Poisson model and logit linear framework, and accommodates various sample sizes and DMR proportions for benchmarking. For all methods, low sensitivities are observed among regions with low input levels, but they can be drastically boosted by an increase in sample size. TRESS and exomePeak2 perform the best using metrics of detection precision, FDR, type I error control and runtime, though hampered by low sensitivity. DRME and exomePeak obtain high sensitivities, at the expense of inflated FDR and type I error. Analyses on three real datasets suggest differential preference on identified DMR length and uniquely discovered regions, between these methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10199761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101997612023-05-21 Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods Duan, Daoyu Tang, Wen Wang, Runshu Guo, Zhenxing Feng, Hao Brief Bioinform Review RNA methylation has emerged recently as an active research domain to study post-transcriptional alteration in gene expression regulation. Various types of RNA methylation, including N6-methyladenosine (m(6)A), are involved in human disease development. As a newly developed sequencing biotechnology to quantify the m(6)A level on a transcriptome-wide scale, MeRIP-seq expands RNA epigenetics study in both basic and clinical applications, with an upward trend. One of the fundamental questions in RNA methylation data analysis is to identify the Differentially Methylated Regions (DMRs), by contrasting cases and controls. Multiple statistical approaches have been recently developed for DMR detection, but there is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for these analytical methods. Here, we thoroughly assess all eight existing methods for DMR calling, using both synthetic and real data. Our simulation adopts a Gamma–Poisson model and logit linear framework, and accommodates various sample sizes and DMR proportions for benchmarking. For all methods, low sensitivities are observed among regions with low input levels, but they can be drastically boosted by an increase in sample size. TRESS and exomePeak2 perform the best using metrics of detection precision, FDR, type I error control and runtime, though hampered by low sensitivity. DRME and exomePeak obtain high sensitivities, at the expense of inflated FDR and type I error. Analyses on three real datasets suggest differential preference on identified DMR length and uniquely discovered regions, between these methods. Oxford University Press 2023-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10199761/ /pubmed/37039682 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad139 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Review
Duan, Daoyu
Tang, Wen
Wang, Runshu
Guo, Zhenxing
Feng, Hao
Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title_full Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title_fullStr Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title_short Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
title_sort evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide n6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10199761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37039682
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad139
work_keys_str_mv AT duandaoyu evaluationofepitranscriptomewiden6methyladenosinedifferentialanalysismethods
AT tangwen evaluationofepitranscriptomewiden6methyladenosinedifferentialanalysismethods
AT wangrunshu evaluationofepitranscriptomewiden6methyladenosinedifferentialanalysismethods
AT guozhenxing evaluationofepitranscriptomewiden6methyladenosinedifferentialanalysismethods
AT fenghao evaluationofepitranscriptomewiden6methyladenosinedifferentialanalysismethods