Cargando…
Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods
BACKGROUND: Unmethylated stretches of CpG dinucleotides (CpG islands) are an outstanding property of mammal genomes. Conventionally, these regions are detected by sliding window approaches using %G + C, CpG observed/expected ratio and length thresholds as main parameters. Recently, clustering method...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20500903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-327 |
_version_ | 1782182549290745856 |
---|---|
author | Hackenberg, Michael Barturen, Guillermo Carpena, Pedro Luque-Escamilla, Pedro L Previti, Christopher Oliver, José L |
author_facet | Hackenberg, Michael Barturen, Guillermo Carpena, Pedro Luque-Escamilla, Pedro L Previti, Christopher Oliver, José L |
author_sort | Hackenberg, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Unmethylated stretches of CpG dinucleotides (CpG islands) are an outstanding property of mammal genomes. Conventionally, these regions are detected by sliding window approaches using %G + C, CpG observed/expected ratio and length thresholds as main parameters. Recently, clustering methods directly detect clusters of CpG dinucleotides as a statistical property of the genome sequence. RESULTS: We compare sliding-window to clustering (i.e. CpGcluster) predictions by applying new ways to detect putative functionality of CpG islands. Analyzing the co-localization with several genomic regions as a function of window size vs. statistical significance (p-value), CpGcluster shows a higher overlap with promoter regions and highly conserved elements, at the same time showing less overlap with Alu retrotransposons. The major difference in the prediction was found for short islands (CpG islets), often exclusively predicted by CpGcluster. Many of these islets seem to be functional, as they are unmethylated, highly conserved and/or located within the promoter region. Finally, we show that window-based islands can spuriously overlap several, differentially regulated promoters as well as different methylation domains, which might indicate a wrong merge of several CpG islands into a single, very long island. The shorter CpGcluster islands seem to be much more specific when concerning the overlap with alternative transcription start sites or the detection of homogenous methylation domains. CONCLUSIONS: The main difference between sliding-window approaches and clustering methods is the length of the predicted islands. Short islands, often differentially methylated, are almost exclusively predicted by CpGcluster. This suggests that CpGcluster may be the algorithm of choice to explore the function of these short, but putatively functional CpG islands. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2887419 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28874192010-06-18 Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods Hackenberg, Michael Barturen, Guillermo Carpena, Pedro Luque-Escamilla, Pedro L Previti, Christopher Oliver, José L BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Unmethylated stretches of CpG dinucleotides (CpG islands) are an outstanding property of mammal genomes. Conventionally, these regions are detected by sliding window approaches using %G + C, CpG observed/expected ratio and length thresholds as main parameters. Recently, clustering methods directly detect clusters of CpG dinucleotides as a statistical property of the genome sequence. RESULTS: We compare sliding-window to clustering (i.e. CpGcluster) predictions by applying new ways to detect putative functionality of CpG islands. Analyzing the co-localization with several genomic regions as a function of window size vs. statistical significance (p-value), CpGcluster shows a higher overlap with promoter regions and highly conserved elements, at the same time showing less overlap with Alu retrotransposons. The major difference in the prediction was found for short islands (CpG islets), often exclusively predicted by CpGcluster. Many of these islets seem to be functional, as they are unmethylated, highly conserved and/or located within the promoter region. Finally, we show that window-based islands can spuriously overlap several, differentially regulated promoters as well as different methylation domains, which might indicate a wrong merge of several CpG islands into a single, very long island. The shorter CpGcluster islands seem to be much more specific when concerning the overlap with alternative transcription start sites or the detection of homogenous methylation domains. CONCLUSIONS: The main difference between sliding-window approaches and clustering methods is the length of the predicted islands. Short islands, often differentially methylated, are almost exclusively predicted by CpGcluster. This suggests that CpGcluster may be the algorithm of choice to explore the function of these short, but putatively functional CpG islands. BioMed Central 2010-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC2887419/ /pubmed/20500903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-327 Text en Copyright ©2010 Hackenberg et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hackenberg, Michael Barturen, Guillermo Carpena, Pedro Luque-Escamilla, Pedro L Previti, Christopher Oliver, José L Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title | Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title_full | Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title_fullStr | Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title_short | Prediction of CpG-island function: CpG clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
title_sort | prediction of cpg-island function: cpg clustering vs. sliding-window methods |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20500903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-327 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hackenbergmichael predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods AT barturenguillermo predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods AT carpenapedro predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods AT luqueescamillapedrol predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods AT previtichristopher predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods AT oliverjosel predictionofcpgislandfunctioncpgclusteringvsslidingwindowmethods |