Cargando…

An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays

Epigenome-wide association studies (EWASs) have become increasingly popular for studying DNA methylation (DNAm) variations in complex diseases. The Illumina methylation arrays provide an economical, high-throughput and comprehensive platform for measuring methylation status in EWASs. A number of sof...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mallik, Saurav, Odom, Gabriel J, Gao, Zhen, Gomez, Lissette, Chen, Xi, Wang, Lily
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6954393/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30239597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bby085
_version_ 1783486788415782912
author Mallik, Saurav
Odom, Gabriel J
Gao, Zhen
Gomez, Lissette
Chen, Xi
Wang, Lily
author_facet Mallik, Saurav
Odom, Gabriel J
Gao, Zhen
Gomez, Lissette
Chen, Xi
Wang, Lily
author_sort Mallik, Saurav
collection PubMed
description Epigenome-wide association studies (EWASs) have become increasingly popular for studying DNA methylation (DNAm) variations in complex diseases. The Illumina methylation arrays provide an economical, high-throughput and comprehensive platform for measuring methylation status in EWASs. A number of software tools have been developed for identifying disease-associated differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in the epigenome. However, in practice, we found these tools typically had multiple parameter settings that needed to be specified and the performance of the software tools under different parameters was often unclear. To help users better understand and choose optimal parameter settings when using DNAm analysis tools, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 4 popular DMR analysis tools under 60 different parameter settings. In addition to evaluating power, precision, area under precision-recall curve, Matthews correlation coefficient, F1 score and type I error rate, we also compared several additional characteristics of the analysis results, including the size of the DMRs, overlap between the methods and execution time. The results showed that none of the software tools performed best under their default parameter settings, and power varied widely when parameters were changed. Overall, the precision of these software tools were good. In contrast, all methods lacked power when effect size was consistent but small. Across all simulation scenarios, comb-p consistently had the best sensitivity as well as good control of false-positive rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6954393
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69543932020-01-16 An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays Mallik, Saurav Odom, Gabriel J Gao, Zhen Gomez, Lissette Chen, Xi Wang, Lily Brief Bioinform Review Article Epigenome-wide association studies (EWASs) have become increasingly popular for studying DNA methylation (DNAm) variations in complex diseases. The Illumina methylation arrays provide an economical, high-throughput and comprehensive platform for measuring methylation status in EWASs. A number of software tools have been developed for identifying disease-associated differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in the epigenome. However, in practice, we found these tools typically had multiple parameter settings that needed to be specified and the performance of the software tools under different parameters was often unclear. To help users better understand and choose optimal parameter settings when using DNAm analysis tools, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 4 popular DMR analysis tools under 60 different parameter settings. In addition to evaluating power, precision, area under precision-recall curve, Matthews correlation coefficient, F1 score and type I error rate, we also compared several additional characteristics of the analysis results, including the size of the DMRs, overlap between the methods and execution time. The results showed that none of the software tools performed best under their default parameter settings, and power varied widely when parameters were changed. Overall, the precision of these software tools were good. In contrast, all methods lacked power when effect size was consistent but small. Across all simulation scenarios, comb-p consistently had the best sensitivity as well as good control of false-positive rate. Oxford University Press 2018-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6954393/ /pubmed/30239597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bby085 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. http://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 (http://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 Article
Mallik, Saurav
Odom, Gabriel J
Gao, Zhen
Gomez, Lissette
Chen, Xi
Wang, Lily
An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title_full An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title_fullStr An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title_short An evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in Illumina methylation arrays
title_sort evaluation of supervised methods for identifying differentially methylated regions in illumina methylation arrays
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6954393/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30239597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bby085
work_keys_str_mv AT malliksaurav anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT odomgabrielj anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT gaozhen anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT gomezlissette anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT chenxi anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT wanglily anevaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT malliksaurav evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT odomgabrielj evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT gaozhen evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT gomezlissette evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT chenxi evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays
AT wanglily evaluationofsupervisedmethodsforidentifyingdifferentiallymethylatedregionsinilluminamethylationarrays