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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |