Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36047742›Full record

ArticleEpigenetics2022

An evaluation of the genome-wide false positive rates of common methods for identifying differentially methylated regions using illumina methylation arrays.

Yuanchao Zheng, Kathryn L Lunetta, Chunyu Liu, Seyma Katrinli, Alicia K Smith, Mark W Miller, Mark W Logue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Yuanchao ZhengNational Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Kathryn L LunettaDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Chunyu LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Seyma KatrinliDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alicia K SmithDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Mark W MillerNational Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Mark W LogueNational Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

The Impact of Traumatic Stress on the Methylome: implications for PTSDR01MH108826 · NIMH · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI LOGUE, MARK W, NIEVERGELT, CAROLINE M · 2016 to 2024
$5.8M
Neuroimaging Genetics of PTSDR21MH102834 · NIMH · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI MILLER, MARK W · 2014 to 2015
$355k
Translational Research Center for Traumatic Brain Injury and Stress Disorders (TRACTS)I50RX003001 · VA · VA BOSTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · PI Ricardo E. Jorge, WILLIAM P MILBERG · 2018 to 2026
–
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH108826NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH102834RRD VA I50 RX003001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differentially methylated regions (DMRs) are genomic regions with specific methylation patterns across multiple loci that are associated with a phenotype. We examined the genome-wide false positive (GFP) rates of five widely used DMR methods: comb-p, Bumphunter, DMRcate, mCSEA and coMethDMR using both Illumina HumanMethylation450 (450 K) and MethylationEPIC (EPIC) data and simulated continuous and dichotomous null phenotypes (i.e., generated independently of methylation data). coMethDMR provided well-controlled GFP rates (~5%) except when analysing skewed continuous phenotypes. DMRcate generally had well-controlled GFP rates when applied to 450 K data except for the skewed continuous phenotype and EPIC data only for the normally distributed continuous phenotype. GFP rates for mCSEA were at least 0.096 and comb-p yielded GFP rates above 0.34. Bumphunter had high GFP rates of at least 0.35 across conditions, reaching as high as 0.95. Analysis of the performance of these methods in specific regions of the genome found that regions with higher correlation across loci had higher regional false positive rates on average across methods. Based on the false positive rates, coMethDMR is the most recommended analysis method, and DMRcate had acceptable performance when analysing 450 K data. However, as both could display higher levels of FPs for skewed continuous distributions, a normalizing transformation of skewed continuous phenotypes is suggested. This study highlights the importance of genome-wide simulations when evaluating the performance of DMR-analysis methods.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGenomeCpG IslandsGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencingdifferentially methylated regionDNA methylationgenome-wide false positive rate

Identifiers

PMID36047742
PMCPMC9665129

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.