Dataset Information

An evaluation of statistical methods for DNA methylation microarray data analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:DNA methylation offers an excellent example for elucidating how epigenetic information affects gene expression. ? values and M values are commonly used to quantify DNA methylation. Statistical methods applicable to DNA methylation data analysis span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutation test, empirical Bayes method, and bump hunting method. Nonetheless, selection of an optimal statistical method can be challenging when different methods generate inconsistent results from the same data set. RESULTS:We compared six statistical approaches relevant to DNA methylation microarray analysis in terms of false discovery rate control, statistical power, and stability through simulation studies and real data examples. Observable differences were noticed between ? values and M values only when methylation levels were correlated across CpG loci. For small sample size (n=3 or 6 in each group), both the empirical Bayes and bump hunting methods showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG loci were independent. Only the bump hunting method showed appropriate FDR control and the highest power when methylation levels across CpG sites were correlated. For medium (n=12 in each group) and large sample sizes (n=24 in each group), all methods compared had similar power, except for the permutation test whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was low. For all sample sizes, the bump hunting method had the lowest stability in terms of standard deviation of total discoveries whenever the proportion of differentially methylated loci was large. The apparent test power comparisons based on raw p-values from DNA methylation studies on ovarian cancer and rheumatoid arthritis provided results as consistent as those obtained in the simulation studies. Overall, these results provide guidance for optimal statistical methods selection under different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:For DNA methylation studies with small sample size, the bump hunting method and the empirical Bayes method are recommended when DNA methylation levels across CpG loci are independent, while only the bump hunting method is recommended when DNA methylation levels are correlated across CpG loci. All methods are acceptable for medium or large sample sizes.

SUBMITTER: Li D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4497424 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An evaluation of statistical methods for DNA methylation microarray data analysis.

Li Dongmei D Xie Zidian Z Pape Marc Le ML Dye Timothy T

BMC bioinformatics 20150710

<h4>Background</h4>DNA methylation offers an excellent example for elucidating how epigenetic information affects gene expression. β values and M values are commonly used to quantify DNA methylation. Statistical methods applicable to DNA methylation data analysis span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutation test, empirical Bayes method, and bump hunting method. Nonetheless, selection of an optimal statistical method can be challenging w ...[more]

PMID: 26156501

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper we present a method for the statistical assessment of cancer predictors which make use of gene expression profiles. The methodology is applied to a new data set of microarray gene expression data collected in Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, Foggia--Italy. The data set is made up of normal (22) and tumor (25) specimens extracted from 25 patients affected by colon cancer. We propose to give answers to some questions which are relevant for the automatic diagnosis of cancer such as: Is the size of the available data set sufficient to build accurate classifiers? What is the statistical significance of the associated error rates? In what ways can accuracy be considered dependant on the adopted classification scheme? How many genes are correlated with the pathology and how many are sufficient for an accurate colon cancer classification? The method we propose answers these questions whilst avoiding the potential pitfalls hidden in the analysis and interpretation of microarray data.ResultsWe estimate the generalization error, evaluated through the Leave-K-Out Cross Validation error, for three different classification schemes by varying the number of training examples and the number of the genes used. The statistical significance of the error rate is measured by using a permutation test. We provide a statistical analysis in terms of the frequencies of the genes involved in the classification. Using the whole set of genes, we found that the Weighted Voting Algorithm (WVA) classifier learns the distinction between normal and tumor specimens with 25 training examples, providing e = 21% (p = 0.045) as an error rate. This remains constant even when the number of examples increases. Moreover, Regularized Least Squares (RLS) and Support Vector Machines (SVM) classifiers can learn with only 15 training examples, with an error rate of e = 19% (p = 0.035) and e = 18% (p = 0.037) respectively. Moreover, the error rate decreases as the training set size increases, reaching its best performances with 35 training examples. In this case, RLS and SVM have error rates of e = 14% (p = 0.027) and e = 11% (p = 0.019). Concerning the number of genes, we found about 6000 genes (p < 0.05) correlated with the pathology, resulting from the signal-to-noise statistic. Moreover the performances of RLS and SVM classifiers do not change when 74% of genes is used. They progressively reduce up to e = 16% (p < 0.05) when only 2 genes are employed. The biological relevance of a set of genes determined by our statistical analysis and the major roles they play in colorectal tumorigenesis is discussed.ConclusionsThe method proposed provides statistically significant answers to precise questions relevant for the diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. We found that, with as few as 15 examples, it is possible to train statistically significant classifiers for colon cancer diagnosis. As for the definition of the number of genes sufficient for a reliable classification of colon cancer, our results suggest that it depends on the accuracy required.

Project description:BackgroundSingle-cell RNA Sequencing is gaining popularity in recent years. Compared to bulk RNA-Seq, single-cell RNA Sequencing allows the gene expression being measured within individual cells instead of mean gene expression levels across all cells in the sample. Thus, cell-to-cell variation of gene expressions could be examined. Gene differential expression analysis remains the major purpose in most single-cell RNA sequencing experiments and many methods have been developed in recent years to conduct gene differential expression analysis for single-cell RNA sequencing data.ResultsThrough simulation studies and real data examples, we evaluated the performance of five open-source popular methods used for gene differential expression analysis in single-cell RNA sequencing data. The five methods included DEsingle (Zero-inflated negative binomial model), Linnorm (Empirical Bayes method on transformed count data using the limma package), monocle (An approximate Chi-Square likelihood ratio test), MAST (A generalized linear hurdle model), and DESeq2 (A generalized linear model with empirical Bayes approach and also commonly used for bulk RNA sequencing differential express analyses). We assessed the false discovery rate (FDR) control, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve for all five methods under different sample sizes, distribution assumptions, and proportions of zeros in the data.ConclusionsWe found the MAST method performed the best among the five methods compared with the largest AUROC values across all tested sample sizes and different proportion of truly differential expressed genes, when the data followed negative binomial distributions. When the sample size increased to 100 in each group, the MAST method showed the best performance with the highest AUROC regardless of the data distributions. If the excess zeros were first filtered out before the gene differential analyses, the DESingle, Linnorm, and DESeq2 performed relatively better than the MAST and the monocle methods with higher AUROC values.

Project description:BackgroundPeriod 10 dinucleotides are structurally and functionally validated factors that influence the ability of DNA to form nucleosomes, histone core octamers. Robust identification of periodic signals in DNA sequences is therefore required to understand nucleosome organisation in genomes. While various techniques for identifying periodic components in genomic sequences have been proposed or adopted, the requirements for such techniques have not been considered in detail and confirmatory testing for a priori specified periods has not been developed.ResultsWe compared the estimation accuracy and suitability for confirmatory testing of autocorrelation, discrete Fourier transform (DFT), integer period discrete Fourier transform (IPDFT) and a previously proposed Hybrid measure. A number of different statistical significance procedures were evaluated but a blockwise bootstrap proved superior. When applied to synthetic data whose period-10 signal had been eroded, or for which the signal was approximately period-10, the Hybrid technique exhibited superior properties during exploratory period estimation. In contrast, confirmatory testing using the blockwise bootstrap procedure identified IPDFT as having the greatest statistical power. These properties were validated on yeast sequences defined from a ChIP-chip study where the Hybrid metric confirmed the expected dominance of period-10 in nucleosome associated DNA but IPDFT identified more significant occurrences of period-10. Application to the whole genomes of yeast and mouse identified ~21% and ~19% respectively of these genomes as spanned by period-10 nucleosome positioning sequences (NPS).ConclusionsFor estimating the dominant period, we find the Hybrid period estimation method empirically to be the most effective for both eroded and approximate periodicity. The blockwise bootstrap was found to be effective as a significance measure, performing particularly well in the problem of period detection in the presence of eroded periodicity. The autocorrelation method was identified as poorly suited for use with the blockwise bootstrap. Application of our methods to the genomes of two model organisms revealed a striking proportion of the yeast and mouse genomes are spanned by NPS. Despite their markedly different sizes, roughly equivalent proportions (19-21%) of the genomes lie within period-10 spans of the NPS dinucleotides {AA, TT, TA}. The biological significance of these regions remains to be demonstrated. To facilitate this, the genomic coordinates are available as Additional files 1, 2, and 3 in a format suitable for visualisation as tracks on popular genome browsers.

Dataset Information

An evaluation of statistical methods for DNA methylation microarray data analysis.

Publications

An evaluation of statistical methods for DNA methylation microarray data analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets