Statistical Quantification of Methylation Levels by Next-Generation Sequencing

被引:10
作者
Wu, Guodong [1 ]
Yi, Nengjun [1 ]
Absher, Devin [2 ]
Zhi, Degui [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Dept Biostat, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[2] HudsonAlpha Inst Biotechnol, Huntsville, AL USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2011年 / 6卷 / 06期
关键词
CHIP-SEQ DATA; DNA METHYLATION; PROMOTER METHYLATION; GENOME; GLIOBLASTOMA; EPIGENOMICS; GENE; METHYLTRANSFERASES; CANCER; CELLS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0021034
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background/Aims: Recently, next-generation sequencing-based technologies have enabled DNA methylation profiling at high resolution and low cost. Methyl-Seq and Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing (RRBS) are two such technologies that interrogate methylation levels at CpG sites throughout the entire human genome. With rapid reduction of sequencing costs, these technologies will enable epigenotyping of large cohorts for phenotypic association studies. Existing quantification methods for sequencing-based methylation profiling are simplistic and do not deal with the noise due to the random sampling nature of sequencing and various experimental artifacts. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the statistical issues related to the quantification of methylation levels for these emerging technologies, with the goal of developing an accurate quantification method. Methods: In this paper, we propose two methods for Methyl-Seq quantification. The first method, the Maximum Likelihood estimate, is both conceptually intuitive and computationally simple. However, this estimate is biased at extreme methylation levels and does not provide variance estimation. The second method, based on Bayesian hierarchical model, allows variance estimation of methylation levels, and provides a flexible framework to adjust technical bias in the sequencing process. Results: We compare the previously proposed binary method, the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method, and the Bayesian method. In both simulation and real data analysis of Methyl-Seq data, the Bayesian method offers the most accurate quantification. The ML method is slightly less accurate than the Bayesian method. But both our proposed methods outperform the original binary method in Methyl-Seq. In addition, we applied these quantification methods to simulation data and show that, with sequencing depth above 40-300 (which varies with different tissue samples) per cleavage site, Methyl-Seq offers a comparable quantification consistency as microarrays.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1999, WINBUGS VERSION 1 2
[2]  
[Anonymous], APPL MULTIPLE REGRES
[3]   Targeted and genome-scale strategies reveal gene-body methylation signatures in human cells [J].
Ball, Madeleine P. ;
Li, Jin Billy ;
Gao, Yuan ;
Lee, Je-Hyuk ;
LeProust, Emily M. ;
Park, In-Hyun ;
Xie, Bin ;
Daley, George Q. ;
Church, George M. .
NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2009, 27 (04) :361-368
[4]   Distinct DNA methylation patterns characterize differentiated human embryonic stem cells and developing human fetal liver [J].
Brunner, Alayne L. ;
Johnson, David S. ;
Kim, Si Wan ;
Valouev, Anton ;
Reddy, Timothy E. ;
Neff, Norma F. ;
Anton, Elizabeth ;
Medina, Catherine ;
Nguyen, Loan ;
Chiao, Eric ;
Oyolu, Chuba B. ;
Schroth, Gary P. ;
Absher, Devin M. ;
Baker, Julie C. ;
Myers, Richard M. .
GENOME RESEARCH, 2009, 19 (06) :1044-1056
[5]  
CATALANI M, 2002, ARXIVMATH0209090
[6]   MGMT promoter methylation correlates with survival benefit and sensitivity to temozolomide in pediatric glioblastoma [J].
Donson, Andrew M. ;
Addo-Yobo, Steven O. ;
Handler, Michael H. ;
Gore, Lia ;
Foreman, Nicholas K. .
PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2007, 48 (04) :403-407
[7]   Cancer epigenomics: DNA methylomes and histone-modification maps [J].
Esteller, Manel .
NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, 2007, 8 (04) :286-298
[8]   Loss of pericentromeric DNA methylation pattern in human glioblastoma is associated with altered DNA methyltransferases expression and involves the stem cell compartment [J].
Fanelli, M. ;
Caprodossi, S. ;
Ricci-Vitiani, L. ;
Porcellini, A. ;
Tomassoni-Ardori, F. ;
Amatori, S. ;
Andreoni, F. ;
Magnani, M. ;
De Maria, R. ;
Santoni, A. ;
Minucci, S. ;
Pelicci, P. G. .
ONCOGENE, 2008, 27 (03) :358-365
[9]  
Gelman J. B., 2004, Bayesian data analysis
[10]   Eukaryotic cytosine methyltransferases [J].
Goll, MG ;
Bestor, TH .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOCHEMISTRY, 2005, 74 :481-514