MOTIVATION: Integration of various genome-scale measures of molecular alterations is of great interest to researchers aiming to better define disease processes or identify novel targets with clinical utility. Particularly important in cancer are measures of gene copy number DNA methylation. However, copy number variation may bias the measurement of DNA methylation. To investigate possible bias, we analyzed integrated data obtained from 19 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors and 23 mesothelioma tumors. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of observational data produced results consistent with those anticipated from theoretical mathematical properties. Average beta value reported by Illumina GoldenGate (a bead-array platform) was significantly smaller than a similar measure constructed from the ratio of average dye intensities. Among CpGs that had only small variations in measured methylation across tumors (filtering out clearly biological methylation signatures), there were no systematic copy number effects on methylation for three and more than four copies; however, one copy led to small systematic negative effects, and no copies led to substantial significant negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Since mathematical considerations suggest little bias in methylation assayed using bead-arrays, the consistency of observational data with anticipated properties suggests little bias. However, further analysis of systematic copy number effects across CpGs suggest that though there may be little bias when there are copy number gains, small biases may result when one allele is lost, and substantial biases when both alleles are lost. These results suggest that further integration of these measures can be useful for characterizing the biological relationships between these somatic events.
MOTIVATION: Integration of various genome-scale measures of molecular alterations is of great interest to researchers aiming to better define disease processes or identify novel targets with clinical utility. Particularly important in cancer are measures of gene copy number DNA methylation. However, copy number variation may bias the measurement of DNA methylation. To investigate possible bias, we analyzed integrated data obtained from 19 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors and 23 mesothelioma tumors. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of observational data produced results consistent with those anticipated from theoretical mathematical properties. Average beta value reported by Illumina GoldenGate (a bead-array platform) was significantly smaller than a similar measure constructed from the ratio of average dye intensities. Among CpGs that had only small variations in measured methylation across tumors (filtering out clearly biological methylation signatures), there were no systematic copy number effects on methylation for three and more than four copies; however, one copy led to small systematic negative effects, and no copies led to substantial significant negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Since mathematical considerations suggest little bias in methylation assayed using bead-arrays, the consistency of observational data with anticipated properties suggests little bias. However, further analysis of systematic copy number effects across CpGs suggest that though there may be little bias when there are copy number gains, small biases may result when one allele is lost, and substantial biases when both alleles are lost. These results suggest that further integration of these measures can be useful for characterizing the biological relationships between these somatic events.
Authors: Graham R Bignell; Jing Huang; Joel Greshock; Stephen Watt; Adam Butler; Sofie West; Mira Grigorova; Keith W Jones; Wen Wei; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal; Barbara Weber; Michael H Shapero; Richard Wooster Journal: Genome Res Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Rebecca J Leary; Jimmy C Lin; Jordan Cummins; Simina Boca; Laura D Wood; D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Tobias Sjöblom; Ben-Ho Park; Ramon Parsons; Joseph Willis; Dawn Dawson; James K V Willson; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Levy Kopelovich; Nick Papadopoulos; Len A Pennacchio; Tian-Li Wang; Sanford D Markowitz; Giovanni Parmigiani; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-10-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jing Huang; Wen Wei; Jane Zhang; Guoying Liu; Graham R Bignell; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal; Richard Wooster; Keith W Jones; Michael H Shapero Journal: Hum Genomics Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.639
Authors: Brock C Christensen; John J Godleski; Cora R Roelofs; Jennifer L Longacker; Raphael Bueno; David J Sugarbaker; Carmen J Marsit; Heather H Nelson; Karl T Kelsey Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: E Andres Houseman; Brock C Christensen; Ru-Fang Yeh; Carmen J Marsit; Margaret R Karagas; Margaret Wrensch; Heather H Nelson; Joseph Wiemels; Shichun Zheng; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Chirag Nepal; Colm J O'Rourke; Douglas V N P Oliveira; Andrzej Taranta; Steven Shema; Prson Gautam; Julien Calderaro; Andrew Barbour; Chiara Raggi; Krister Wennerberg; Xin W Wang; Anja Lautem; Lewis R Roberts; Jesper B Andersen Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Haroon Naeem; Nicholas C Wong; Zac Chatterton; Matthew K H Hong; John S Pedersen; Niall M Corcoran; Christopher M Hovens; Geoff Macintyre Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Brock C Christensen; E Andres Houseman; Graham M Poage; John J Godleski; Raphael Bueno; David J Sugarbaker; John K Wiencke; Heather H Nelson; Carmen J Marsit; Karl T Kelsey Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Graham M Poage; Brock C Christensen; E Andres Houseman; Michael D McClean; John K Wiencke; Marshall R Posner; John R Clark; Heather H Nelson; Carmen J Marsit; Karl T Kelsey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Raj Chari; Kelsie L Thu; Ian M Wilson; William W Lockwood; Kim M Lonergan; Bradley P Coe; Chad A Malloff; Adi F Gazdar; Stephen Lam; Cathie Garnis; Calum E MacAulay; Carlos E Alvarez; Wan L Lam Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.264