Literature DB >> 22771920

Comparison of different normalization assumptions for analyses of DNA methylation data from the cancer genome.

Dong Wang1, Yuannv Zhang, Yan Huang, Pengfei Li, Mingyue Wang, Ruihong Wu, Lixin Cheng, Wenjing Zhang, Yujing Zhang, Bin Li, Chenguang Wang, Zheng Guo.   

Abstract

Nowadays, some researchers normalized DNA methylation arrays data in order to remove the technical artifacts introduced by experimental differences in sample preparation, array processing and other factors. However, other researchers analyzed DNA methylation arrays without performing data normalization considering that current normalizations for methylation data may distort real differences between normal and cancer samples because cancer genomes may be extensively subject to hypomethylation and the total amount of CpG methylation might differ substantially among samples. In this study, using eight datasets by Infinium HumanMethylation27 assay, we systemically analyzed the global distribution of DNA methylation changes in cancer compared to normal control and its effect on data normalization for selecting differentially methylated (DM) genes. We showed more differentially methylated (DM) genes could be found in the Quantile/Lowess-normalized data than in the non-normalized data. We found the DM genes additionally selected in the Quantile/Lowess-normalized data showed significantly consistent methylation states in another independent dataset for the same cancer, indicating these extra DM genes were effective biological signals related to the disease. These results suggested normalization can increase the power of detecting DM genes in the context of diagnostic markers which were usually characterized by relatively large effect sizes. Besides, we evaluated the reproducibility of DM discoveries for a particular cancer type, and we found most of the DM genes additionally detected in one dataset showed the same methylation directions in the other dataset for the same cancer type, indicating that these DM genes were effective biological signals in the other dataset. Furthermore, we showed that some DM genes detected from different studies for a particular cancer type were significantly reproducible at the functional level.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22771920     DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2012.06.075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gene        ISSN: 0378-1119            Impact factor:   3.688


  6 in total

Review 1.  Analysing and interpreting DNA methylation data.

Authors:  Christoph Bock
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Batch effects and pathway analysis: two potential perils in cancer studies involving DNA methylation array analysis.

Authors:  Kristin N Harper; Brandilyn A Peters; Mary V Gamble
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  A cross-package Bioconductor workflow for analysing methylation array data.

Authors:  Jovana Maksimovic; Belinda Phipson; Alicia Oshlack
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-06-08

4.  Large-scale characterization of DNA methylation changes in human gastric carcinomas with and without metastasis.

Authors:  Zhaojun Liu; Jun Zhang; Yanhong Gao; Lirong Pei; Jing Zhou; Liankun Gu; Lianhai Zhang; Budong Zhu; Naoko Hattori; Jiafu Ji; Yasuhito Yuasa; Wooho Kim; Toshikazu Ushijima; Huidong Shi; Dajun Deng
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Between-array normalization for 450K data.

Authors:  Jonathan A Heiss; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Interaction between ACOT7 and LncRNA NMRAL2P via Methylation Regulates Gastric Cancer Progression.

Authors:  Huiqin Feng; Xiaojian Liu
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.759

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.