Kristin N Harper1, Brandilyn A Peters, Mary V Gamble. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. kh2383@columbia.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA methylation microarrays have become an increasingly popular means of studying the role of epigenetics in cancer, although the methods used to analyze these arrays are still being developed and existing methods are not always widely disseminated among microarray users. METHODS: We investigated two problems likely to confront DNA methylation microarray users: (i) batch effects and (ii) the use of widely available pathway analysis software to analyze results. First, DNA taken from individuals exposed to low and high levels of drinking water arsenic were plated twice on Illumina's Infinium 450 K HumanMethylation Array, once in order of exposure and again following randomization. Second, we conducted simulations in which random CpG sites were drawn from the 450 K array and subjected to pathway analysis using Ingenuity's IPA software. RESULTS: The majority of differentially methylated CpG sites identified in Run One were due to batch effects; few sites were also identified in Run Two. In addition, the pathway analysis software reported many significant associations between our data, randomly drawn from the 450 K array, and various diseases and biological functions. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses illustrate the pitfalls of not properly controlling for chip-specific batch effects as well as using pathway analysis software created for gene expression arrays to analyze DNA methylation array data. IMPACT: We present evidence that (i) chip-specific effects can simulate plausible differential methylation results and (ii) popular pathway analysis software developed for expression arrays can yield spurious results when used in tandem with methylation microarrays.
BACKGROUND: DNA methylation microarrays have become an increasingly popular means of studying the role of epigenetics in cancer, although the methods used to analyze these arrays are still being developed and existing methods are not always widely disseminated among microarray users. METHODS: We investigated two problems likely to confront DNA methylation microarray users: (i) batch effects and (ii) the use of widely available pathway analysis software to analyze results. First, DNA taken from individuals exposed to low and high levels of drinking waterarsenic were plated twice on Illumina's Infinium 450 K HumanMethylation Array, once in order of exposure and again following randomization. Second, we conducted simulations in which random CpG sites were drawn from the 450 K array and subjected to pathway analysis using Ingenuity's IPA software. RESULTS: The majority of differentially methylated CpG sites identified in Run One were due to batch effects; few sites were also identified in Run Two. In addition, the pathway analysis software reported many significant associations between our data, randomly drawn from the 450 K array, and various diseases and biological functions. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses illustrate the pitfalls of not properly controlling for chip-specific batch effects as well as using pathway analysis software created for gene expression arrays to analyze DNA methylation array data. IMPACT: We present evidence that (i) chip-specific effects can simulate plausible differential methylation results and (ii) popular pathway analysis software developed for expression arrays can yield spurious results when used in tandem with methylation microarrays.
Authors: Holly K Dressman; Andrew Berchuck; Gina Chan; Jun Zhai; Andrea Bild; Robyn Sayer; Janiel Cragun; Jennifer Clarke; Regina S Whitaker; Lihua Li; Jonathan Gray; Jeffrey Marks; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Anil Potti; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins; Johnathan M Lancaster Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J P Daily; D Scanfeld; N Pochet; K Le Roch; D Plouffe; M Kamal; O Sarr; S Mboup; O Ndir; D Wypij; K Levasseur; E Thomas; P Tamayo; C Dong; Y Zhou; E S Lander; D Ndiaye; D Wirth; E A Winzeler; J P Mesirov; A Regev Journal: Nature Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Li Yan; Changxing Ma; Dan Wang; Qiang Hu; Maochun Qin; Jeffrey M Conroy; Lara E Sucheston; Christine B Ambrosone; Candace S Johnson; Jianmin Wang; Song Liu Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Zhifu Sun; High Seng Chai; Yanhong Wu; Wendy M White; Krishna V Donkena; Christopher J Klein; Vesna D Garovic; Terry M Therneau; Jean-Pierre A Kocher Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Kaie Lokk; Tõnu Vooder; Raivo Kolde; Kristjan Välk; Urmo Võsa; Retlav Roosipuu; Lili Milani; Krista Fischer; Marina Koltsina; Egon Urgard; Tarmo Annilo; Andres Metspalu; Neeme Tõnisson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eugene Andres Houseman; William P Accomando; Devin C Koestler; Brock C Christensen; Carmen J Marsit; Heather H Nelson; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Andrei L Turinsky; Darci T Butcher; Sanaa Choufani; Rosanna Weksberg; Michael Brudno Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Lingzhen Dai; Amar Mehta; Irina Mordukhovich; Allan C Just; Jincheng Shen; Lifang Hou; Petros Koutrakis; David Sparrow; Pantel S Vokonas; Andrea A Baccarelli; Joel D Schwartz Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Andrew Ratanatharathorn; Marco P Boks; Adam X Maihofer; Allison E Aiello; Ananda B Amstadter; Allison E Ashley-Koch; Dewleen G Baker; Jean C Beckham; Evelyn Bromet; Michelle Dennis; Melanie E Garrett; Elbert Geuze; Guia Guffanti; Michael A Hauser; Varun Kilaru; Nathan A Kimbrel; Karestan C Koenen; Pei-Fen Kuan; Mark W Logue; Benjamin J Luft; Mark W Miller; Colter Mitchell; Nicole R Nugent; Kerry J Ressler; Bart P F Rutten; Murray B Stein; Eric Vermetten; Christiaan H Vinkers; Nagy A Youssef; Monica Uddin; Caroline M Nievergelt; Alicia K Smith Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Arce Domingo-Relloso; Anne Bozack; Samara Kiihl; Zulema Rodriguez-Hernandez; Pilar Rentero-Garrido; J Antonio Casasnovas; Montserrat Leon-Latre; Tamara Garcia-Barrera; J Luis Gomez-Ariza; Belen Moreno; Ana Cenarro; Griselda de Marco; Faruque Parvez; Abu B Siddique; Hasan Shahriar; Mohammad N Uddin; Tariqul Islam; Ana Navas-Acien; Mary Gamble; Maria Tellez-Plaza Journal: Environ Res Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Francisco Sánchez-Vega; Valer Gotea; Hanna M Petrykowska; Gennady Margolin; Thomas C Krivak; Julie A DeLoia; Daphne W Bell; Laura Elnitski Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Hector Hernandez-Vargas; Jovita Castelino; Matt J Silver; Paula Dominguez-Salas; Marie-Pierre Cros; Geoffroy Durand; Florence Le Calvez-Kelm; Andrew M Prentice; Christopher P Wild; Sophie E Moore; Branwen J Hennig; Zdenko Herceg; Yun Yun Gong; Michael N Routledge Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Gabrielle A Lockett; Veeresh K Patil; Nelís Soto-Ramírez; Ali H Ziyab; John W Holloway; Wilfried Karmaus Journal: Epigenomics Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.778