Changchun Xie1, Yuet-Kin Leung1, Aimin Chen1, Ding-Xin Long2, Catherine Hoyo3, Shuk-Mei Ho1. 1. Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2. School of Public Health, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, China. 3. Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Both β-value and M-value have been used as metrics to measure methylation levels. The M-value is more statistically valid for the differential analysis of methylation levels. However, the β-value is much more biologically interpretable and needs to be reported when M-value method is used for conducting differential methylation analysis. There is an urgent need to know how to interpret the degree of differential methylation from the M-value. In M-value linear regression model, differential methylation M-value ΔM can be easily obtained from the coefficient estimate, but it is not straightforward to get the differential methylation β-value, Δβ since it cannot be obtained from the coefficient alone. RESULTS: To fill the gap, we have built a bridge to connect the statistically sound M-value linear regression model and the biologically interpretable Δβ. In this article, three methods were proposed to calculate differential methylation values, Δβ from M-value linear regression model and compared with the Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model. We showed that under the condition that M-value linear regression model is correct, the method M-model-coef is the best among the four methods. M-model-M-mean method works very well too. If the coefficients α0, α2,…αp are not given (as 'MethLAB' package), the M-model-M-mean method should be used. The Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model can give very biased results, especially when M-values are not in (-2, 2) or β-values are not in (0.2, 0.8). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The dataset for example is available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus repository, GSE104778. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
MOTIVATION: Both β-value and M-value have been used as metrics to measure methylation levels. The M-value is more statistically valid for the differential analysis of methylation levels. However, the β-value is much more biologically interpretable and needs to be reported when M-value method is used for conducting differential methylation analysis. There is an urgent need to know how to interpret the degree of differential methylation from the M-value. In M-value linear regression model, differential methylation M-value ΔM can be easily obtained from the coefficient estimate, but it is not straightforward to get the differential methylation β-value, Δβ since it cannot be obtained from the coefficient alone. RESULTS: To fill the gap, we have built a bridge to connect the statistically sound M-value linear regression model and the biologically interpretable Δβ. In this article, three methods were proposed to calculate differential methylation values, Δβ from M-value linear regression model and compared with the Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model. We showed that under the condition that M-value linear regression model is correct, the method M-model-coef is the best among the four methods. M-model-M-mean method works very well too. If the coefficients α0, α2,…αp are not given (as 'MethLAB' package), the M-model-M-mean method should be used. The Δβ directly obtained from β-value linear regression model can give very biased results, especially when M-values are not in (-2, 2) or β-values are not in (0.2, 0.8). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The dataset for example is available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus repository, GSE104778. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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: Carolyn F McCabe; Jennifer L LaBarre; Steven E Domino; Marjorie C Treadwell; Ana Baylin; Charles F Burant; Dana C Dolinoy; Vasantha Padmanabhan; Jaclyn M Goodrich Journal: J Nutr Biochem Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Carolyn F McCabe; Vasantha Padmanabhan; Dana C Dolinoy; Steven E Domino; Tamara R Jones; Kelly M Bakulski; Jaclyn M Goodrich Journal: Environ Epigenet Date: 2020-12-23