Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, M3J1P3, Canada.
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, 02115, USA.
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 May 18;19(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2185-3.
Recently differential variability has been showed to be valuable in evaluating the association of DNA methylation to the risks of complex human diseases. The statistical tests based on both differential methylation level and differential variability can be more powerful than those based only on differential methylation level. Anh and Wang (2013) proposed a joint score test (AW) to simultaneously detect for differential methylation and differential variability. However, AW's method seems to be quite conservative and has not been fully compared with existing joint tests.
We proposed three improved joint score tests, namely iAW.Lev, iAW.BF, and iAW.TM, and have made extensive comparisons with the joint likelihood ratio test (jointLRT), the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test, and the AW test. Systematic simulation studies showed that: 1) the three improved tests performed better (i.e., having larger power, while keeping nominal Type I error rates) than the other three tests for data with outliers and having different variances between cases and controls; 2) for data from normal distributions, the three improved tests had slightly lower power than jointLRT and AW. The analyses of two Illumina HumanMethylation27 data sets GSE37020 and GSE20080 and one Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC data set GSE107080 demonstrated that three improved tests had higher true validation rates than those from jointLRT, KS, and AW.
The three proposed joint score tests are robust against the violation of normality assumption and presence of outlying observations in comparison with other three existing tests. Among the three proposed tests, iAW.BF seems to be the most robust and effective one for all simulated scenarios and also in real data analyses.
最近,差异性变异已被证明在评估 DNA 甲基化与复杂人类疾病风险的相关性方面具有重要价值。基于差异甲基化水平和差异变异的统计检验比仅基于差异甲基化水平的检验更有效。Anh 和 Wang(2013 年)提出了一种联合得分检验(AW)来同时检测差异甲基化和差异变异。然而,AW 的方法似乎相当保守,尚未与现有的联合检验进行充分比较。
我们提出了三种改进的联合得分检验,即 iAW.Lev、iAW.BF 和 iAW.TM,并与联合似然比检验(jointLRT)、Kolmogorov-Smirnov(KS)检验和 AW 检验进行了广泛比较。系统的模拟研究表明:1)对于存在离群值和病例与对照之间方差不同的数据,三种改进的检验在保持名义第一类错误率的情况下,表现优于其他三种检验(即具有更大的功效);2)对于来自正态分布的数据,三种改进的检验的功效略低于 jointLRT 和 AW。对两个 Illumina HumanMethylation27 数据集 GSE37020 和 GSE20080 以及一个 Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC 数据集 GSE107080 的分析表明,三种改进的检验的真实验证率高于 jointLRT、KS 和 AW。
与其他三种现有检验相比,三种提出的联合得分检验在违反正态性假设和存在离群观测值的情况下具有稳健性。在三种提出的检验中,iAW.BF 似乎在所有模拟场景和真实数据分析中都是最稳健和有效的。