Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Joint First Authors.
Brief Bioinform. 2019 Nov 27;20(6):2224-2235. doi: 10.1093/bib/bby085.
Epigenome-wide association studies (EWASs) have become increasingly popular for studying DNA methylation (DNAm) variations in complex diseases. The Illumina methylation arrays provide an economical, high-throughput and comprehensive platform for measuring methylation status in EWASs. A number of software tools have been developed for identifying disease-associated differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in the epigenome. However, in practice, we found these tools typically had multiple parameter settings that needed to be specified and the performance of the software tools under different parameters was often unclear. To help users better understand and choose optimal parameter settings when using DNAm analysis tools, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 4 popular DMR analysis tools under 60 different parameter settings. In addition to evaluating power, precision, area under precision-recall curve, Matthews correlation coefficient, F1 score and type I error rate, we also compared several additional characteristics of the analysis results, including the size of the DMRs, overlap between the methods and execution time. The results showed that none of the software tools performed best under their default parameter settings, and power varied widely when parameters were changed. Overall, the precision of these software tools were good. In contrast, all methods lacked power when effect size was consistent but small. Across all simulation scenarios, comb-p consistently had the best sensitivity as well as good control of false-positive rate.
表观基因组-wide 关联研究 (EWASs) 已越来越多地用于研究复杂疾病中的 DNA 甲基化 (DNAm) 变化。Illumina 甲基化芯片为 EWASs 中测量甲基化状态提供了一种经济、高通量和全面的平台。已经开发了许多软件工具来识别表观基因组中与疾病相关的差异甲基化区域 (DMRs)。然而,在实践中,我们发现这些工具通常具有多个需要指定的参数设置,并且软件工具在不同参数下的性能通常不清楚。为了帮助用户在使用 DNAm 分析工具时更好地理解和选择最佳参数设置,我们对 4 种流行的 DMR 分析工具在 60 种不同参数设置下进行了全面评估。除了评估功效、精度、精度-召回曲线下面积、马修斯相关系数、F1 分数和误报率外,我们还比较了分析结果的几个其他特征,包括 DMR 的大小、方法之间的重叠和执行时间。结果表明,在默认参数设置下,没有一个软件工具表现最佳,并且参数改变时功效差异很大。总的来说,这些软件工具的精度都很好。相比之下,当效应大小一致但较小时,所有方法都缺乏功效。在所有模拟场景中,comb-p 始终具有最佳的灵敏度和良好的假阳性率控制。