Comparison of Beta-value and M-value methods for quantifying methylation levels by microarray analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Comparative Study

Comparison of Beta-value and M-value methods for quantifying methylation levels by microarray analysis

Pan Du et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010.

Abstract

Background: High-throughput profiling of DNA methylation status of CpG islands is crucial to understand the epigenetic regulation of genes. The microarray-based Infinium methylation assay by Illumina is one platform for low-cost high-throughput methylation profiling. Both Beta-value and M-value statistics have been used as metrics to measure methylation levels. However, there are no detailed studies of their relations and their strengths and limitations.

Results: We demonstrate that the relationship between the Beta-value and M-value methods is a Logit transformation, and show that the Beta-value method has severe heteroscedasticity for highly methylated or unmethylated CpG sites. In order to evaluate the performance of the Beta-value and M-value methods for identifying differentially methylated CpG sites, we designed a methylation titration experiment. The evaluation results show that the M-value method provides much better performance in terms of Detection Rate (DR) and True Positive Rate (TPR) for both highly methylated and unmethylated CpG sites. Imposing a minimum threshold of difference can improve the performance of the M-value method but not the Beta-value method. We also provide guidance for how to select the threshold of methylation differences.

Conclusions: The Beta-value has a more intuitive biological interpretation, but the M-value is more statistically valid for the differential analysis of methylation levels. Therefore, we recommend using the M-value method for conducting differential methylation analysis and including the Beta-value statistics when reporting the results to investigators.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

The relationship curve between M-value and Beta-value.

Figure 2

Figure 2

The histograms of Beta-value (left) and M-value (right) (27578 interrogated CpG sites in total).

Figure 3

Figure 3

The mean and standard deviation relations of technical replicates. Beta-value (left) and M-value (right).

Figure 4

Figure 4

Performance comparisons of Beta- and M-value in the range of low, middle and high methylation levels based on the relationship of 1 - Detection Rate versus True Positive Rate.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Performance comparisons of Beta and M-value based on the True Positive Rate (TPR) and Detection Rate (DR) at different thresholds of methylation difference. (A) TPR versus threshold of difference of Beta-value; (B) TPR versus threshold of difference of M-value; (C) DR versus threshold of difference of Beta-value; (D) DR versus threshold of difference of M-value.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Laird PW. Principles and challenges of genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(3):191–203. doi: 10.1038/nrg2732. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esteller M. CpG island hypermethylation and tumor suppressor genes: a booming present, a brighter future. Oncogene. 2002;21(35):5427–5440. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205600. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Herman JG, Baylin SB. Gene silencing in cancer in association with promoter hypermethylation. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(21):2042–2054. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra023075. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shen L, Kondo Y, Guo Y, Zhang J, Zhang L, Ahmed S, Shu J, Chen X, Waterland RA, Issa JP. Genome-wide profiling of DNA methylation reveals a class of normally methylated CpG island promoters. PLoS Genet. 2007;3(10):2023–2036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030181. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Riain C, O'Shea DM, Yang Y, Le Dieu R, Gribben JG, Summers K, Yeboah-Afari J, Bhaw-Rosun L, Fleischmann C, Mein CA. et al.Array-based DNA methylation profiling in follicular lymphoma. Leukemia. 2009;23(10):1858–1866. doi: 10.1038/leu.2009.114. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources