Volume 6 Supplement 1

Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BIOCOMP'11)

Open Access

Detecting differentially methylated loci for Illumina Array methylation data based on human ovarian cancer data

  • Zhongxue Chen1Email author,
  • Hanwen Huang2,
  • Jianzhong Liu3,
  • Hon Keung Tony Ng4,
  • Saralees Nadarajah5,
  • Xudong Huang6 and
  • Youping Deng7
BMC Medical Genomics20136(Suppl 1):S9

DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-6-S1-S9

Published: 23 January 2013

Abstract

Background

It is well known that DNA methylation, as an epigenetic factor, has an important effect on gene expression and disease development. Detecting differentially methylated loci under different conditions, such as cancer types or treatments, is of great interest in current research as it is important in cancer diagnosis and classification. However, inappropriate testing approaches can result in large false positives and/or false negatives. Appropriate and powerful statistical methods are desirable but very limited in the literature.

Results

In this paper, we propose a nonparametric method to detect differentially methylated loci under multiple conditions for Illumina Array Methylation data. We compare the new method with other methods using simulated and real data. Our study shows that the proposed one outperforms other methods considered in this paper.

Conclusions

Due to the unique feature of the Illumina Array Methylation data, commonly used statistical tests will lose power or give misleading results. Therefore, appropriate statistical methods are crucial for this type of data. Powerful statistical approaches remain to be developed.

Availability

R codes are available upon request.

Background

It is well known that DNA methylation has important effects on transcriptional regulation, chromosomal stability, genomic imprinting, and X-inactivation [1, 2]. It has been also shown to be associated with many human diseases, such as various types of cancer [311].

With the advances of BeadArray technology, genome-wide high-throughput methylation data can be easily generated by Illumina GoldenGate and Infinium Methylation Assays. After preprocessing steps, such as background correction and normalization, are applied to the raw fluorescent intensities, for each locus, from about 30 replicates in the same array a summarized β-value is generated as follows: max M , 0 max M , 0 + max U , 0 + 100 , where M is the average signal from a methylated allele while U is that from unmethylated allele. The β -values are continuous numbers between 0 and 1, with 0 stands for totally unmethylated and 1 for completely methylated.

It has been shown that the β -value is rarely normally distributed [9, 12, 13]. Therefore the commonly used t-test for case control designs or ANOVA for multiple conditions are not the most powerful approaches when detecting differentially methylated loci. Observing this, Wang has proposed a model-based likelihood ratio test to detect differentially methylated loci for case and control data under the assumption that the β -value follows a three-component normal-uniform distribution [9]. Wang showed that for some situations, their proposed test was better than the simple t-test based on simulation studies.

However, in their method, Wang did not consider the effect of age, which has been shown highly associated with methylation [14, 15]. Noticing the importance of age effect, one may use a linear regression with age included as a covariate when analyze methylation data with multiple conditions, such as cancer types. However, the underlying assumption of equal variances may not be satisfied [12]. Therefore the commonly used linear regression method may not be appropriate.

In this paper, we consider methylation data with multiple conditions and propose a nonparametric method which incorporates the age effect in a way through the idea of combining p-values from independent tests [12, 16, 17]. More specifically, we first group subjects into several age groups based on their age; then for each age group, a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test is conducted for the given locus and the p-value is recorded. An overall p-value for that locus will be estimated through combining the p-values from all age groups. Using a real methylation data with three conditions and a simulation study, we show that the proposed test is more powerful than other methods, including linear regression.

Method

Proposed method

Assume there are K conditions and G age groups. For each age group g (g = 1,2,...,G), we apply the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and obtain a p-value p g K W , then the overall p-value can be estimated by Fisher test [18]:
p K W = χ d f = 2 G 2 ( χ 2 > - 2 g = 1 G log ( p g K W ) )
(1)

Combined ANOVA test

Similarly, we can use ANOVA to replace KW test for each age group and obtain an overall p-value with p g K W being replaced by the p-value p g A N O V A from ANOVA test:
p A N O V A = χ d f = 2 G 2 ( χ 2 > - 2 g = 1 G log ( p g A N O V A ) )
(2)

Combined median test

Another nonparametric test is median test using the following statistic for each age group:

M = 4 k = 1 K ( A k - n k / 2 ) 2 n k , where A k is the number of times that the ranks of individual observations from group k which excess the median from the pooled data, and n k is the sample size of group k. When the sample sizes are large, under the null hypothesis that all samples have the same median, the statistic M has a chi-square distribution with K-1 degrees of freedom. The overall p-value from the combined median test can be calculated:
p M e d i a n = χ d f = 2 G 2 ( χ 2 > - 2 g = 1 G log ( p g M e d i a n ) )
(3)

Combined welch test

We also consider the nonparametric Welch test. For each age group, we have the test statistic [19]:
W = k = 1 K w k ( x ¯ ̄ k - μ ^ ) 2 / ( K - 1 ) 1 + [ 2 ( K - 2 ) / ( K 2 - 2 ) ] k = 1 K h k ,

where w k = n k / s k 2 , μ ^  =  k = 1 K w k x ̄ k / w ,  w =  k = 1 K w k , h k = ( 1 - w k / w 2 ) / ( n k - 1 ) .

Under the null hypothesis, the statistic W is asymptotically distributed as F-distribution with K-1 and f = ( K 2  - 1)/(3 k = 1 K h k ) degrees of freedom. Welch test is an improvement of the Cochran test [20] which usually has inflated type I error rate especially for small sample sizes [19, 21]. The overall p-value from the combined Welch test is:
p W e l c h = χ d f = 2 G 2 ( χ 2 > - 2 g = 1 G log ( p g W e l c h ) )
(4)

Methods for combining p-values

Besides the Fisher method mentioned above, we also consider Z-test to combine p-values from independent tests. First we calculated the weighted Z statistic using individual p-values from each age group: Z = g = 1 G n g Φ - 1 ( 1 - p g ) / g = 1 G n g 2 , where n g is the total sample size in age group g and Φ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution. It is easy to see that this statistic has standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis. The overall p-value is calculated by 1- Φ(Z). Note that here we use one-sided test to obtain the overall p-value.

Simulation settings

To compare each method applied to an individual age group, we simulate β -value for three treatment groups based on beta distribution with parameters a and b, beta (a,b), and truncated normal distribution on (0,1) with parameters μ, σ2, TN(μ, σ2). We assume the sample sizes (denoted as s in Tables 1, 2 for the simulation results) for the three treatments are either balanced: s = 30 for each, or non-balanced: s = 20, 30, and 40. First we compare the estimated type I error rates with the given significance level of 0.05 under the null hypothesis of no differences among treatment groups. Then we compare the empirical powers from each method under various situations. The empirical power is the proportion of rejected null hypothesis to the number of replicates.
Table 1

Estimated type I error rates at significance level 0.05 with 10000 replicates.

Distribution (sample sizes, parameters)

ANOVA

median

Welch

KW

Beta (s = 30,30,30, a = 1,1,1, b = 2,2,2)

0.048

0.040

0.052

0.047

Beta (s = 30,30,30, a = 1,1,1, b = 10,10,10)

0.052

0.044

0.053

0.051

Beta (s = 30,30,30, a = 10,10,10, b = 1,1,1)

0.047

0.044

0.052

0.048

Beta (s = 30,30,30, a = 10,10,10, b = 10,10,10)

0.045

0.045

0.047

0.046

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 1,1,1, b = 2,2,2)

0.053

0.052

0.050

0.053

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 1,1,1, b = 10,10,10)

0.049

0.049

0.054

0.048

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 10,10,10, b = 1,1,1)

0.045

0.049

0.056

0.044

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 10,10,10, b = 10,10,10)

0.050

0.051

0.043

0.052

TN (s = 30,30,30, μ = 0.5,0.5, 0.5, σ2 = 0.1,0.1,0.1)

0.050

0.044

0.053

0.045

TN(s = 30,30,30, μ = 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, σ2 = 0.1,0.2,0.3)

0.053

0.067

0.047

0.053

TN (s = 20,30,40, μ = 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, σ2 = 0.1,0.1,0.1)

0.050

0.052

0.052

0.049

TN(s = 20,30,40, μ = 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, σ2 = 0.1,0.2,0.3)

0.047

0.054

0.051

0.043

Table 2

Empirical power at significance level 0.05 with 10000 replicates.

Distribution (sample sizes, parameters)

ANOVA

median

Welch

KW

Beta (s = 30, 30,30, a = 5,5,5,b = 20,25,30

0.821

0.576

0.810

0.775

Beta(s = 30, 30,30, a = 1.5,2,2.5, b = 20,20,20

0.650

0.504

0.648

0.710

Beta (s = 30, 30,30, a = 20,20,20, b = 1.5,2,2.5,

0.658

0.495

0.656

0.713

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 5,5,5, b = 20,25,30)

0.792

0.546

0.740

0.735

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 1.5,2,2.5, b = 20,20,20)

0.599

0.479

0.634

0.670

Beta (s = 20,30,40, a = 20,20,20, b = 1.5,2,2.5)

0.607

0.475

0.637

0.665

TN (s = 30, 30,30, μ = 0.45,0.5,0.55, σ2 = 0.2)

0.383

0.240

0.378

0.362

TN (s = 30, 30,30, μ = 0.45,0.5,0.55, σ2 = 0.1,0.2,0.3)

0.338

0.325

0.412

0.341

TN (s = 20,30,40, μ = 0.45,0.5,0.55, σ2 = 0.2)

0.349

0.238

0.343

0.328

TN (s = 20,30,40, μ = 0.45,0.5,0.55, σ2 = 0.1,0.2,0.3)

0.219

0.361

0.423

0.259

A real data set

We will use a real methylation data set, the United Kingdom Ovarian Cancer Population Study (UKOPS) [15] with 274 controls, 131 pre-treatment cases, and 135 post treatment cases, to compare the performance of the proposed test with others. Those methylation data were generated by the Illumina Infinium Huamn Methylaytion27 BeadChip and can be downloaded under accession number GSE19711 from the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo).

For this data set, there are 27578 loci. After data quality control process, we removed some subjects with BS values less than 4000 or the coverage rates less than 95%. We also separate subjects into 6 age groups (50-55, 55-60, 60-65, 65-70, 70-75, and 75 and over). Table 3 gives the numbers of subjects in each age by treatment groups. For each locus, we perform the above mentioned approaches.
Table 3

Number of samples in age group by treatment group used in the paper after removing subjects with bs <4000 or coverage rate <95% or age >80.

Age group

control

Pre-treat

Post-treat

Total

50_55

14

15

16

45

55_60

61

17

25

103

60_65

64

17

22

103

65_70

35

17

21

73

70_75

63

24

22

109

75_over

20

18

9

47

Total

257

108

115

480

Results

Simulation results

Table 1 reports the estimated type I error rates from each method under different conditions. For most of the time, the estimated type I error rates are close to the nominal significance level as expected. Table 2 gives the empirical powers from each method. It can be seen that the non-parametric method of Mood's median test usually has the lowest powers in the simulations. None of the ANOVA, Welch and KW tests is uniformly most powerful. In words, their performances depend on the distributions from which the data are generated. From our simulation study, the KW test is usually as powerful as or more powerful than the ANOVA test. The true distributions of the β -value may vary from locus to locus; it is impossible to simulate all possible distributions. However, based on the observation of the real data, we know that the distributions of the β -value are far from the normal distribution, under which ANOVA is the best test. Therefore, we prefer nonparametric tests which are more robust.

Results from real data set

For the real data set, we applied the above mentioned methods to get the overall p-values (either using Fisher or Z test to combine p-values from individual age groups) for each locus. Then we use various cutoff p-values, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001, and 0.000001, to count how many loci have smaller p-values for each method. Table 4 reports the results. We can see that the KW method usually finds more significant loci than other methods. It also shows that the two combining p-value methods, Fisher and Z test have similar performances, although Z test usually give a little bit more significant loci expect for the Median test. Figure 1 plots the negative log10 p-values from pairs of the methods. It shows that the KW method gives smaller p-values especially when the differences among the three treatment groups are not large (e.g., the negative log10 p-values between 3 and 6). From Figure 1 we can see that for a given cutoff p-value, most of the loci identified by ANOVA test or Median were also detected by the Welch test; in turn, most of the loci identified by Welch test were also detected by the KW test. This indicates the KW test is more powerful than other methods compared.
Table 4

Number of significant differentially methylated loci detected for given cutoff p-value based on the real data.

Method

1e-3

1e-4

1e-5

1e-6

 

Fisher

Z-test

Fisher

Z-test

Fisher

Z-test

Fisher

Z-test

ANOVA

981

1079

655

690

479

499

350

375

Median

906

893

464

449

255

240

143

127

Welch

1096

1106

640

673

416

424

281

289

K-W

1359

1340

823

859

551

590

381

401

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1755-8794-6-S1-S9/MediaObjects/12920_2013_Article_354_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Negative log10(p-value) from pair of methods. Negative log10 p-values from pair of methods. (a) Combined ANOVA test vs. combined median test both using Fisher methods to combine p-values. (b) Combined ANOVA test vs. combined Welch test both using Fisher methods to combine p-values. (c) Combined ANOVA test vs. combined Kruskal-Willas test both using Fisher methods to combine p-values. (d) Combined KW test using Z test vs. combined KW test using Fisher to combine p-values.

Discussion and conclusions

Due to the unique feature of the β -value of methylation data, traditional statistical methods, such as linear regression and ANOVA test may not be appropriate. It has been shown that methylation is highly correlated with age; ignoring age effect may cause many false positives and/or false negatives. The effect of age may also not be linear; therefore we need a better way to account for this effect. In this paper, we use p-value combination method to deal with age effect. For each age group, we use nonparametric method to compare the treatment groups. It is important to find powerful and robust nonparametric methods for this sort of data. Although we found that KW method is more powerful than some other nonparametric methods for methylation data, it is desirable to find more powerful tests in this area. Furthermore, we want to point out that there are many other methods can be used to combine p-values [22, 23]; it may also be possible to find a more powerful method to combine p-values for Illumina Array Methylation data. However, based on our experiences, Fisher test is more robust and can be used in situations when a small portion of the p-values are very small; while the Z test is more powerful when the effect sizes are similar (e.g., the p-values don't differ much) for all of the age groups. Finally, although in this paper we use different cutoff p-values to compare the performance of tests, one may want to control the false positive rate. Several multiple comparison methods have been proposed for large scale data set to deal with the situations where the variables (loci) are not independent [2428]. However, it remains to study which approach is more appropriate for the methylation data.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This article has been published as part of BMC Medical Genomics Volume 6 Supplement 1, 2013: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BIOCOMP'11). The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedgenomics/supplements/6/S1. Publication of this supplement has been supported by the International Society of Intelligent Biological Medicine.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington
(2)
Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
(3)
Chem21 Group, Inc, 1780 Wilson Drive
(4)
Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
(5)
School of Mathematics, University of Manchester
(6)
Neurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School
(7)
Rush University Cancer Center, Department of Internal Medicine and Biochemistry, Rush University Medical Center

References

  1. Kuan PF, Wang S, Zhou X, Chu H: A statistical framework for Illumina DNA methylation arrays. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26 (22): 2849-10.1093/bioinformatics/btq553.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Rakyan VK, Down TA, Thorne NP, Flicek P, Kulesha E, Gräf S, Tomazou EM, Bäckdahl L, Johnson N, Herberth M: An integrated resource for genome-wide identification and analysis of human tissue-specific differentially methylated regions (tDMRs). Genome research. 2008, 18 (9): 1518-1529. 10.1101/gr.077479.108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylin SB, Ohm JE: Epigenetic gene silencing in cancer-a mechanism for early oncogenic pathway addiction?. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2006, 6 (2): 107-116. 10.1038/nrc1799.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Feinberg AP, Tycko B: The history of cancer epigenetics. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2004, 4 (2): 143-153. 10.1038/nrc1279.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Jabbari K, Bernardi G: Cytosine methylation and CpG, TpG (CpA) and TpA frequencies. Gene. 2004, 333: 143-149.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones PA, Baylin SB: The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002, 3 (6): 415-428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kulis M, Esteller M: DNA methylation and cancer. Adv Genet. 2010, 70: 27-56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Laird PW: Principles and challenges of genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2010, 11 (3): 191-203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Wang S: Method to detect differentially methylated loci with case-control designs using Illumina arrays. Genetic Epidemiology. 2011, 35 (December): 686-694.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Xu GL, Bestor TH, Bourc'his D, Hsieh CL, Tommerup N, Bugge M, Hulten M, Qu X, Russo JJ, Viegas-Péquignot E: Chromosome instability and immunodeficiency syndrome caused by mutations in a DNA methyltransferase gene. Nature. 1999, 402 (6758): 187-191. 10.1038/46052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen KD, Timp W, Bravo HC, Sabunciyan S, Langmead B, McDonald OG, Wen B, Wu H, Liu Y, Diep D: Increased methylation variation in epigenetic domains across cancer types. Nature Genetics. 2011, 43 (8): 768-775. 10.1038/ng.865.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Z, Liu Q, Nadarajah S: A new statistical approach to detecting differentially methylated loci for case control Illumina array methylation data. Bioinformatics. 2012, 28 (8): 1109-1113. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts093.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang H, Chen Z: Age adjusted nonparametric detection of differential DNA methylation with case-control designs. Unpublished manuscript.
  14. Christensen BC, Houseman EA, Marsit CJ, Zheng S, Wrensch MR, Wiemels JL, Nelson HH, Karagas MR, Padbury JF, Bueno R: Aging and environmental exposures alter tissue-specific DNA methylation dependent upon CpG island context. PLoS genetics. 2009, 5 (8): e1000602-10.1371/journal.pgen.1000602.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Teschendorff AE, Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ramus SJ, Weisenberger DJ, Shen H, Campan M, Noushmehr H, Bell CG, Maxwell AP: Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes that are suppressed in stem cells is a hallmark of cancer. Genome research. 2010, 20 (4): 440-446. 10.1101/gr.103606.109.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen Z, Ng HKT: A robust method for testing association in genome-wide association studies. Human Heredity. 2012, 73 (1): 26-34. 10.1159/000334719.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen Z: A new association test based on Chi-square partition for case-control GWA studies. Genetic Epidemiology. 2011, 658-658. 35
  18. Fisher RA: Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1932Google Scholar
  19. Welch B: On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika. 1951, 38 (3/4): 330-336. 10.2307/2332579.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Cochran WG: Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series C: Applied Statistics. 1937, 4: 102-118.Google Scholar
  21. Chen Z, Ng HKT, Nadarajah S: A note on Cochran test for homogeneity in one-way ANOVA and meta-analysis. Statistical Papers. 2012, 1-10.Google Scholar
  22. Chen Z: Is the weighted z-test the best method for combining probabilities from independent tests?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2011, 24 (4): 926-930. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02226.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen Z, Nadarajah S: Comments on 'Choosing an optimal method to combine p-values' by Sungho Won, Nathan Morris, Qing Lu and Robert C. Elston, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28: 1537-1553. Statistics in Medicine. 2011, 30 (24): 2959-2961. 10.1002/sim.4222.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dudbridge F, Gusnanto A: Estimation of significance thresholds for genomewide association scans. Genet Epidemiol. 2008, 32 (3): 227-234. 10.1002/gepi.20297.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gao X, Starmer J, Martin ER: A multiple testing correction method for genetic association studies using correlated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genet Epidemiol. 2008, 32 (4): 361-369. 10.1002/gepi.20310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Moskvina V, Schmidt KM: On multiple-testing correction in genome-wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2008, 32 (6): 567-573. 10.1002/gepi.20331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pe'er I, Yelensky R, Altshuler D, Daly MJ: Estimation of the multiple testing burden for genomewide association studies of nearly all common variants. Genet Epidemiol. 2008, 32 (4): 381-385. 10.1002/gepi.20303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Chen Z, Liu Q: A new approach to account for the correlations among single nucleotide polymorphisms in genome-wide association studies. Human Heredity. 2011, 72 (1): 1-9. 10.1159/000330135.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.