↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of novel and existing methods for detecting differentially methylated regions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of novel and existing methods for detecting differentially methylated regions
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12863-018-0637-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Lent, Hanfei Xu, Lan Wang, Zhe Wang, Chloé Sarnowski, Marie-France Hivert, Josée Dupuis

Abstract

Single-probe analyses in epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) have identified associations between DNA methylation and many phenotypes, but do not take into account information from neighboring probes. Methods to detect differentially methylated regions (DMRs) (clusters of neighboring probes associated with a phenotype) may provide more power to detect associations between DNA methylation and diseases or phenotypes of interest. We proposed a novel approach, GlobalP, and perform comparisons with 3 methods-DMRcate, Bumphunter, and comb-p-to identify DMRs associated with log triglycerides (TGs) in real GAW20 data before and after fenofibrate treatment. We applied these methods to the summary statistics from an EWAS performed on the methylation data. Comb-p, DMRcate, and GlobalP detected very similar DMRs near the gene CPT1A on chromosome 11 in both the pre- and posttreatment data. In addition, GlobalP detected 2 DMRs before fenofibrate treatment in the genes ETV6 and ABCG1. Bumphunter identified several DMRs on chromosomes 1 and 20, which did not overlap with DMRs detected by other methods. Our novel method detected the same DMR identified by two existing methods and detected two additional DMRs not identified by any of the existing methods we compared.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Mathematics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#861
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,047
of 350,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.