Calling differential DNA methylation at cell-type resolution: avoiding misconceptions and promoting best practices
Jing, H.; Zheng, S.; Breeze, C.; Beck, S.; Teschendorff, A.
Show abstract
The accurate detection of cell-type specific DNA methylation alterations in the context of general epigenome studies is an important task to improve our understanding of epigenomics in disease development. Although a number of statistical algorithms designed to address this problem have emerged, the task remains challenging. Here we show that a recent commentary by Rahmani et al, that aims to address misconceptions and best practices in the field, continues to suffer from critical misconceptions in how statistical algorithms should be compared and evaluated. In addition, we report contradictory results on real EWAS datasets.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- scBFA: modeling detection patterns to mitigate technical noise in large-scale single cell genomics data 93%
- RAMEN: Dissecting individual, additive and interactive gene-environment contributions to DNA methylome variability in cord blood 93%
- An interpretable meta-clustering framework for single-cell RNA-Seq data integration and evaluation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cell-type-specific resolution epigenetics without the need for cell sorting or single-cell biology 95%
- Identification of putative causal loci in whole-genome sequencing data via knockoff statistics 94%
- Enhanced cell deconvolution of peripheral blood using DNA methylation for high-resolution immune profiling 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- MethylNet: An Automated and Modular Deep Learning Approach for DNA Methylation Analysis 95%
- fcfdr: an R package to leverage continuous and binary functional genomic data in GWAS 93%
- DMRscaler: A Scale-Aware Method to Identify Regions of Differential DNA Methylation Spanning Basepair to Multi-Megabase Features 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.