» Articles » PMID: 30304472

Detection of Epigenetic Field Defects Using a Weighted Epigenetic Distance-based Method

Overview
Specialty Biochemistry
Date 2018 Oct 11
PMID 30304472
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Identifying epigenetic field defects, notably early DNA methylation alterations, is important for early cancer detection. Research has suggested these early methylation alterations are infrequent across samples and identifiable as outlier samples. Here we developed a weighted epigenetic distance-based method characterizing (dis)similarity in methylation measures at multiple CpGs in a gene or a genetic region between pairwise samples, with weights to up-weight signal CpGs and down-weight noise CpGs. Using distance-based approaches, weak signals that might be filtered out in a CpG site-level analysis could be accumulated and therefore boost the overall study power. In constructing epigenetic distances, we considered both differential methylation (DM) and differential variability (DV) signals. We demonstrated the superior performance of the proposed weighted epigenetic distance-based method over non-weighted versions and site-level EWAS (epigenome-wide association studies) methods in simulation studies. Application to breast cancer methylation data from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) comparing normal-adjacent tissue to tumor of breast cancer patients and normal tissue of independent age-matched cancer-free women identified novel epigenetic field defects that were missed by EWAS methods, when majority were previously reported to be associated with breast cancer and were confirmed the progression to breast cancer. We further replicated some of the identified epigenetic field defects.

Citing Articles

Heavy metal tolerance in Scopelophila cataractae: Transcriptomic and epigenetic datasets.

Boquete M, Schmid M, Wagemaker N, Carey S, McDaniel S, Richards C Data Brief. 2022; 45:108710.

PMID: 36426070 PMC: 9679722. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2022.108710.


Integration of Epigenetic Mechanisms into Non-Genotoxic Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Focus on DNA Methylation and Histone Modifications.

Desaulniers D, Vasseur P, Jacobs A, Aguila M, Ertych N, Jacobs M Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22(20).

PMID: 34681626 PMC: 8535778. DOI: 10.3390/ijms222010969.


Purity estimation from differentially methylated sites using Illumina Infinium methylation microarray data.

Azim R, Wang S, Zhou S, Zhong X Cell Cycle. 2020; 19(16):2028-2039.

PMID: 32627651 PMC: 7469651. DOI: 10.1080/15384101.2020.1789315.


A powerful and flexible weighted distance-based method incorporating interactions between DNA methylation and environmental factors on health outcomes.

Wang Y, Qian M, Tang D, Herbstman J, Perera F, Wang S Bioinformatics. 2019; 36(3):653-659.

PMID: 31504174 PMC: 7523680. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz630.

References
1.
Wolf J, Muller-Decker K, Flechtenmacher C, Zhang F, Shahmoradgoli M, Mills G . An in vivo RNAi screen identifies SALL1 as a tumor suppressor in human breast cancer with a role in CDH1 regulation. Oncogene. 2013; 33(33):4273-8. PMC: 6662585. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2013.515. View

2.
Feinberg A, Tycko B . The history of cancer epigenetics. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004; 4(2):143-53. DOI: 10.1038/nrc1279. View

3.
Stirzaker C, Zotenko E, Song J, Qu W, Nair S, Locke W . Methylome sequencing in triple-negative breast cancer reveals distinct methylation clusters with prognostic value. Nat Commun. 2015; 6:5899. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6899. View

4.
Hou J, Wu J, Dombkowski A, Zhang K, Holowatyj A, Boerner J . Genomic amplification and a role in drug-resistance for the KDM5A histone demethylase in breast cancer. Am J Transl Res. 2012; 4(3):247-56. PMC: 3426386. View

5.
Wettenhall J, Smyth G . limmaGUI: a graphical user interface for linear modeling of microarray data. Bioinformatics. 2004; 20(18):3705-6. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth449. View