A Hidden Markov Model for Identifying Differentially Methylated Sites in Bisulfite Sequencing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation studies have enabled researchers to understand methylation patterns and their regulatory roles in biological processes and disease. However, only a limited number of statistical approaches have been developed to provide formal quantitative analysis. Specifically, a few available methods do identify differentially methylated CpG (DMC) sites or regions (DMR), but they suffer from limitations that arise mostly due to challenges inherent in bisulfite sequencing data. These challenges include: (1) that read-depths vary considerably among genomic positions and are often low; (2) both methylation and autocorrelation patterns change as regions change; and (3) CpG sites are distributed unevenly. Furthermore, there are several methodological limitations: almost none of these tools is capable of comparing multiple groups and/or working with missing values, and only a few allow continuous or multiple covariates. The last of these is of great interest among researchers, as the goal is often to find which regions of the genome are associated with several exposures and traits. To tackle these issues, we have developed an efficient DMC identification method based on Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) called "DMCHMM" which is a three-step approach (model selection, prediction, testing) aiming to address the aforementioned drawbacks. Our proposed method is different from other HMM methods since it profiles methylation of each sample separately, hence exploiting inter-CpG autocorrelation within samples, and it is more flexible than previous approaches by allowing multiple hidden states. Using simulations, we show that DMCHMM has the best performance among several competing methods. An analysis of cell-separated blood methylation profiles is also provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".