Strategies for analyzing bisulfite sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation is one of the main epigenetic modifications in the eukaryotic genome; it has been shown to play a role in cell-type specific regulation of gene expression, and therefore cell-type identity. Bisulfite sequencing is the gold-standard for measuring methylation over the genomes of interest. Here, we review several techniques used for the analysis of high-throughput bisulfite sequencing. We introduce specialized short-read alignment techniques as well as pre/post-alignment quality check methods to ensure data quality. Furthermore, we discuss subsequent analysis steps after alignment. We introduce various differential methylation methods and compare their performance using simulated and real bisulfite sequencing datasets. We also discuss the methods used to segment methylomes in order to pinpoint regulatory regions. We introduce annotation methods that can be used for further classification of regions returned by segmentation and differential methylation methods. Finally, we review software packages that implement strategies to efficiently deal with large bisulfite sequencing datasets locally and we discuss online analysis workflows that do not require any prior programming skills. The analysis strategies described in this review will guide researchers at any level to the best practices of bisulfite sequencing analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".