Who’s afraid of the X? Incorporating the X and Y chromosomes into the analysis of DNA methylation array data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Many human disease phenotypes manifest differently by sex, making the development of methods for incorporating X and Y-chromosome data into analyses vital. Unfortunately, X and Y chromosome data are frequently excluded from large-scale analyses of the human genome and epigenome due to analytical complexity associated with sex chromosome dosage differences between XX and XY individuals, and the impact of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) on the epigenome. As such, little attention has been given to considering the methods by which sex chromosome data may be included in analyses of DNA methylation (DNAme) array data. Results With Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 DNAme array data from 634 placental samples, we investigated the effects of probe filtering, normalization, and batch correction on DNAme data from the X and Y chromosomes. Processing steps were evaluated in both mixed-sex and sex-stratified subsets of the analysis cohort to identify whether including both sexes impacted processing results. We found that identification of probes that have a high detection p-value, or that are non-variable, should be performed in sex-stratified data subsets to avoid over- and under-estimation of the quantity of probes eligible for removal, respectively. All normalization techniques investigated returned X and Y DNAme data that were highly correlated with the raw data from the same samples. We found no difference in batch correction results after application to mixed-sex or sex-stratified cohorts. Additionally, we identify two analytical methods suitable for XY chromosome data, the choice between which should be guided by the research question of interest, and we performed a proof-of-concept analysis studying differential DNAme on the X and Y chromosome in the context of placental acute chorioamnionitis. Finally, we provide an annotation of probe types that may be desirable to filter in X and Y chromosome analyses, including probes in repetitive elements, the X-transposed region, and cancer-testis gene promoters. Conclusion While there may be no single “best” approach for analyzing DNAme array data from the X and Y chromosome, analysts must consider key factors during processing and analysis of sex chromosome data to accommodate the underlying biology of these chromosomes, and the technical limitations of DNA methylation arrays.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".