Differential Methylation

Introduction: Differential Methylation of Sample Groups

Differential methylation analysis was conducted on site and region level according to the sample groups specified in the analysis.

Comparisons

The following comparisons were made:

P-values

In the following anlyses, p-values on the site level were computed using the limma method. I.e. hierarchical linear models from the limma package were employed and fitted using an empirical Bayes approach on derived M-values.

Site Level

Differential methylation on the site level was computed based on a variety of metrics. Of particular interest for the following plots and analyses are the following quantities for each site: a) the difference in mean methylation levels of the two groups being compared, b) the quotient in mean methylation and c) a statistical test (limma or t-test depending on the settings) assessing whether the methylation values in the two groups originate from distinct distributions. Additionally each site was assigned a rank based on each of these three criteria. A combined rank is computed as the maximum (i.e. worst) rank among the three ranks. The smaller the combined rank for a site, the more evidence for differential methylation it exhibits. This section includes scatterplots of the site group means as well as volcano plots of each pairwise comparison colored according to the combined ranks or p-values of a given site.

The following rank cutfoffs have been automatically selected for the analysis of differentially methylated sites:

Rank Cutoff
R01C01 vs. non.R01C01 (based on Sentrix position) 22259
R01C02 vs. non.R01C02 (based on Sentrix position) 108908
R02C01 vs. non.R02C01 (based on Sentrix position) 90162
R02C02 vs. non.R02C02 (based on Sentrix position) 3783
R03C01 vs. non.R03C01 (based on Sentrix position) 162
R03C02 vs. non.R03C02 (based on Sentrix position) 0
R04C01 vs. non.R04C01 (based on Sentrix position) 80
R04C02 vs. non.R04C02 (based on Sentrix position) 100032
R05C01 vs. non.R05C01 (based on Sentrix position) 75110
R05C02 vs. non.R05C02 (based on Sentrix position) 0
R06C01 vs. non.R06C01 (based on Sentrix position) 45377
R06C02 vs. non.R06C02 (based on Sentrix position) 49190
Primary solid Tumor vs. Recurrent Solid Tumor (based on Type) 95056
FEMALE vs. MALE (based on Gender) 92989
HISPANIC OR LATINO vs. NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO (based on Ethnicity) 106449
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN vs. WHITE (based on Race) 105040
DECEASED vs. LIVING (based on Vital status) 0
mutated vs. wild type (based on IDH1) 107977
negative vs. positive (based on G-CIMP status) 97450
female vs. male (based on Predicted Gender) 76805
comparison
differential methylation measure

Figure 1

Figure 1

Scatterplot for differential methylation (sites). If the selected criterion is not rankGradient: The transparency corresponds to point density. If the number of points exceeds 2e+06 then the number of points for density estimation is reduced to that number by random sampling.The1% of the points in the sparsest populated plot regions are drawn explicitly (up to a maximum of 10000 points).Additionally, the colored points represent differentially methylated sites (according to the selected criterion). If the selected criterion is rankGradient: median combined ranks accross hexagonal bins are shown as a gradient according to the color legend.

comparison
difference metric
significance metric

Figure 2

Figure 2

Volcano plot for differential methylation quantified by various metrics. Color scale according to combined ranking.

Differential Methylation Tables

A tabular overview of measures for differential methylation on the site level for the individual comparisons are provided in this section. Below, a brief explanation of the different columns can be found:

The tables for the individual comparisons can be found here:

Region Level

Differential methylation on the region level was computed based on a variety of metrics. Of particular interest for the following plots and analyses are the following quantities for each region: the mean difference in means across all sites in a region of the two groups being compared and the mean of quotients in mean methylation as well as a combined p-value calculated from all site p-values in the region [1]. Additionally each region was assigned a rank based on each of these three criteria. A combined rank is computed as the maximum (i.e. worst) value among the three ranks. The smaller the combined rank for a region, the more evidence for differential methylation it exhibits. Regions were defined based on the region types specified in the analysis. This section includes scatterplots of the region group means as well as volcano plots of each pairwise comparison colored according to the combined rank of a given region.

The following rank cutfoffs have been automatically selected for the analysis of differentially methylated regions:

promoters genes cpgislands
R01C01 vs. non.R01C01 (based on Sentrix position) 6 63 59
R01C02 vs. non.R01C02 (based on Sentrix position) 112 383 358
R02C01 vs. non.R02C01 (based on Sentrix position) 8 0 41
R02C02 vs. non.R02C02 (based on Sentrix position) 26 57 0
R03C01 vs. non.R03C01 (based on Sentrix position) 0 24 31
R03C02 vs. non.R03C02 (based on Sentrix position) 0 17 0
R04C01 vs. non.R04C01 (based on Sentrix position) 100 15 0
R04C02 vs. non.R04C02 (based on Sentrix position) 548 80 84
R05C01 vs. non.R05C01 (based on Sentrix position) 117 0 61
R05C02 vs. non.R05C02 (based on Sentrix position) 42 0 0
R06C01 vs. non.R06C01 (based on Sentrix position) 56 0 0
R06C02 vs. non.R06C02 (based on Sentrix position) 118 0 0
Primary solid Tumor vs. Recurrent Solid Tumor (based on Type) 1167 311 2083
FEMALE vs. MALE (based on Gender) 110 0 0
HISPANIC OR LATINO vs. NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO (based on Ethnicity) 485 355 626
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN vs. WHITE (based on Race) 2 0 28
DECEASED vs. LIVING (based on Vital status) 55 35 18
mutated vs. wild type (based on IDH1) 1761 3223 5247
negative vs. positive (based on G-CIMP status) 3956 1133 5012
female vs. male (based on Predicted Gender) 0 35 66
comparison
regions
differential methylation measure

Figure 3

Figure 3

Scatterplot for differential methylation (regions). If the selected criterion is not rankGradient: The transparency corresponds to point density. The 1% of the points in the sparsest populated plot regions are drawn explicitly. Additionally, the colored points represent differentially methylated regions (according to the selected criterion). If the selected criterion is rankGradient: median combined ranks accross hexagonal bins are shown as a gradient according to the color legend.

comparison
regions
difference metric
significance metric

Figure 4

Figure 4

Volcano plot for differential methylation quantified by various metrics. Color scale according to combined ranking.

Differential Methylation Tables

A tabular overview of measures for differential methylation on the region level for the individual comparisons are provided in this section.

The tables for the individual comparisons can be found here:

promoters genes cpgislands
R01C01 vs. non.R01C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R01C02 vs. non.R01C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R02C01 vs. non.R02C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R02C02 vs. non.R02C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R03C01 vs. non.R03C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R03C02 vs. non.R03C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R04C01 vs. non.R04C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R04C02 vs. non.R04C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R05C01 vs. non.R05C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R05C02 vs. non.R05C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R06C01 vs. non.R06C01 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
R06C02 vs. non.R06C02 (based on Sentrix position) csv csv csv
Primary solid Tumor vs. Recurrent Solid Tumor (based on Type) csv csv csv
FEMALE vs. MALE (based on Gender) csv csv csv
HISPANIC OR LATINO vs. NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO (based on Ethnicity) csv csv csv
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN vs. WHITE (based on Race) csv csv csv
DECEASED vs. LIVING (based on Vital status) csv csv csv
mutated vs. wild type (based on IDH1) csv csv csv
negative vs. positive (based on G-CIMP status) csv csv csv
female vs. male (based on Predicted Gender) csv csv csv

GO Enrichment Analysis

GO Enrichment Analysis was conducted. The wordclouds and tables below contains significant GO terms as determined by a hypergeometric test.

comparison
Hypermethylation/hypomethylation
ontology
regions
differential methylation measure

Figure 5

Figure 5

Wordclouds for GO enrichment terms.

comparison
Hypermethylation/hypomethylation
ontology
regions
differential methylation measure

GOMFID Pvalue OddsRatio ExpCount Count Size Term
GO:0008037 0.001 17.681 0.1975 3 137 cell recognition
GO:0048850 0.0043 361.9773 0.0043 1 3 hypophysis morphogenesis
GO:0060370 0.0043 361.9773 0.0043 1 3 susceptibility to T cell mediated cytotoxicity
GO:0042271 0.0058 241.303 0.0058 1 4 susceptibility to natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity
GO:0051464 0.0058 241.303 0.0058 1 4 positive regulation of cortisol secretion
GO:0060126 0.0058 241.303 0.0058 1 4 somatotropin secreting cell differentiation
GO:0007052 0.0084 16.0436 0.1384 2 96 mitotic spindle organization
GO:0021979 0.0086 144.7636 0.0087 1 6 hypothalamus cell differentiation
GO:0050911 0.0097 7.6076 0.4484 3 311 detection of chemical stimulus involved in sensory perception of smell

LOLA Enrichment Analysis

No LOLA Enrichment Analysis was conducted

References

  1. Makambi, K. (2003) Weighted inverse chi-square method for correlated significance tests. Journal of Applied Statistics, 30(2), 225234