Does it make sense to use Biseq for DMPs/DMCs in addition to DMRs?
0
0
Entering edit mode
@iscastanho-23170
Last seen 10 months ago

I am working with RRBS datasets. I started using Biseq for DMRs and was looking for an alternative package for DMPs/DMCs (I actually tried a few). I really like the smothing approach used in Biseq and in discussions with colleagues we realised that it would be nice to use the Biseq-smoothed methylation for DMPs. I then noticed that I had the statiscal output from the betaregression step on Biseq and therefore I applied an FDR-correction to these p-values and used that as DMPs. I do realise that I lost many sites in the smoothing steps because Biseq only keeps sites that are considered to be clustered together; but I do like the fact that it 'normalises' the methylation for each site considering the methylation in nearby sites (region-wise error control) and most importantly I particularly like the fact that Biseq uses sequencing coverage when performing the smoothing. So although I lose a big junk of my data, in theory the data I keep is of much better quality (i.e. contains less false positives).

All of that said, I would like to know the opinions of the authors of the package and other people that uses / have used Biseq - does using Biseq for DMPs make sense?

Thank you.

Biseq Methylation DMP DMR RRBS • 110 views
ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 322 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6