Comparison of Beta-value and M-value methods for quantifying methylation levels by microarray analysis

Abstract

BackgroundHigh-throughput profiling of DNA methylation status of CpG islands is crucial to understand the epigenetic regulation of genes. The microarray-based Infinium methylation assay by Illumina is one platform for low-cost high-throughput methylation profiling. Both Beta-value and M-value statistics have been used as metrics to measure methylation levels. However, there are no detailed studies of their relations and their strengths and limitations.ResultsWe demonstrate that the relationship between the Beta-value and M-value methods is a Logit transformation, and show that the Beta-value method has severe heteroscedasticity for highly methylated or unmethylated CpG sites. In order to evaluate the performance of the Beta-value and M-value methods for identifying differentially methylated CpG sites, we designed a methylation titration experiment. The evaluation results show that the M-value method provides much better performance in terms of Detection Rate (DR) and True Positive Rate (TPR) for both highly methylated and unmethylated CpG sites. Imposing a minimum threshold of difference can improve the performance of the M-value method but not the Beta-value method. We also provide guidance for how to select the threshold of methylation differences.ConclusionsThe Beta-value has a more intuitive biological interpretation, but the M-value is more statistically valid for the differential analysis of methylation levels. Therefore, we recommend using the M-value method for conducting differential methylation analysis and including the Beta-value statistics when reporting the results to investigators.

Distinct chromatin signatures of DNA hypomethylation in aging and cancer

“…Cancer‐related dmCpGs were calculated between normal tissue ( Solid Tissue Normal ) and tumor samples ( Primary Tumor ) as indicated in Tables 1, S1 and S2. Probes with M‐value changes of <0.5 were not considered as dmCpGs, as has been suggested elsewhere (Du et al., 2010). Venn diagrams of relationships between dmCpGs were generated with the online resource provided by the UGent/VIB bioinformatics unit (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/Venn/).…”

High-definition CpG methylation of novel genes in gastric carcinogenesis identified by next-generation sequencing

“…For statistical analyses, β-values were converted to M-values using the formula M = log2 (beta/(1-beta)) to improve linearity and normality. 25 Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare M-values between the sample groups. Cancer samples and non-neoplastic mucosa samples were separated into low, intermediate, and high methylators, based on the average of the β-values of all GoldenGate probes, using the thresholds ≥ 0.35 (high methylators, five cases) or ≤ 0.30 (low methylators, five cases).…”

A cancer pharmacogenomic screen powering crowd-sourced advancement of drug combination prediction

“…DNA methylation -We reported for 82 cell lines the beta and M values 45 for 287,450 probes; no methylation was available for the cell lines SW620, KMS-11 and MDA-MB-175-VII. In an additional processing step, CpG sites were compressed to CpG ilse with the definition from UCSC genome browser 46 , resulting in a total of 26,313 CpG ilse based on either M or beta values.…”