MOTIVATION: DNA methylation can be measured at the single CpG level using sodium bisulfite conversion of genomic DNA followed by sequencing or array hybridization. Many analytic tools have been developed, yet there is still a high demand for a comprehensive and multifaceted tool suite to analyze, annotate, QC and visualize the DNA methylation data. RESULTS: We developed the CpGtools package to analyze DNA methylation data generated from bisulfite sequencing or Illumina methylation arrays. The CpGtools package consists of three types of modules: (i) 'CpG position modules' focus on analyzing the genomic positions of CpGs, including associating other genomic and epigenomic features to a given list of CpGs and generating the DNA motif logo enriched in the genomic contexts of a given list of CpGs; (ii) 'CpG signal modules' are designed to analyze DNA methylation values, such as performing the PCA or t-SNE analyses, using Bayesian Gaussian mixture modeling to classify CpG sites into fully methylated, partially methylated and unmethylated groups, profiling the average DNA methylation level over user-specified genomics regions and generating the bean/violin plots and (iii) 'differential CpG analysis modules' focus on identifying differentially methylated CpGs between groups using different statistical methods including Fisher's Exact Test, Student's t-test, ANOVA, non-parametric tests, linear regression, logistic regression, beta-binomial regression and Bayesian estimation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: CpGtools is written in Python under the open-source GPL license. The source code and documentation are freely available at https://github.com/liguowang/cpgtools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

BACKGROUND: Stored biological samples with pathology information and medical records are invaluable resources for translational medical research. However, RNAs extracted from the archived clinical tissues are often substantially degraded. RNA degradation distorts the RNA-seq read coverage in a gene-specific manner, and has profound influences on whole-genome gene expression profiling. RESULT: We developed the transcript integrity number (TIN) to measure RNA degradation. When applied to 3 independent RNA-seq datasets, we demonstrated TIN is a reliable and sensitive measure of the RNA degradation at both transcript and sample level. Through comparing 10 prostate cancer clinical samples with lower RNA integrity to 10 samples with higher RNA quality, we demonstrated that calibrating gene expression counts with TIN scores could effectively neutralize RNA degradation effects by reducing false positives and recovering biologically meaningful pathways. When further evaluating the performance of TIN correction using spike-in transcripts in RNA-seq data generated from the Sequencing Quality Control consortium, we found TIN adjustment had better control of false positives and false negatives (sensitivity = 0.89, specificity = 0.91, accuracy = 0.90), as compared to gene expression analysis results without TIN correction (sensitivity = 0.98, specificity = 0.50, accuracy = 0.86). CONCLUSION: TIN is a reliable measurement of RNA integrity and a valuable approach used to neutralize in vitro RNA degradation effect and improve differential gene expression analysis.

MOTIVATION: Batch effects are due to probe-specific systematic variation between groups of samples (batches) resulting from experimental features that are not of biological interest. Principal component analysis (PCA) is commonly used as a visual tool to determine whether batch effects exist after applying a global normalization method. However, PCA yields linear combinations of the variables that contribute maximum variance and thus will not necessarily detect batch effects if they are not the largest source of variability in the data. RESULTS: We present an extension of PCA to quantify the existence of batch effects, called guided PCA (gPCA). We describe a test statistic that uses gPCA to test whether a batch effect exists. We apply our proposed test statistic derived using gPCA to simulated data and to two copy number variation case studies: the first study consisted of 614 samples from a breast cancer family study using Illumina Human 660 bead-chip arrays, whereas the second case study consisted of 703 samples from a family blood pressure study that used Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0. We demonstrate that our statistic has good statistical properties and is able to identify significant batch effects in two copy number variation case studies. CONCLUSION: We developed a new statistic that uses gPCA to identify whether batch effects exist in high-throughput genomic data. Although our examples pertain to copy number data, gPCA is general and can be used on other data types as well. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The gPCA R package (Available via CRAN) provides functionality and data to perform the methods in this article. CONTACT: [email protected]

BACKGROUND: Copy number data are routinely being extracted from genome-wide association study chips using a variety of software. We empirically evaluated and compared four freely-available software packages designed for Affymetrix SNP chips to estimate copy number: Affymetrix Power Tools (APT), Aroma.Affymetrix, PennCNV and CRLMM. Our evaluation used 1,418 GENOA samples that were genotyped on the Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0. We compared bias and variance in the locus-level copy number data, the concordance amongst regions of copy number gains/deletions and the false-positive rate amongst deleted segments. RESULTS: APT had median locus-level copy numbers closest to a value of two, whereas PennCNV and Aroma.Affymetrix had the smallest variability associated with the median copy number. Of those evaluated, only PennCNV provides copy number specific quality-control metrics and identified 136 poor CNV samples. Regions of copy number variation (CNV) were detected using the hidden Markov models provided within PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce. PennCNV detected more CNVs than CRLMM/VanillaIce; the median number of CNVs detected per sample was 39 and 30, respectively. PennCNV detected most of the regions that CRLMM/VanillaIce did as well as additional CNV regions. The median concordance between PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce was 47.9% for duplications and 51.5% for deletions. The estimated false-positive rate associated with deletions was similar for PennCNV and CRLMM/VanillaIce. CONCLUSIONS: If the objective is to perform statistical tests on the locus-level copy number data, our empirical results suggest that PennCNV or Aroma.Affymetrix is optimal. If the objective is to perform statistical tests on the summarized segmented data then PennCNV would be preferred over CRLMM/VanillaIce. Specifically, PennCNV allows the analyst to estimate locus-level copy number, perform segmentation and evaluate CNV-specific quality-control metrics within a single software package. PennCNV has relatively small bias, small variability and detects more regions while maintaining a similar estimated false-positive rate as CRLMM/VanillaIce. More generally, we advocate that software developers need to provide guidance with respect to evaluating and choosing optimal settings in order to obtain optimal results for an individual dataset. Until such guidance exists, we recommend trying multiple algorithms, evaluating concordance/discordance and subsequently consider the union of regions for downstream association tests.

MOTIVATION: Using stable isotopes in global proteome scans, labeled molecules from one sample are pooled with unlabeled molecules from another sample and subsequently subjected to mass-spectral analysis. Stable-isotope methodologies make use of the fact that identical molecules of different stable-isotope compositions are differentiated in a mass spectrometer and are represented in a mass spectrum as distinct isotopic clusters with a known mass shift. We describe two multivariable linear regression models for (16)O/(18)O stable-isotope labeled data that jointly model pairs of resolved isotopic clusters from the same peptide and quantify the abundance present in each of the two biological samples while concurrently accounting for peptide-specific incorporation rates of the heavy isotope. The abundance measure for each peptide from the two biological samples is then used in down-stream statistical analyses, e.g. differential expression analysis. Because the multivariable regression models are able to correct for the abundance of the labeled peptide that appear as an unlabeled peptide due to the inability to exchange the natural C-terminal oxygen for the heavy isotope, they are particularly advantageous for a two-step digestion/labeling procedure. We discuss how estimates from the regression model are used to quantify the variability of the estimated abundance measures for the paired samples. Although discussed in the context of (16)O/(18)O stable-isotope labeled data, the multivariable regression models are generalizable to other stable-isotope labeled technologies.