Paper detail

Statistical inference of transmission fidelity of DNA methylation patterns over somatic cell divisions in mammals

We develop Bayesian inference methods for a recently-emerging type of epigenetic data to study the transmission fidelity of DNA methylation patterns over cell divisions. The data consist of parent-daughter double-stranded DNA methylation patterns with each pattern coming from a single cell and represented as an unordered pair of binary strings. The data are technically difficult and time-consuming to collect, putting a premium on an efficient inference method. Our aim is to estimate rates for the maintenance and de novo methylation events that gave rise to the observed patterns, while accounting for measurement error. We model data at multiple sites jointly, thus using whole-strand information, and considerably reduce confounding between parameters. We also adopt a hierarchical structure that allows for variation in rates across sites without an explosion in the effective number of parameters. Our context-specific priors capture the expected stationarity, or near-stationarity, of the stochastic process that generated the data analyzed here. This expected stationarity is shown to greatly increase the precision of the estimation. Applying our model to a data set collected at the human FMR1 locus, we find that measurement errors, generally ignored in similar studies, occur at a nontrivial rate (inappropriate bisulfite conversion error: 1.6$%$ with 80$%$ CI: 0.9--2.3$%$). Accounting for these errors has a substantial impact on estimates of key biological parameters. The estimated average failure of maintenance rate and daughter de novo rate decline from 0.04 to 0.024 and from 0.14 to 0.07, respectively, when errors are accounted for. Our results also provide evidence that de novo events may occur on both parent and daughter strands: the median parent and daughter de novo rates are 0.08 (80$%$ CI: 0.04--0.13) and 0.07 (80$%$ CI: 0.04--0.11), respectively.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.