DNA Methylation Profiling: Comparison of Genome-Wide Sequencing Methods and the Infinium Human Methylation 450 Bead Chip

Abstract

Aims: To compare the performance of four sequence-based and one microarray methods for DNA methylation profiling. Methods: DNA from two cell lines were profiled by reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, methyl capture sequencing (SS-Meth Seq), NimbleGen SeqCapEpi CpGiant(Nimblegen MethSeq), methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) and the Human Methylation 450 Bead Chip (Meth450K). Results & conclusion: Despite differences in genome-wide coverage, high correlation and concordance were observed between different methods. Significant overlap of differentially methylated regions was identified between sequenced-based platforms. MeDIP provided the best coverage for the whole genome and gene body regions, while RRBS and Nimblegen MethSeq were superior for CpGs in CpG islands and promoters. Methylation analyses can be achieved by any of the five methods but understanding their differences may better address the research question being posed.

Author disclosure

The following cell lines were obtained from the NIGMS Human Genetic Cell Repository at the Coriell Institute for Medical Research: NA12878 and NA12892.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study was funded by the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The authors state that they have obtained appropriate institutional review board approval or have followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki for all human or animal experimental investigations. In addition, for investigations involving human subjects, informed consent has been obtained from the participants involved.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.