It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
DNA methylation plays a fundamental role in the control of gene expression and genome integrity. Although there are multiple tools that enable its detection from Nanopore sequencing, their accuracy remains largely unknown. Here, we present a systematic benchmarking of tools for the detection of CpG methylation from Nanopore sequencing using individual reads, control mixtures of methylated and unmethylated reads, and bisulfite sequencing. We found that tools have a tradeoff between false positives and false negatives and present a high dispersion with respect to the expected methylation frequency values. We described various strategies to improve the accuracy of these tools, including a consensus approach, METEORE (https://github.com/comprna/METEORE), based on the combination of the predictions from two or more tools that shows improved accuracy over individual tools. Snakemake pipelines are also provided for reproducibility and to enable the systematic application of our analyses to other datasets.
Several existing algorithms predict the methylation of DNA using Nanopore sequencing signals, but it is unclear how they compare in performance. Here, the authors benchmark the performance of several such tools, and propose METEORE, a consensus tool that improves prediction accuracy.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 EMBL Australia Partner Laboratory Network, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477); Australian National University, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477)
2 Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Macleod, Australia (GRID:grid.474235.3)
3 University of Technology Sydney, Centre for Forensic Science, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MaPS), Faculty of Science, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.117476.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7611)
4 Australian National University, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477)
5 EMBL Australia Partner Laboratory Network, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477); Australian National University, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Canberra, Australia (GRID:grid.1001.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2180 7477); Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.425902.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9601 989X); Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain (GRID:grid.20522.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1767 9005)