Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Epigenetics

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Methylation calling tools, what works well? mixter Epigenetics 4 03-02-2015 11:17 AM
ChIP-Seq Peak Calling tools oxydeepu Bioinformatics 3 01-18-2013 12:42 AM
Best tools for SNP calling with resequenced mutant? Uli Genomic Resequencing 1 01-17-2013 06:33 AM
base calling bustard or external tools? airtime Bioinformatics 0 03-09-2012 03:37 AM
tools for SNP calling in pooled samples gfmgfm Bioinformatics 0 12-30-2010 09:57 AM

Thread Tools
Old 04-24-2013, 09:37 AM   #1
Location: MD

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16
Default Tools to perform QC of methylation calling


My BS-seq mapping generated different methylation level value (count_C/(count_C+count_T)) at different bases. Some values are very low (~0.07). I wonder if there is a widely accepted threshold to filter unreliable methylation calling or any tool can do this?

Many thanks
ynwh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 03:36 PM   #2
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 64

To clarify, are you wanting to identify cytosines that show evidence of methylation and thus you want to filter out any with low estimated levels of methylation that you think might be simply attributable to 'error' (be that sequencing error, bisuflite-conversion error, mapping error, base calling error, etc.)?

If so, you might have a read of the supplementary material of Lister et al. (Nature, 2009 and 2011:, They use a binomial test to "[establish] the minimum threshold number of cytosines sequenced at each reference cytosine position at which the position could be called as methylated, so that out of all methylcytosines identified no more than 1% would be due to the error rate."

I don't know of any software off-hand that implements this test for BS-seq data but it is a simple binomial test that could be implemented in, for example, R.

I would be reluctant to use a simple threshold (e.g. 0.3) because the estimated methylation level is a function of the coverage in BS-seq, as is the standard error of your estimate. And I don't think there is a "widely accepted" threshold. That said, this paper ( does provide thresholds, although the paper they cite is a study using microarrays (where thresholds may be more justified) rather than BS-seq.

Hope this helps,
PeteH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 05:14 AM   #3
Location: MD

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16


Many thanks for your answer. That's really helpful.
ynwh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 05:54 AM   #4
Senior Member
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392

You really need a control for you BS treatment, an unmethylated genome which was also treated with BS so that you can estimate the conversion. In plants the chloroplast genome serves as a convenient internal control, otherwise you should spike in lambda phage in your samples. That is essential to the calculations used by Lister et al.
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote

bioinformatics, epigenetics, ngs analysis

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO