Skip to content
naulon
Get started

Corrected on Feb 22, 2019.

Source: the publisher, via Crossref · checked Nov 1, 2026 · Read the notice

Comparison of whole-genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data

Nelly Olova, Felix Krueger, Simon Andrews and 4 more

Genome Biology · 2018

doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1408-2

Abstract

Background. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) is becoming an increasingly accessible technique, used widely for both fundamental and disease-oriented research. Library preparation methods benefit from a variety of available kits, polymerases and bisulfite conversion protocols. Although some steps in the procedure, such as PCR amplification, are known to introduce biases, a systematic evaluation of biases in WGBS strategies is missing.

Results. We perform a comparative analysis of several commonly used pre- and post-bisulfite WGBS library preparation protocols for their performance and quality of sequencing outputs. Our results show that bisulfite conversion per se is the main trigger of pronounced sequencing biases, and PCR amplification builds on these underlying artefacts. The majority of standard library preparation methods yield a significantly biased sequence output and overestimate global methylation. Importantly, both absolute and relative methylation levels at specific genomic regions vary substantially between methods, with clear implications for DNA methylation studies.

Conclusions. We show that amplification-free library preparation is the least biased approach for WGBS. In protocols with amplification, the choice of bisulfite conversion protocol or polymerase can significantly minimize artefacts. To aid with the quality assessment of existing WGBS datasets, we have integrated a bias diagnostic tool in the Bismark package and offer several approaches for consideration during the preparation and analysis of WGBS datasets.

Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article (10.1186/s13059-018-1408-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References 70

  1. 1.

    Frommer M, Mcdonald LE, Millar DS, Collist CM, Wattt F, Griggt GW, et al. A genomic sequencing protocol that yields a positive display of 5-methylcytosine residues in individual DNA strands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:1827-1831.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.89.5.1827

  2. 2.

    Grunau C, Clark SJ, Rosenthal A. Bisulfite genomic sequencing: systematic investigation of critical experimental parameters. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:E65.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/29.13.e65

  3. 3.

    Warnecke PM, Stirzaker C, Song J, Grunau C, Melki JR, Clark SJ. Identification and resolution of artifacts in bisulfite sequencing. Methods. 2002;27:101-107.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1046-2023(02)00060-9

  4. 4.

    Harris RA, Wang T, Coarfa C, Nagarajan RP, Hong C, Downey SL, et al. Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1097-1105.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.1682

  5. 5.

    Genereux DP, Johnson WC, Burden AF, Stöger R, Laird CD. Errors in the bisulfite conversion of DNA: modulating inappropriate- and failed-conversion frequencies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:e150.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkn691

  6. 6.

    Warnecke PM, Stirzaker C, Melki JR, Millar DS, Paul CL, Clark SJ. Detection and measurement of PCR bias in quantitative methylation analysis of bisulphite-treated DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:4422-4426.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/25.21.4422

  7. 7.

    Raizis AM, Schmitt F, Jost JP. A bisulfite method of 5-methylcytosine mapping that minimizes template degradation. Anal Biochem. 1995;226(1):161-166.

    Not in our library10.1006/abio.1995.1204

  8. 8.

    Holmes EE, Jung M, Meller S, Leisse A, Sailer V, Zech J, et al. Performance evaluation of kits for bisulfite-conversion of DNA from tissues, cell lines, FFPE tissues, aspirates, lavages, effusions, plasma, serum, and urine. PLoS One. 2014;9:1-15.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0093933

  9. 9.

    Henderson IR, Chan SR, Cao X, Johnson L, Jacobsen SE. Accurate sodium bisulfite sequencing in plants. Epigenetics. 2010;5:47-49.

    Not in our library10.4161/epi.5.1.10560

  10. 10.

    Hayatsu H, Tsuji K, Negishi K. Does urea promote the bisulfite-mediated deamination of cytosine in DNA? Investigation aiming at speeding-up the procedure for DNA methylation analysis. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser (Oxf). 2006;50:69-70.

    Not in our library10.1093/nass/nrl034

  11. 11.

    Harrison J, Stirzaker C, Clark SJ. Cytosines adjacent to methylated CpG sites can be partially resistant to conversion in genomic bisulfite sequencing leading to methylation artifacts. Anal Biochem. 1998;264:129-132.

    Not in our library10.1006/abio.1998.2833

  12. 12.

    Chhibber A, Schroeder BG. Single-molecule polymerase chain reaction reduces bias: application to DNA methylation analysis by bisulfite sequencing. Anal Biochem. 2008;377:46-54.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ab.2008.02.026

  13. 13.

    Voss KO, Roos KP, Nonay RL, Dovichi NJ. Combating PCR bias in bisulfite-based cytosine methylation analysis. Betaine-modified cytosine deamination PCR. Anal Chem. 1998;70:3818-3823.

    Not in our library10.1021/ac980067t

  14. 14.

    Shiraishi M, Hayatsu H. High-speed conversion of cytosine to uracil in bisulfite genomic sequencing analysis of DNA methylation. DNA Res. 2004;11:409-415.

    Not in our library10.1093/dnares/11.6.409

  15. 15.

    Candiloro ILM, Mikeska T, Dobrovic A. Assessing alternative base substitutions at primer CpG sites to optimise unbiased PCR amplification of methylated sequences. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:1-9.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13148-017-0328-4

  16. 16.
    Analyzing and minimizing PCR amplification bias in Illumina sequencing libraries · 2011
    No notice
  17. 17.

    Dabney J, Meyer M. Length and GC-biases during sequencing library amplification: a comparison of various polymerase-buffer systems with ancient and modern DNA sequencing libraries. Biotechniques. 2012;52(2):87-94.

    Not in our library10.2144/000113809

  18. 18.
    Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data · 2013
    No notice
  19. 19.

    Quail MA, Otto TD, Gu Y, Harris SR, Skelly TF, McQuillan JA, et al. Optimal enzymes for amplifying sequencing libraries. Nat Methods. 2011;9:10-11.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1814

  20. 20.
    Optimizing illumina next-generation sequencing library preparation for extremely at-biased genomes · 2012
    No notice
  21. 21.
    Sources of PCR-induced distortions in high-throughput sequencing data sets · 2015
    No notice
  22. 22.

    Kozarewa I, Ning Z, Quail MA, Sanders MJ, Berriman M, Turner DJ, et al. Amplification-free Illumina sequencing-library preparation facilitates improved mapping and assembly of (G+C)-biased genomes. Nat Methods. 2009;6:291-295.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1311

  23. 23.

    Ji L, Sasaki T, Sun X, Ma P, Lewis ZA, Schmitz RJ. Methylated DNA is over-represented in whole-genome bisulfite sequencing data. Front Genet. 2014;5:1-10.

    Not in our library10.3389/fgene.2014.00341

  24. 24.

    Tanaka K, Okamoto A. Degradation of DNA by bisulfite treatment. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2007;17:1912-1915.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bmcl.2007.01.040

  25. 25.

    Hayatsu H, Negishi K, Shiraishi M. DNA methylation analysis: speedup of bisulfite-mediated deamination of cytosine in the genomic sequencing procedure. Proc Japan Acad Ser B. 2004;80:189-194.

    Not in our library10.2183/pjab.80.189

  26. 26.

    Lister R, O’Malley RC, Tonti-Filippini J, Gregory BD, Berry CC, Millar AH, et al. Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell. 2008;133:523-536.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.029

  27. 27.

    Cokus SJ, Feng S, Zhang X, Chen Z, Merriman B, Haudenschild CD, et al. Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature. 2008;452:215-219.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature06745

  28. 28.

    Miura F, Enomoto Y, Dairiki R, Ito T. Amplification-free whole-genome bisulfite sequencing by post-bisulfite adaptor tagging. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:e136.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gks454

  29. 29.
    Contribution of Intragenic DNA Methylation in Mouse Gametic DNA Methylomes to Establish Oocyte-Specific Heritable Marks · 2012
    No notice
  30. 30.
    Mouse Oocyte Methylomes at Base Resolution Reveal Genome-Wide Accumulation of Non-CpG Methylation and Role of DNA Methyltransferases · 2013
    No notice
  31. 31.

    Smallwood S, Lee HJ, Angermueller C, Krueger F, Saadeh H, Peat J, et al. Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity. Nat Methods. 2014;11:817–20.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3035

  32. 32.
    Genome-wide Bisulfite Sequencing in Zygotes Identifies Demethylation Targets and Maps the Contribution of TET3 Oxidation · 2014
    Not checked
  33. 33.
    Genome-Wide Analysis of DNA Methylation Dynamics during Early Human Development · 2014
    No notice
  34. 34.

    Dai H-Q, Wang B-A, Yang L, Chen J-J, Zhu G-C, Sun M-L, et al. TET-mediated DNA demethylation controls gastrulation by regulating Lefty–Nodal signalling. Nature. 2016;538:528-532.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature20095

  35. 35.

    Khanna A, Czyz A, Syed F. EpiGnome™ Methyl-Seq Kit: a novel post-bisulfite conversion library prep method for methylation analysis. Nat Publ Gr. 2013;10:iii-iiv.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.
    Single-Cell DNA Methylome Sequencing and Bioinformatic Inference of Epigenomic Cell-State Dynamics · 2015
    No notice
  37. 37.

    Ficz G, Branco MR, Seisenberger S, Santos F, Krueger F, Hore TA, et al. Dynamic regulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mouse ES cells and during differentiation. Nature. 2011;473:398-402.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10008

  38. 38.
    Comprehensive genome and epigenome characterization of CHO cells in response to evolutionary pressures and over time · 2016
    No notice
  39. 39.

    Milagre I, Stubbs TM, King MR, Spindel J, Santos F, Krueger F, et al. Gender differences in global but not targeted demethylation in iPSC reprogramming. Cell Rep. 2017;18:1079-1089.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2017.01.008

  40. 40.
    The Dynamics of Genome-wide DNA Methylation Reprogramming in Mouse Primordial Germ Cells · 2012
    No notice
  41. 41.

    Patalano S, Vlasova A, Wyatt C, Ewels P, Camara F, Ferreira PG, et al. Molecular signatures of plastic phenotypes in two eusocial insect species with simple societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:13970-13975.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1515937112

  42. 42.

    Bonasio R, Li Q, Lian J, Mutti NS, Jin L, Zhao H, et al. Genome-wide and caste-specific DNA methylomes of the ants camponotus floridanus and harpegnathos saltator. Curr Biol. 2012;22:1755-1764.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.042

  43. 43.

    Wang X, Li Q, Lian J, Li L, Jin L, Cai H, et al. Genome-wide and single-base resolution DNA methylomes of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas provide insight into the evolution of invertebrate CpG methylation. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:1119.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-15-1119

  44. 44.

    Raine A, Manlig E, Wahlberg P, Syvanen A-C, Nordlund J. SPlinted Ligation Adapter Tagging (SPLAT), a novel library preparation method for whole genome bisulphite sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(6):e36.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkw1110

  45. 45.
    Comparison of whole-genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data · 2018
    Corrected
  46. 46.
    In Vivo Control of CpG and Non-CpG DNA Methylation by DNA Methyltransferases · 2012
    No notice
  47. 47.

    Takayama S, Dhahbi J, Roberts A, Mao G, Heo SJ, Pachter L, et al. Genome methylation in D. melanogaster is found at specific short motifs and is independent of DNMT2 activity. Genome Res. 2014;24:821-830.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.162412.113

  48. 48.
    FGF Signaling Inhibition in ESCs Drives Rapid Genome-wide Demethylation to the Epigenetic Ground State of Pluripotency · 2013
    No notice
  49. 49.

    Stadler MB, Murr R, Burger L, Ivanek R, Lienert F, Schöler A, et al. DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature. 2011;480:490-495.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10716

  50. 50.

    Krueger F, Andrews SR. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1571-1572.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btr167

  51. 51.

    Guo W, Chung W-Y, Qian M, Pellegrini M, Zhang MQ. Characterizing the strand-specific distribution of non-CpG methylation in human pluripotent cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;42:1-8.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkt1306

  52. 52.

    Laurent L, Wong E, Li G, Hodges E, Smith AD, Kendall J, et al. Dynamic changes in the human methylome during differentiation. Genome Res. 2010;20(3):320-331.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.101907.109

  53. 53.

    Raddatz G, Guzzardo PM, Olova N, Fantappié MR, Rampp M, Schaefer M, et al. Dnmt2-dependent methylomes lack defined DNA methylation patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:8627-8631.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1306723110

  54. 54.

    Xie W, Barr CL, Kim A, Yue F, Lee AY, Eubanks J, et al. Base-resolution analyses of sequence and parent-of-origin dependent DNA methylation in the mouse genome. Cell. 2012;148:816-831.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.035

  55. 55.

    Krueger F. PBAT libraries may generate chimaeric read pairs. 2016. https://sequencing.qcfail.com/articles/pbat-libraries-may-generate-chimaeric-read-pairs/. Accessed 5 June 2017.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Toh H, Shirane K, Miura F, Kubo N, Ichiyanagi K, Hayashi K, et al. Software updates in the Illumina HiSeq platform affect whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:31.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12864-016-3392-9

  57. 57.

    McInroy GR, Beraldi D, Raiber E-A, Modrzynska K, van Delft P, Billker O, et al. Enhanced methylation analysis by recovery of unsequenceable fragments. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152322.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0152322

  58. 58.

    Jones MB, Highlander SK, Anderson EL, Li W, Dayrit M, Klitgord N, et al. Library preparation methodology can influence genomic and functional predictions in human microbiome research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015 112(45):14024-14029.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1519288112

  59. 59.

    Tsumura A, Hayakawa T, Kumaki Y, Takebayashi S, Sakaue M, Matsuoka C, et al. Maintenance of self-renewal ability of mouse embryonic stem cells in the absence of DNA methyltransferases Dnmt1, dnmt3a and Dnmt3b. Genes Cells. 2006;11:805-814.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2443.2006.00984.x

  60. 60.

    Bock C, Tomazou EM, Brinkman AB, Müller F, Simmer F, Gu H, et al. Quantitative comparison of genome-wide DNA methylation mapping technologies. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:1106-1114.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.1681

  61. 61.

    Meissner A, Mikkelsen TS, Gu H, Wernig M, Hanna J, Sivachenko A, et al. Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nature. 2008;454:766-770.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature07107

  62. 62.

    Kumaki Y, Oda M, Okano M. QUMA: quantification tool for methylation analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:170-175.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkn294

  63. 63.

    Andrews S. Babraham Institute Bioinformatics. FastQC. 2010. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/.

    Not in our library

  64. 64.

    Andrews S. Babraham Institute Bioinformatics. Seqmonk. 2007. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/seqmonk/.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.
    Orphan CpG Islands Identify Numerous Conserved Promoters in the Mammalian Genome · 2010
    No notice
  66. 66.

    Creyghton MP, Cheng AW, Welstead GG, Kooistra T, Carey BW, Steine EJ, et al. Histone H3K27ac separates active from poised enhancers and predicts developmental state. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:21931-21936.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1016071107

  67. 67.

    Whyte WA, Orlando DA, Hnisz D, Abraham BJ, Lin CY, Kagey MH, et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell. 2013;153:307-319.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.035

  68. 68.

    Chen X, Xu H, Yuan P, Fang F, Huss M, Vega VB, et al. Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2008;133:1106-1117.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2008.04.043

  69. 69.
    The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2015 update · 2014
    No notice
  70. 70.

    Krueger F, Andrews SR, Olova N. BS_bias scripts. GitHub. 2016. https://github.com/NellyOlova/BS_bias.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 10

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.