Systematic evaluation of cell-type deconvolution pipelines for sequencing-based bulk DNA methylomes.

DNA methylation analysis by sequencing is becoming increasingly popular, yielding methylomes at single-base pair and single-molecule resolution. It has tremendous potential for cell-type heterogeneity analysis using intrinsic read-level information. Although diverse deconvolution methods were developed to infer cell-type composition based on bulk sequencing-based methylomes, systematic evaluation has not been performed yet. Here, we thoroughly benchmark six previously published methods: Bayesian epiallele detection, DXM, PRISM, csmFinder+coMethy, ClubCpG and MethylPurify, together with two array-based methods, MeDeCom and Houseman, as a comparison group. Sequencing-based deconvolution methods consist of two main steps, informative region selection and cell-type composition estimation, thus each was individually assessed. With this elaborate evaluation, we aimed to establish which method achieves the highest performance in different scenarios of synthetic bulk samples. We found that cell-type deconvolution performance is influenced by different factors depending on the number of cell types within the mixture. Finally, we propose a best-practice deconvolution strategy for sequencing data and point out limitations that need to be handled. Array-based methods-both reference-based and reference-free-generally outperformed sequencing-based methods, despite the absence of read-level information. This implies that the current sequencing-based methods still struggle with correctly identifying cell-type-specific signals and eliminating confounding methylation patterns, which needs to be handled in future studies.

Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO under CRD42020177154. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies. RESULTS: Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10 mg/L, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49 U/L, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88 pg/mL, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 to 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73). DISCUSSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors that predict severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform clinical scores to support early decision-making.