Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Statistical modelling of CG interdistance across multiple organisms

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1Email author and
  • 1
BMC Bioinformatics201819 (Suppl 10) :355

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2303-2

  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Statistical approaches to genetic sequences have revealed helpful to gain deeper insight into biological and structural functionalities, using ideas coming from information theory and stochastic modelling of symbolic sequences. In particular, previous analyses on CG dinucleotide position along the genome allowed to highlight its epigenetic role in DNA methylation, showing a different distribution tail as compared to other dinucleotides.

In this paper we extend the analysis to the whole CG distance distribution over a selected set of higher-order organisms. Then we apply the best fitting probability density function to a large range of organisms (>4400) of different complexity (from bacteria to mammals) and we characterize some emerging global features.

Results

We find that the Gamma distribution is optimal for the selected subset as compared to a group of several distributions, chosen for their physical meaning or because recently used in literature for similar studies. The parameters of this distribution, when applied to our larger set of organisms, allows to highlight some biologically relavant features for the considered organism classes, that can be useful also for classification purposes.

Conclusions

The quantification of statistical properties of CG dinucleotide positioning along the genome is confirmed as a useful tool to characterize broad classes of organisms, spanning the whole range of biological complexity.

Keywords

  • CG dinucleotide
  • Interdistance distribution
  • Distribution fitting
  • Classification

Background

Recent studies revealed that dinucleotide interdistances can be a powerful tool for detecting DNA properties [1, 2], such as the identification of CpG islands [3] and the characterization of epigenomic regulation through methylation [4, 5]. In a previous paper [4], we higlighted a peculiar feature of mammals CG dinucleotides: the tail of CG interdistance distributions showed an exponential decay, at difference with non CG’s which had a heavier tail more similar to a power law. This might be due to the specific role that CGs play inside mammals genomes, since they are the preferential sites of methylation, a fundamental epigenetic mechanism involved in gene regulation [610] and structural conformation of chromatine [11, 12]. In light of these preliminary observations, we believe that a characterization of the complete CG distribution would provide a better comprehension of their role inside genomes of all organisms, with the idea that similar functionalities should share similar statistical properties. Moreover, the identified distribution can be the basis for hypothesizing specific physical models to describe the observed DNA sequence characteristics.

We previously noticed that the distinction between CG and non-CG interdistance distributions is less sharp in non-mammal organisms, by considering a set of 21 genomes, belonging to 10 mammal and 11 non-mammal organisms [4]. We have now extended the study to CG interdistance distributions from 4425 genomes, belonging to a wide range of organism categories (bacteria, protozoa, plants, fungi, invertebrates, mammal and non-mammal vertebrates) in order to better understand the heterogenous scenario found among non-mammals and to obtain a global picture associated to this particular feature.

Methods

Data

The organism DNA sequences were downloaded from GenBank NCBI database [13]. We defined a subset of organisms, namely the DNA sequences of 9 mammal model organisms: Bos taurus, Canis familiaris, Equus caballus, Homo sapiens, Macaca mulatta, Mus musculus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus, Pan troglodytes and Rattus norvegicus, to test the goodness of fit of the chosen probability density functions, since in a previous work [4] they showed very homogeneous characteristics in terms of CG distribution.

An extended analysis was then performed on a dataset composed of 4425 genomes (see Additional file 1 for a detailed list on organisms and measured parameters), selected among 7 of the 11 categories represented on the NCBI database: bacteria, fungi, invertebrates, plants, protozoa, mammal vertebrates and non-mammal vertebrates (see Table 1). In order to ensure minimal quality criteria on the reconstructed genome sequences, we chose to study only fasta files at chromosome and scaffold levels, discarding those for which only contigs were available.
Table 1

Number and size of genome assemblies downloaded from GenBank database, divided into categories

Category

Number of genomes

Size

Vertebrates non-mammals

200

210 Gb

Vertebrates mammals

219

525 Gb

Plants

297

288 Gb

Protozoa

348

17 Gb

Invertebrates

507

168 Gb

Bacteria

1251

5 Gb

Fungi

1603

44 Gb

Computation of CG interdistance distributions

The first step of our analysis consisted in the estimation of CG interdistance relative frequency distributions \(\hat p(\tau)\) in the selected organism set. We pre-processed the data by extracting the longest sequence from each genome, except sex chromosomes [4], and removing the unknown bases, identified with the “N” symbol in the fasta files. This operation did not affect the computation of \(\hat p(\tau)\), because the ratio of N inside the sequences was in general low (see Table 2 and Additional file 1) and they were mainly located contiguously at the centromere and telomere regions, thus producing only a very small number of large distances (that could eventually be easily removed from the analysis). Subsequently we found the positions xj of each CG dinucleotide inside the sequence, and we calculated the distance between two consecutive CG as τj=xj+1xj; finally, for each distance value τ, we counted its abundance along the sequence and estimated its relative frequency \(\hat {p}(\tau)\), as described in Eq. 1. In this way we obtained a relative frequency distribution that we called CG interdistance distribution.
$$ \hat{p}(\tau) = \frac{\#\{ j| \tau_{j} = \tau \}}{\# \{ \tau_{j} \}} $$
(1)
Table 2

Percentage of unkown bases N inside each analyzed sequence of the first set of organisms

Organism

Sequence

N (%)

Bos taurus

chromosome 1

0.7

Canis familiaris

chromosome 1

0.5

Equus caballus

chromosome 1

1.2

Homo sapiens

chromosome 1

7.4

Macaca mulatta

chromosome 1

6.5

Mus musculus

chromosome 1

7.9

Ornithorhynchus anatinus

chromosome 3

6.4

Pan troglodytes

chromosome 1

2.1

Rattus norvegicus

chromosome 1

5.2

Choice of best distribution

In order to find a complete characterization of mammal CG distribution, we firstly represented \(\hat p(\tau)\) for the 9 mammal model organisms in semilogarithmic scale. In this way, we immediately recognized an exponentially decaying trend in the tails (not shown, see Supplementary Materials in [4]), which led us to consider the following functions: exponential and double exponential distributions, which can be associated to physical processes respectively governed by a single and a double characteristic scale (that would correspond to characteristic CG distances along the genome); stretched exponential and gamma distributions, which are related to physical processes involving both a characteristic scale and a power-law trend [1423]. We also took into account the q-exponential distribution, as suggested by a recent work [5] that studied CG interdistance distributions on a small interval of about 0−300 dinucleotide distance values for human genome. In our study we consider the whole distance distribution up to about 2000 nucleotides for the same organism, and of the same order of magnitude for the other higher-order organisms of the considered subset. The proposed distributions were fitted to the data by using a non-linear least square method (fit function, Mathworks Matlab software).
$$ p(\tau) = ae^{-\tau/b} $$
(2)
$$ p(\tau) = ae^{-\tau/b}+ce^{-\tau/d} $$
(3)
$$ p(\tau) = ce^{-\tau^{a}/b} $$
(4)
$$ p(\tau) = [1+(1-a)\tau]^{\frac{-1}{(1-a)}} $$
(5)
$$ p(\tau) = c\tau^{a-1}e^{-\tau/b} $$
(6)
We noticed that the extreme region of the right tail of our CG distributions adversely affected fit results, due to poor sampling (see Additional file 1 for details), therefore we decided to exclude from the fit procedure all distances beyond the 90th percentile (leaving an interval of distances from 0 up to about 1000−2000 bases in all 9 higher-order organisms). The goodness of fit was initially estimated by r2 parameter (Eq. 7), defined as:
$$ r^{2} = 1 - \frac{SSR}{SST} $$
(7)
where SSR represents the sum of squares of the regression and SST the sum of squares about the mean, also called total sum of squares. Due to the large number of distances fitted for these organisms, any correction for sample size to the goodness of fit estimation was not relevant. A comparison of r2 values allowed to discard some distributions with a clear low fitting performance. In order to find the best fitting distribution among the remaining, we considered additionally the mean value of residual distribution (reported in Table 3), that allowed a further discrimination, also supported by visual inspection (see Additional file 1).
Table 3

Residual mean values of gamma, stretched exponential (S. Exp), double exponential (D. Exp), exponenital (Exp) and q-exponential (Q-exp) fit of mammal CG interdistance distributions

Mammal

Gamma

S. Exp

D. Exp

Exp

Q-exp

Bos taurus

-1.96E-11

-5.19E-6

1.05E-7

-7.65E-12

1.17E-1

Canis familiaris

-8.88E-11

-4.05E-6

3.26E-7

2.47E-8

1.18E-1

Equus caballus

6.53E-10

-5.86E-9

-3.67E-4

6.64E-12

1.51E-1

Homo sapiens

7.69E-10

-1.05E-6

1.21E-7

2.41E-9

1.40E-1

Macaca mulatta

3.13E-11

-2.93E-8

1.26E-7

1.02E-8

1.39E-1

Mus musculus

-2.04E-11

-2.93E-8

2.70E-7

4.00E-8

1.23E-1

Ornithorhynchus anatinus

8.37E-11

-1.25E-7

2.56E-7

3.63E-8

1.10E-1

Pan troglodytes

7.77E-10

-1.79E-6

1.90E-7

2.83E-9

1.39E-1

Rattus norvegicus

7.31E-10

-3.14E-9

1.35E-7

-3.09E-12

1.49E-1

Multiple genome analysis

Once obtained the best fitting probability density function for the mammal organism set, we applied it to all organisms chosen for our analysis. The fit parameters associated to the best distribution, together with the goodness-of-fit parameters, were used to describe the analyzed organisms, individually or grouped by category, allowing to obtain a global picture from a point of view of organism complexity. We expected that genomes with similar CG interdistance distributions would show similar fit parameter values, reflecting similarities in the functional roles of CG dinucleotides in these organisms. Even if for some organism categories the chosen distribution is not optimal as for the initial subset, we hypothesize that organisms with similar distributions (even if not corresponding to the chosen one) should present similar parameters anyway, allowing a global classification with a unified approach. Anyway, to filter out possible fit errors due to bad genome sequence reconstruction, we only considered for our analyses the organisms which goodness-of-fit exceeded a value r2=0.9. With this filter we discarded on average about 15% of our genomes (from 2% in bacteria to 25% in non-mammal vertebrates), homogeneously distributed along the considered categories, resulting in 3857 genomes left for our analysis.

Results

Goodness-of-fit parameters showed that gamma distribution (Eq. 6) is the function that best describes CG interdistance distribution for the 9 mammal subset (see Fig. 1 for the case of human genome). In particular, if we look at r2 values in Table 4, we can see that the worst fit results are given by q-exponential distribution, since the corresponding r2 values are the lowest ones, followed by single exponential distribution. The choice of best fit distribution among the remaining was more difficult, because r2 values were very similar or even identical. Therefore, we also considered the mean values of residual distribution, that provided a clear distinction among the considered distributions (see Table 3), with values around 10−11 for gamma fit, 10−8 for stretched exponential fit, 10−7 for double exponential fit, 10−8 for exponential fit and 10−1 for q-exponential fit. These values confirmed that q-exponential was the worst fitting distribution, and showed that gamma is the best fit function for mammal CG interdistance distributions (see Table 5 for fit results).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Log-linear plot of gamma fit result for Homo sapiens CG interdistance distribution in chromosome 1 (left-hand side), together with residual plot in linear scale (right-hand side)

Table 4

R-squared values of gamma, stretched exponential (S. Exp), double exponential (D. Exp), exponenital (Exp) and q-exponential (Q-exp) fit of mammal CG interdistance distributions

Mammal

Gamma

S. Exp

D. Exp

Exp

Q-exp

Bos taurus

0.982

0.982

0.981

0.961

0.805

Canis familiaris

0.981

0.981

0.977

0.947

0.832

Equus caballus

0.986

0.987

0.775

0.964

0.797

Homo sapiens

0.985

0.985

0.983

0.962

0.799

Macaca mulatta

0.987

0.987

0.986

0.965

0.804

Mus musculus

0.983

0.985

0.983

0.960

0.803

Ornithorhynchus anatinus

0.978

0.981

0.978

0.949

0.831

Pan troglodytes

0.986

0.985

0.984

0.963

0.800

Rattus norvegicus

0.984

0.987

0.985

0.958

0.800

Table 5

Gamma fit parameter values for the first set of 9 mammals. Errors on parameters are estimated at 95% confindence level and rounded to the first significant digit

Mammal

Sequence

a

b

c

r2

Bos taurus

chromosome 1

0.25 ± 0.03

316 ± 5

0.10 ± 0.02

0.982

Canis familiaris

chromosome 1

0.03 ± 0.03

324 ± 7

0.23 ± 0.04

0.981

Equus caballus

chromosome 1

0.17 ± 0.03

226 ± 4

0.16 ± 0.03

0.986

Homo sapiens

chromosome 1

0.16 ± 0.03

280 ± 5

0.14 ± 0.02

0.985

Macaca mulatta

chromosome 1

0.17 ± 0.03

267 ± 4

0.15 ± 0.02

0.987

Mus musculus

chromosome 1

0.22 ± 0.03

330 ± 6

0.12 ± 0.02

0.983

Ornithorhynchus anatinus

chromosome 3

0.15 ± 0.04

250 ± 6

0.16 ± 0.03

0.978

Pan troglodytes

chromosome 1

0.16 ± 0.03

281 ± 5

0.14 ± 0.02

0.986

Rattus norvegicus

chromosome 1

0.09 ± 0.03

281 ± 5

0.21 ± 0.04

0.984

Looking at Fig. 2, we notice that b is the parameter that mainly discriminates between the organism categories while the value a of the power term in gamma distribution is equally spread across all organisms of all categories (see also Fig. 3). Furthermore, b values seem to increase with the “biological complexity” of the considered categories, being minimum for bacteria and protozoa, and maximum for vertebrates (higher in mammals than in non-mammals) and with an intermediate value for invertebrates. Vertebrate categories have a median value of b in the range 200−300, while it is an order of magnitude lower for bacteria (about 30). We remark that this value is very close to the typical length of DNA enveloped around a histone (146 bp envelope around histone octamer plus a linker region summing up to about 200-220 bp), thus there might be a relation between DNA enveloping around histones and our observation in term of CG distances, even if we cannot provide an explanation for this.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Boxplot of gamma shape parameter a (left-hand side) and gamma scale parameter b (right-hand side) for the seven considered categories: bacteria (BT), protozoa (PZ), fungi (FG), invertebrates (IN), plants (PL), non-mammal vertebrates (NMV) and mammal vertebrates (MV)

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Semilogarithmic plot of gamma scale parameter b as function of gamma shape parameter a for the 4425 analyzed genomes, divided into seven categories: bacteria (BT), fungi (FG), invertebrates (IN), plants (PL), protozoa (PZ), mammal vertebrates (MV) and non-mammal vertebrates (NMV)

Since we are considering a large class of organisms, with DNA sequence size differing by several orders of magnitude (from 108 for mammals to 104−105 for bacteria and protozoa), we checked if b parameter could be associated with the length of the analyzed genomic sequence. This does not seem the case, since the Pearson’s correlation coefficient r between the logarithm of b and the logarithm of the length of the analyzed genome sequences is very close to zero: r=−0.12.

In light of these observations, we also tested whether the gamma scale parameter (i.e., b) could depend on CG density inside the sequence (number of CG dinucleotides with respect to sequence length), representing b as a function of %CG in double logarithmic scale (see Fig. 4). In a simple null model, the average distance between dinucleotides should decrease proportionally to the inverse of dinucleotide density inside the sequence, thus with a slope equal to −1 in double logarithmic plot. Therefore, we fitted the b vs %CG double logarithmic plot to a straight line using linear least square method, obtaining the results shown in Table 6. We observe that the relation between b and %CG is in general very close to the fitted lines for each organism category, with average value of Pearson’s coefficient 〈r〉=−0.65 (minimum correlation rMIN=−0.54 for invertebrates, maximum correlation rMAX=−0.75 for protozoa). From this analysis we can identify two groups of organisms, according to values of the coefficient m, corresponding to the slope of the line in log-log plot and thus to the exponent of the polynomial relation b%CGm: bacteria, plants, fungi, protozoa and invertebrates have an exponent approximately equal to −1, while mammal vertebrates and non-mammal vertebrates have a smaller exponent in absolute value closer to 0.5, significantly different from the others in terms of 95% confidence interval. Some organism categories thus seem to verify the null model hypothesis, while for vertebrates the significant deviation from the null model suggests a different mechanism for CG dinucleotide placement along the genome rather than a “maximum entropy” process.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Double logarithmic plot of gamma scale parameter b as a function of CG percentage for each of the 4425 genomes belonging to the seven considered categories: bacteria (BT), protozoa (PZ), fungi (FG), invertebrates (IN), plants (PL), non-mammal vertebrates (NMV) and mammal vertebrates (MV), (left-hand side). Plot of the angular coefficient m obtained from linear regression of CG-b relationship, for each considered category (right-hand side)

Table 6

Linear regression parameters of CG-b relationship, together with r-squared values

Category

m

q

r2

Bacteria

-1.06 ± 0.02

2.23 ± 0.02

0.858

Protozoa

-1.11 ± 0.05

2.3 ± 0.04

0.875

Fungi

-0.87 ± 0.03

2.07 ± 0.02

0.726

Invertebrates

-0.9 ± 0.1

2.3 ± 0.06

0.460

Plants

-1.11 ± 0.09

2.5 ± 0.04

0.707

Vertebrates non-mammals

-0.76 ± 0.08

2.34 ± 0.02

0.704

Vertebrates mammals

-0.51 ± 0.07

2.43 ± 0.01

0.523

Discussion

A possible biological interpretation of this grouping could be a different role of CG methylation in these two classes of organisms. CG methylation is known to be an important mechanism in higher-order organisms (like vertebrates, that in our analysis show a slope significantly smaller than −1), with an active role on gene transcription regulation [24]. For most of the biological categories that showed an exponent close to −1 it is not clear how (or even if) the CG methylation mechanism is used [2527], since in some cases different nucleotide sequences are involved in methyl group binding (like the GATC motif in E. Coli, or other motifs in plants [28]) and in general is not used for gene regulation, if not only during embryonic development [29]. We speculate that a characterization of CG distribution parameters for a specific organism could be an index to hypothesize a role of CG methylation at a single organism level, even if we did not go further in the analysis in this direction. In order to extend the range of applications, we think that the method developed in this work can be applied to further repeated genomic sequences (e.g. transcription-factor-binding-site motifs mapped in ENCODE project [30] and repeated sequences associated to transposable elements [31]) in order to gain a deeper insight into DNA properties of single organisms or for comparison between oganism categories. Moreover, considering our approach as providing a null model for CG (or other dinucleotide) distribution, we can look for deviations from such null model and study their possible biological meaning (e.g. in relation to CpG islands).

Conclusions

We considered several probability density functions to fit the CG interdistance distribution of a selected set of mammal organisms, and we observed that it is best described by a Gamma distribution. Applying this function on a wide set of organisms, taken from different taxonomic categories, we noticed that the scale parameter b of the Gamma distribution could be associated to the biological complexity of the organism category, increasing from bacteria to vertebrates. Moreover, we tested for possible factors affecting this parameter, like genome sequence length and CG density. While the first was not related to our observations, the second revealed stronger correlations; in particular, for a group of organisms, comprising those of minor biological complexity (bacteria, protozoa, fungi, invertebrates and plants), the relation between b and CG density could be explained by a minimal null model, while for higher order organisms (vertebrates) this null model did not explain the observations. We argue that this difference could be related to the different role that CG methylation plays in these classes of organisms.

Abbreviations

BT: 

Bacteria

DNA: 

DeoxyriboNucleic acid

FG: 

Fungi

IN: 

Invertebrates

PL: 

Plants

PZ: 

Protozoa

MV: 

Mammal vertebrates

NMV: 

Non-mammal vertebrates

Declarations

Acknowledgements

GC and DR acknowledge EU MIMOMICS (305280), EU COMPARE (643476) and INTEROMICS National MIUR Flagship initiative. MA, GC and DR acknowledge EU IMI-2 HARMONY (116026).

Funding

Publication of this article was sponsored by INTEROMICS National MIUR Flagship initiative.

Availability of data and materials

All the data are available on GenBank database [13].

About this supplement

This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 19 Supplement 10, 2018: Italian Society of Bioinformatics (BITS): Annual Meeting 2017. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-19-supplement-10.

Authors’ contributions

DR designed the research and wrote the paper, AM and IDV performed analyses, GC supervised the research and wrote the paper. The final manuscript has been approved by all authors.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
(2)
Center for Complex Network Research and Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

References

  1. Bastos CA, Afreixo V, Pinho AJ, Garcia SP, Rodrigues JM, Ferreira PJ. Inter-dinucleotide distances in the human genome: an analysis of the whole-genome and protein-coding distributions. J Integr Bioinforma. 2011; 8:31–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Frahm KM, Shepelyansky DL. Poincaré recurrences of DNA sequences. Phys Rev E. 2012; 85:016214.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Afreixo V, Bastos C, Rodrigues JM, Silva RM. Identification of DNA CpG islands using inter-dinucleotide distances. Commun Comput Inform Sci. 2015; 499:162–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Paci G, Cristadoro G, Monti B, Lenci M, Esposti MD, Castellani G, et al.Characterization of DNA methylation as a function of biological complexity via dinucleotide inter-distances. Phil Trans A. 2015; 374:20150227.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Moghaddasi H, Khalifeh K, Darooneh AH. Distinguishing Functional DNA Words; A Method for Measuring Clustering Levels. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:41543.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zemach A, McDaniel IE, Silva P, Zilberman D. Genome-wide evolutionary analysis of eukaryotic DNA methylation. Science. 2010; 328:916–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Bagga S. Introduction to DNA methylation. BioFiles. 2012; 7:4.Google Scholar
  8. Hernando-Herraez I, Garcia-Perez R, Sharp AJ, Marques-Bonet T. DNA methylation: insights into human evolution. PLoS Genet. 2015; 11:e1005661.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Pai AA, Gilad Y. Comparative studies of gene regulatory mechanisms. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2014; 29:68–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Devlin TM. Biochimica con aspetti clinico-farmaceutici. Napoli: EdiSES; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Cortini R, Barbi M, Care BR. The physics of epigenetics. Rev Mod Phys. 2016; 88:025002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhong X. Comparative epigenomics: a powerful tool to understand the evolution of DNA methylation. New Phytol. 2016; 210:76–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. GenBank. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
  14. Frisch U, Sornette D. Extreme deviations and applications. J Phys I France. 1997; 7:1155–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Laherrere J, Sornette D. Stretched exponential distributions in nature and economy: “fat tails” with characteristic scales. Eur Phys J B2. 1998; 2:525–39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Sornette D. Critical phenomena in natural sciences. Berlin: Springer; 2000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Newman MEJ. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp Phys. 2006; 46:323–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Aldler RJ, Feldman RE, Taqqu MS. A practical guide to heavy tails: statistical techniques and applications. Boston: Birkhauser; 1998.Google Scholar
  19. Peng CK, Buldyrev SV, Goldberger AL, Havlin S, Sciortino F, Simons M, et al.Long-range correlations in nucleotide sequences. Nature. 1992; 356:168–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Peng CK, Buldyrev SV. Finite-size effects on long-range correlations: implications for analyzing DNA sequences. Phys Rev E. 1993; 47:3730–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Rossi L, Turchetti G. Poincaré recurrences and multifractal properties of genomic sequences. Physica A. 2004; 338:267–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Milojević S. Power-law distributions in information science - Making the case for logarithmic binning. JASIST. 2010; 61:2417–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Durbin R, Eddy S, Krogh A, Mitchison G. Biological sequence analysis: probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Jones PA, Takai D. The role of DNA methylation in mammalian epigenetics. Science. 2001; 293:1068–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Blow MJ, Clark TA, Daum CG, Deutschbauer AM, Fomenkov A, Fries R, et al.The epigenomic landscape of prokaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2016; 12:e1005854.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Head JA. Patterns of DNA methylation in animals: an ecotoxicological perspective. Integr Comp Biol. 2014; 54:77–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Sacrano E, Iaccarino M, Grippo P, Parisi E. The heterogeneity of thymine methyl group origin in DNA pyrimidine isostichs of developing sea urchin embryos. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1967; 57:1394–400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Vanyushin BF. DNA methylation in plants. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006; 301:67–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeltsch A. Phylogeny of Methylomes. Science. 2010; 328:837–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. ENCODE. https://www.encodeproject.org/ Accessed 16 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  31. Hubley R, Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR, Jones TA, Bao W, et al.The Dfam database of repetitive DNA families. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement