Table 1. Correlation between the densities of DMPs around transcription start and end sites.
L1R1 vs L29R1a | L1R1 vs L119R2 a | |||||||||
TVF b | TV | HD | KL | I | TVF | TV | HD | KL | I | |
TVF | 1.00 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.91 |
TV | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.97 |
HD | 0.75 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
KL | 0.70 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.90 |
I | 0.68 | 0.88 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.84 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.83 | 1.00 |
L1R2 vs L29R2 | L1R2 vs L119R2 | |||||||||
TVF | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0.89 |
TV | 0.76 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.82 | 0.94 |
HD | 0.75 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.96 |
KL | 0.78 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.83 |
I | 0.70 | 0.88 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 0.62 | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 1.00 |
L12R1 vs L29R1 | L12R2 vs L119R2 | |||||||||
TVF | 1.00 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.85 |
TV | 0.59 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.94 |
HD | 0.78 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 0.96 |
KL | 0.77 | 0.89 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 0.81 |
I | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.77 | 1.00 |
a Correlations around transcription start site are located in upper diagonal, while the correlations around transcription end sites are in the lower diagonal (see also Fig 2). Samples from Schmitz et al. [19] and Becker et al. [35] trans-generational studies.
b The density of DMPs based on the absolute difference of methylation levels (which is equal to TV) estimated based on Fisher exact test.