g

,

,

g

about 74%), the base pair distance between a target DEG and a

ed DMS were greater than ten mega base pairs. If consider one

e pair distance, the percentage went up to 84% (1,046 of 1,250

dels). Therefore, it was almost certain that most contributing or

ing signature to gene differential expression profile were not their

thylation sites. Instead, the remote methylation sites with the

nt differential methylations could play the key role in gene

n differentiation of the target DEGs.

The densities of top-ranked local methylation sites of the four M2E models.

ext interesting issue was the distribution of the ranks of the local

on sites. This was to examine whether the local methylation sites

ked higher. To investigate this pattern, the rank of the local

on site in each regression model was recorded and its density was

d. Figure 4.32 shows the distributions of this pattern, i.e., the

on of the ranks of the local methylation sites of the four

n models. Among 1,250 M2E regression models, 308 Lasso

anked the local methylations within ten. Meanwhile, 309 RLR

id so, 186 random forest models did so and 48 SVM models did