Fig. 6: Methylome profile and consensus clustering on multiple omics.

A Principal component analysis (PCA) of methylation profiles of 39 MEITLs and 26 EATLs. PCA displays the cases based on the 10’000 most variable CpGs, B Boxplot comparing the median methylation per sample for differentially methylated CpGs between MEITL and EATL. ****p < 0.0001. C Gene Enrichment Analysis using hallmark gene sets from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB). The plot shows the signatures that were found significantly differentially enriched between MEITL and EATL with an adjusted p value ≤ 0.05 (corrected for multiple testing using Benjamini and Hochberg). Odds Ratio indicates the magnitude of the effect. D Distribution of differentially methylated CpGs between MEITL and EATL within chromatin states defined in CD4 and CD8 positive T cells. The distribution of all CpGs on the EPIC array is shown as control (background). Chi-squared test was performed to test if there is an enrichment of promoter CpGs within CpGs hypomethylated in MEITL. ***p < 0.001. E Consensus partitioning of mutations (Mut), gene expression (GEP) and methylome (Met) profiles was performed on a cohort of 51 MEITL and 30 EATL tumors. In the heatmap, the percentage of membership across all individual partitions is expressed as a color code, with blue associated with EATLs group and red with MEITLs. Samples with a weaker association with either group were colored in black. The last row represents the pathology diagnosis (Dia). Grey tile: data not available.