Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18316654›Full record

ArticleGenome research2008

Comprehensive high-throughput arrays for relative methylation (CHARM).

Rafael A Irizarry, Christine Ladd-Acosta, Benilton Carvalho, Hao Wu, Sheri A Brandenburg, Jeffrey A Jeddeloh, Bo Wen, Andrew P Feinberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 252 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
252citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

252 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Epigenetic associations ofFrontiers in psychiatry · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

192 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rafael A IrizarryDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA. rafa@jhu.edu
Christine Ladd-Acosta
Benilton Carvalho
Hao Wu
Sheri A Brandenburg
Jeffrey A Jeddeloh
Bo Wen
Andrew P Feinberg

Funding

Minority Action PlanP50HG003233 · NHGRI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FEINBERG, ANDREW P. · 2004 to 2013
$22.4M
Preprocessing and Analysis Tools for High-Throughput TechnologiesR01GM083084 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2007 to 2018
$4.4M
BWS and Embryonal Tumor Suppressor Genes on 11p15R37CA054358 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FEINBERG, ANDREW P. · 2001 to 2009
$4.0M
Software for the Statistical Analysis of Microarray Probe Level DataR01RR021967 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2007 to 2011
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA054358NCRR NIH HHS R01 RR021967NHGRI NIH HHS HG003233NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003233NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was originally conceived to test in a rigorous way the specificity of three major approaches to high-throughput array-based DNA methylation analysis: (1) MeDIP, or methylated DNA immunoprecipitation, an example of antibody-mediated methyl-specific fractionation; (2) HELP, or HpaII tiny fragment enrichment by ligation-mediated PCR, an example of differential amplification of methylated DNA; and (3) fractionation by McrBC, an enzyme that cuts most methylated DNA. These results were validated using 1466 Illumina methylation probes on the GoldenGate methylation assay and further resolved discrepancies among the methods through quantitative methylation pyrosequencing analysis. While all three methods provide useful information, there were significant limitations to each, specifically bias toward CpG islands in MeDIP, relatively incomplete coverage in HELP, and location imprecision in McrBC. However, we found that with an original array design strategy using tiling arrays and statistical procedures that average information from neighboring genomic locations, much improved specificity and sensitivity could be achieved, e.g., approximately 100% sensitivity at 90% specificity with McrBC. We term this approach "comprehensive high-throughput arrays for relative methylation" (CHARM). While this approach was applied to McrBC analysis, the array design and computational algorithms are fractionation method-independent and make this a simple, general, relatively inexpensive tool suitable for genome-wide analysis, and in which individual samples can be assayed reliably at very high density, allowing locus-level genome-wide epigenetic discrimination of individuals, not just groups of samples. Furthermore, unlike the other approaches, CHARM is highly quantitative, a substantial advantage in application to the study of human disease.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBiasCpG IslandsGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18316654
PMCPMC2336799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.