Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21519831›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2011

Statistical approaches for the analysis of DNA methylation microarray data.

Kimberly D Siegmund

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Methods in DNA methylation array dataset analysis: A review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. F1000Research · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Epigenetic Repression of CCDC37 and MAP1B Links Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease to Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Kimberly D SiegmundDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA. kims@usc.edu

Funding

Translational Research Support CoreP30ES007048 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI ROB S MCCONNELL · 1996 to 2026
$46.4M
Statistical Models in EpigenomicsR01CA097346 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI SIEGMUND, KIMBERLY D · 2002 to 2011
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA097346NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007048NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES07048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the rapid development and adoption in DNA methylation microarray assays, we are now experiencing a growth in the number of statistical tools to analyze the resulting large-scale data sets. As is the case for other microarray applications, biases caused by technical issues are of concern. Some of these issues are old (e.g., two-color dye bias and probe- and array-specific effects), while others are new (e.g., fragment length bias and bisulfite conversion efficiency). Here, I highlight characteristics of DNA methylation that suggest standard statistical tools developed for other data types may not be directly suitable. I then describe the microarray technologies most commonly in use, along with the methods used for preprocessing and obtaining a summary measure. I finish with a section describing downstream analyses of the data, focusing on methods that model percentage DNA methylation as the outcome, and methods for integrating DNA methylation with gene expression or genotype data.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID21519831
PMCPMC3166559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.