ArticleBioData mining2011
Preprocessing differential methylation hybridization microarray data.
Article in BioData mining, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- BCurve: Bayesian Curve Credible Bands Approach for the Detection of Differentially Methylated Regions.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Variance-Preserving Estimation of Intensity Values Obtained From Omics Experiments.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Integrative analysis of gene expression and methylation data for breast cancer cell lines.BioData mining · 2018Article
- Early Pregnancy Maternal Blood DNA Methylation in Repeat Pregnancies and Change in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Status—A Pilot Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2015Article
- Changes in DNA methylation are associated with the development of drug resistance in cervical cancer cells.Cancer cell international · 2015Article
- HMPL: A Pipeline for Identifying Hemimethylation Patterns by Comparing Two Samples.Cancer informatics · 2015Article
- Review of processing and analysis methods for DNA methylation array data.British journal of cancer · 2013Review
- Article
- Batch effect correction for genome-wide methylation data with Illumina Infinium platform.BMC medical genomics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA methylation plays a very important role in the silencing of tumor suppressor genes in various tumor types. In order to gain a genome-wide understanding of how changes in methylation affect tumor growth, the differential methylation hybridization (DMH) protocol has been developed and large amounts of DMH microarray data have been generated. However, it is still unclear how to preprocess this type of microarray data and how different background correction and normalization methods used for two-color gene expression arrays perform for the methylation microarray data. In this paper, we demonstrate our discovery of a set of internal control probes that have log ratios (M) theoretically equal to zero according to this DMH protocol. With the aid of this set of control probes, we propose two LOESS (or LOWESS, locally weighted scatter-plot smoothing) normalization methods that are novel and unique for DMH microarray data. Combining with other normalization methods (global LOESS and no normalization), we compare four normalization methods. In addition, we compare five different background correction methods.
resultsWe study 20 different preprocessing methods, which are the combination of five background correction methods and four normalization methods. In order to compare these 20 methods, we evaluate their performance of identifying known methylated and un-methylated housekeeping genes based on two statistics. Comparison details are illustrated using breast cancer cell line and ovarian cancer patient methylation microarray data. Our comparison results show that different background correction methods perform similarly; however, four normalization methods perform very differently. In particular, all three different LOESS normalization methods perform better than the one without any normalization.
conclusionsIt is necessary to do within-array normalization, and the two LOESS normalization methods based on specific DMH internal control probes produce more stable and relatively better results than the global LOESS normalization method.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.