ArticleEpigenetics2012
Cubic regression-based degree of correction predicts the performance of whole bisulfitome amplified DNA methylation analysis.
Article in Epigenetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MethylCal: Bayesian calibration of methylation levels.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Observed and projected trends in paediatric health resources and services in China between 2003 and 2030: a time-series study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Coregulation and modulation of NFκB-related genes in celiac disease: uncovered aspects of gut mucosal inflammation.Human molecular genetics · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, are important determinants in development and disease. There is a need for technologies capable of detecting small variations in methylation levels in an accurate and reproducible manner, even if only limited amounts of DNA are available (which is the case in many studies in humans). Quantitative methylation analysis of minute DNA amounts after whole bisulfitome amplification (qMAMBA) has been proposed as an alternative, but this technique has not been adequately standardized and no comparative study against conventional methods has been performed, that includes a wide range of methylation percentages and different target assays. We designed an experiment to compare the performance of qMAMBA and bisulfite-treated genomic (non-amplified) DNA pyrosequencing. Reactions were performed in duplicate for each technique in eight different target genes, using nine artificially constructed DNA samples with methylation levels ranging between 0% and 100% with intervals of 12.5%. Cubic polynomial curves were plotted from the experimental results and the real methylation values and the resulting equation was used to estimate new corrected data points. The use of the cubic regression-based correction benefits the accuracy and the power of discrimination in methylation studies. Additionally, dispersion of the new estimated data around a y = x line (R ( 2) ) served to fix a cutoff that can discriminate, with a single 9-point curve experiment, whether whole bisulfitome amplification and subsequent qMAMBA can produce accurate methylation results. Finally, even with an optimized reagent kit, DNA samples subjected to whole bisulfitome amplification enhance the preferential amplification of unmethylated alleles, and subtle changes in methylation levels cannot be detected confidently.
Indexed as
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.