Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23398781›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

Estimation of CpG coverage in whole methylome next-generation sequencing studies.

Edwin J C G van den Oord, Jozsef Bukszar, Gábor Rudolf, Srilaxmi Nerella, Joseph L McClay, Lin Y Xie, Karolina A Aberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

7 authors.

Edwin J C G van den OordCenter for Biomarker Research and Personalized Medicine, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1112 East Clay Street, P.O. Box 980533, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. ejvandenoord@vcu.edu
Jozsef Bukszar
Gábor Rudolf
Srilaxmi Nerella
Joseph L McClay
Lin Y Xie
Karolina A Aberg

Funding

Whole genome profiling to detect schizophrenia methylation markersRC2MH089996 · NIMH · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI VAN DEN OORD, EDWIN · 2009 to 2010
$4.5M
Research Education in Statistical Genetics of Substance AbuseR25DA026119 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI NEALE, MICHAEL CHURTON · 2008 to 2018
$3.2M
Design and analysis of adaptive multistage genetic association studiesR01HG004240 · NHGRI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI VAN DEN OORD, EDWIN · 2008 to 2010
$1.0M
NHGRI NIH HHS HG004240-02S1NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG004240NIDA NIH HHS R25 DA026119NIMH NIH HHS RC2 MH089996
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethylation studies are a promising complement to genetic studies of DNA sequence. However, detailed prior biological knowledge is typically lacking, so methylome-wide association studies (MWAS) will be critical to detect disease relevant sites. A cost-effective approach involves the next-generation sequencing (NGS) of single-end libraries created from samples that are enriched for methylated DNA fragments. A limitation of single-end libraries is that the fragment size distribution is not observed. This hampers several aspects of the data analysis such as the calculation of enrichment measures that are based on the number of fragments covering the CpGs.

resultsWe developed a non-parametric method that uses isolated CpGs to estimate sample-specific fragment size distributions from the empirical sequencing data. Through simulations we show that our method is highly accurate. While the traditional (extended) read count methods resulted in severely biased coverage estimates and introduces artificial inter-individual differences, through the use of the estimated fragment size distributions we could remove these biases almost entirely. Furthermore, we found correlations of 0.999 between coverage estimates obtained using fragment size distributions that were estimated with our method versus those that were "observed" in paired-end sequencing data.

conclusionsWe propose a non-parametric method for estimating fragment size distributions that is highly precise and can improve the analysis of cost-effective MWAS studies that sequence single-end libraries created from samples that are enriched for methylated DNA fragments.

Indexed as

CpG IslandsDNA MethylationAnimalsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID23398781
PMCPMC3599116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.