Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24927738›Full record

ReviewHuman molecular genetics2014

Grasping nettles: cellular heterogeneity and other confounders in epigenome-wide association studies.

Liming Liang, William O C Cookson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human molecular genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Liming LiangDepartment of Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA and.
William O C CooksonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London SW3 6LY, UK w.cookson@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Asthma: An Epidemic Caused by Epigenetics?R01HL101251 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI COSGROVE, GREGORY P, SCHWARTZ, DAVID ALBERT · 2009 to 2013
$3.1M
Medical Research Council G1000758NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL101251-01Wellcome Trust 097117Wellcome Trust WT077959Wellcome Trust WT096964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Platform technologies for measurement of CpG methylation at multiple loci across the genome have made ambitious epigenome-wide association studies affordable and practicable. In contrast to genetic studies, which estimate the effects of structural changes in DNA, and transcriptomic studies, which measure genomic outputs, epigenetic studies can access states of regulation of genome function in particular cells and in response to specific stimuli. Although many factors complicate the interpretation of epigenetic variation in human disease, cell-specific methylation patterns and the cellular heterogeneity present in peripheral blood and tissue biopsies are anticipated to cause the most problems. In this review, we suggest that the difficulties may be exaggerated and we explore how cellular heterogeneity may be embraced with appropriate study designs and analytical tools. We further suggest that systematic mapping of the loci influenced by age, sex and genetic polymorphisms will bring important biological insights as well as improved control of epigenome-wide association studies.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticGenetic HeterogeneityEpigenomicsGenetic Association StudiesGenome, HumanHumansPolymorphism, GeneticTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID24927738
PMCPMC4170720

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.