Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26366232›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2015

Nucleated red blood cells impact DNA methylation and expression analyses of cord blood hematopoietic cells.

Olivia M de Goede, Hamid R Razzaghian, E Magda Price, Meaghan J Jones, Michael S Kobor, Wendy P Robinson, Pascal M Lavoie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Olivia M de GoedeChild & Family Research Institute, 950 W 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada ; Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.
Hamid R RazzaghianChild & Family Research Institute, 950 W 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada ; Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.
E Magda PriceChild & Family Research Institute, 950 W 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada ; Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.
Meaghan J JonesDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada ; Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics, Child and Family Research Institute, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada.
Michael S KoborDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada ; Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics, Child and Family Research Institute, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada.
Wendy P RobinsonChild & Family Research Institute, 950 W 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada ; Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.
Pascal M LavoieChild & Family Research Institute, 950 W 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Canada ; Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.
Child and Family Research Institute · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome-wide DNA methylation (DNAm) studies have proven extremely useful to understand human hematopoiesis. Due to their active DNA content, nucleated red blood cells (nRBCs) contribute to epigenetic and transcriptomic studies derived from whole cord blood. Genomic studies of cord blood hematopoietic cells isolated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) may be significantly altered by heterotopic interactions with nRBCs during conventional cell sorting.

resultsWe report that cord blood T cells, and to a lesser extent monocytes and B cells, physically engage with nRBCs during FACS. These heterotopic interactions resulted in significant cross-contamination of genome-wide epigenetic and transcriptomic data. Formal exclusion of erythroid lineage-specific markers yielded DNAm profiles (measured by the Illumina 450K array) of cord blood CD4 and CD8 T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) cells, granulocytes, monocytes, and nRBCs that were more consistent with expected hematopoietic lineage relationships. Additionally, we identified eight highly differentially methylated CpG sites in nRBCs (false detection rate <5 %, |Δβ| >0.50) that can be used to detect nRBC contamination of purified hematopoietic cells or to assess the impact of nRBCs on whole cord blood DNAm profiles. Several of these erythroid markers are located in or near genes involved in erythropoiesis (ZFPM1, HDAC4) or immune function (MAP3K14, IFIT1B), reinforcing a possible immune regulatory role for nRBCs in early life.

conclusionsHeterotopic interactions between erythroid cells and white blood cells can result in contaminated cell populations if not properly excluded during cell sorting. Cord blood nRBCs have a distinct DNAm profile that can significantly skew epigenetic studies. Our findings have major implications for the design and interpretation of genome-wide epigenetic and transcriptomic studies using human cord blood.

Identifiers

PMID26366232
PMCPMC4567832
OpenAlexW2107949981

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.