Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26607064›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Impact of SNPs on methylation readouts by Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip Array: implications for comparative population studies.

Patrycja Daca-Roszak, Aleksandra Pfeifer, Jadwiga Żebracka-Gala, Dagmara Rusinek, Aleksandra Szybińska, Barbara Jarząb, Michał Witt, Ewa Ziętkiewicz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Open Pediatric Cancer Project.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Patrycja Daca-RoszakInstitute of Human Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland. patrycja-daca@wp.pl.
Aleksandra PfeiferDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland. apfeifer@io.gliwice.pl.
Jadwiga Żebracka-GalaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland. jzebracka@io.gliwice.pl.
Dagmara RusinekDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland. drusinek@io.gliwice.pl.
Aleksandra SzybińskaInternational Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Warsaw, Poland. ola@iimcb.gov.pl.
Barbara JarząbDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrine Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland. bjarzab@io.gliwice.pl.
Michał WittInstitute of Human Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland. wittmich@man.poznan.pl.
Ewa ZiętkiewiczInstitute of Human Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland. zietkiee@man.poznan.pl.
The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PLInternational Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology · PLInstitute of Human Genetics · PLPolish Academy of Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfinium HumanMethylation 450 BeadChip Arrays by Illumina (Illumina HM450K) are among the most popular CpG microarray platforms widely used in biological and medical research. Several recent studies highlighted the potentially confounding impact of the genomic variation on the results of methylation studies performed using Illumina's Infinium methylation probes. However, the complexity of SNPs impact on the methylation level measurements (β values) has not been comprehensively described.

resultsIn our comparative study of European and Asian populations performed using Illumina HM450K, we found that the majority of Infinium probes, which differentiated two examined groups, had SNPs in their target sequence. Characteristic tri-modal or bi-modal patterns of β values distribution among individual samples were observed for CpGs with SNPs in the first and second position, respectively. To better understand how SNPs affect methylation readouts, we investigated their impact in the context of SNP position and type, and of the Illumina probe type (Infinium I or II).

conclusionsOur study clearly demonstrates that SNP variation existing in the genome, if not accounted for, may lead to false interpretation of the methylation signal differences suggested by some of the Illumina Infinium probes. In addition, it provides important practical clues for discriminating between differences due to the methylation status and to the genomic polymorphisms, based on the inspection of methylation readouts in individual samples. This approach is of special importance when Illumina Infinium assay is used for any comparative population studies, whether related to cancer, disease, ethnicity where SNP frequencies differentiate the studied groups.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGenomicsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAllelesCpG IslandsEpigenesis, GeneticEpigenomicsGene FrequencyGenetics, PopulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID26607064
PMCPMC4659175
OpenAlexW2172388735

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.