Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26740923›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2015

Optimized method for methylated DNA immuno-precipitation.

Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna, Per Jensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Carlos Guerrero-BosagnaAvian Behavioral Genomics and Physiology Group, IFM Biology, Linköping University, Linköping 58 183, Sweden.
Per JensenAvian Behavioral Genomics and Physiology Group, IFM Biology, Linköping University, Linköping 58 183, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) is one of the most widely used methods to evaluate DNA methylation on a whole genome scale, and involves the capture of the methylated fraction of the DNA by an antibody specific to methyl-cytosine. MeDIP was initially coupled with microarray hybridization to detect local DNA methylation enrichments along the genome. More recently, MeDIP has been coupled with next generation sequencing, which highlights its current and future applicability. In previous studies in which MeDIP was applied, the protocol took around 3 days to be performed. Given the importance of MeDIP for studies involving DNA methylation, it was important to optimize the method in order to deliver faster turnouts. The present article describes optimization steps of the MeDIP method. The length of the procedure was reduced in half without compromising the quality of the results. This was achieved by:•Reduction of the number of washes in different stages of the protocol, after a careful evaluation of the number of indispensable washes.•Reduction of reaction times for detaching methylated DNA fragments from the complex agarose beads:antibody.•Modification of the methods to purify methylated DNA, which incorporates new devices and procedures, and eliminates a lengthy phenol and chloroform:isoamyl alcohol extraction.

Indexed as

DNA methylationEpigeneticImmunoprecipitationMeDIPWhole genome

Identifiers

PMID26740923
PMCPMC4678308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.