Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26751487›Full record

ReviewBiology2016

DNA Methylation Analysis: Choosing the Right Method.

Sergey Kurdyukov, Martyn Bullock

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 302 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
302citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

302 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Dysregulation of Aurora Kinases andCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

242 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Sergey KurdyukovGenomics Core facility, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney 2065, Australia. sergey.kurdyukov@sydney.edu.au.
Martyn BullockCancer Genetics Laboratory, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney 2065, Australia. martyn.bullock@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the burgeoning field of epigenetics, there are several methods available to determine the methylation status of DNA samples. However, choosing the method that is best suited to answering a particular biological question still proves to be a difficult task. This review aims to provide biologists, particularly those new to the field of epigenetics, with a simple algorithm to help guide them in the selection of the most appropriate assay to meet their research needs. First of all, we have separated all methods into two categories: those that are used for: (1) the discovery of unknown epigenetic changes; and (2) the assessment of DNA methylation within particular regulatory regions/genes of interest. The techniques are then scrutinized and ranked according to their robustness, high throughput capabilities and cost. This review includes the majority of methods available to date, but with a particular focus on commercially available kits or other simple and straightforward solutions that have proven to be useful.

Indexed as

5-methylcytosineCpG islandsDNA methylationepigeneticsnext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID26751487
PMCPMC4810160

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.