Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26823093›Full record

ArticleNature communications2016

DNA methylation outliers in normal breast tissue identify field defects that are enriched in cancer.

Andrew E Teschendorff, Yang Gao, Allison Jones, Matthias Ruebner, Matthias W Beckmann, David L Wachter, Peter A Fasching, Martin Widschwendter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genes · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

83 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

8 authors.

Andrew E TeschendorffDepartment of Women's Cancer, University College London, Medical School Building, Room 340, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK.
Yang GaoCAS Key Lab of Computational Biology, CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China.
Allison JonesDepartment of Women's Cancer, University College London, Medical School Building, Room 340, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK.
Matthias RuebnerDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Clinic Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Clinic Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany.
David L WachterDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Institute of Pathology, University Clinic Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Clinic Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany.
Martin WidschwendterDepartment of Women's Cancer, University College London, Medical School Building, Room 340, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying molecular alterations in normal tissue adjacent to cancer is important for understanding cancer aetiology and designing preventive measures. Here we analyse the DNA methylome of 569 breast tissue samples, including 50 from cancer-free women and 84 from matched normal cancer pairs. We use statistical algorithms for dissecting intra- and inter-sample cellular heterogeneity and demonstrate that normal tissue adjacent to breast cancer is characterized by tens to thousands of epigenetic alterations. We show that their genomic distribution is non-random, being strongly enriched for binding sites of transcription factors specifying chromatin architecture. We validate the field defects in an independent cohort and demonstrate that over 30% of the alterations exhibit increased enrichment within matched cancer samples. Breast cancers highly enriched for epigenetic field defects, exhibit adverse clinical outcome. Our data support a model where clonal epigenetic reprogramming towards reduced differentiation in normal tissue is an important step in breast carcinogenesis.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdultBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesEpigenomicsFemaleGene Regulatory NetworksHumans

Identifiers

PMID26823093
PMCPMC4740178

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.