Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27142380›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2016

An evaluation of methods correcting for cell-type heterogeneity in DNA methylation studies.

Kevin McGregor, Sasha Bernatsky, Ines Colmegna, Marie Hudson, Tomi Pastinen, Aurélie Labbe, Celia M T Greenwood

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin McGregorMcGill University, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, 1020 Pine Ave. West, Montréal, H3A 1A2, QC, Canada.
Sasha BernatskyLady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Chemin de la Côte Sainte Catherine, Montréal, H3T 1E2, QC, Canada.
Ines ColmegnaThe Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Marie HudsonLady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Chemin de la Côte Sainte Catherine, Montréal, H3T 1E2, QC, Canada.
Tomi PastinenMcGill University and Genome Quebec Innovation Centre, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Aurélie LabbeMcGill University, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, 1020 Pine Ave. West, Montréal, H3A 1A2, QC, Canada.
Celia M T GreenwoodLady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Chemin de la Côte Sainte Catherine, Montréal, H3T 1E2, QC, Canada. celia.greenwood@mcgill.ca.
McGill University · CAJewish General Hospital · CADouglas Mental Health University Institute · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP-300545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany different methods exist to adjust for variability in cell-type mixture proportions when analyzing DNA methylation studies. Here we present the result of an extensive simulation study, built on cell-separated DNA methylation profiles from Illumina Infinium 450K methylation data, to compare the performance of eight methods including the most commonly used approaches.

resultsWe designed a rich multi-layered simulation containing a set of probes with true associations with either binary or continuous phenotypes, confounding by cell type, variability in means and standard deviations for population parameters, additional variability at the level of an individual cell-type-specific sample, and variability in the mixture proportions across samples. Performance varied quite substantially across methods and simulations. In particular, the number of false positives was sometimes unrealistically high, indicating limited ability to discriminate the true signals from those appearing significant through confounding. Methods that filtered probes had consequently poor power. QQ plots of p values across all tested probes showed that adjustments did not always improve the distribution. The same methods were used to examine associations between smoking and methylation data from a case-control study of colorectal cancer, and we also explored the effect of cell-type adjustments on associations between rheumatoid arthritis cases and controls.

conclusionsWe recommend surrogate variable analysis for cell-type mixture adjustment since performance was stable under all our simulated scenarios.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDNA MethylationGenetic HeterogeneityArthritis, RheumatoidCase-Control StudiesCell SeparationColorectal NeoplasmsComputer SimulationHumansMonocytesOrgan SpecificityReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNACell-type mixtureDeconvolutionDNA methylationMatrix decomposition

Identifiers

PMID27142380
PMCPMC4855979
OpenAlexW2347100089

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.