Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392843›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2017

Validation of the MethylationEPIC BeadChip for fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumours.

Teresia Kling, Anna Wenger, Stephan Beck, Helena Carén

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Impact of Inherited Genetic Variation on DNA Methylation in Prostate Cancer and Benign Tissues of African American and European American Men.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Long-read sequencing for brain tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Cancers · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Teresia Kling *Sahlgrenska Cancer Center, Department of Pathology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 425, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna Wenger *Sahlgrenska Cancer Center, Department of Pathology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 425, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stephan BeckDepartment of Cancer Biology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Helena CarénSahlgrenska Cancer Center, Department of Pathology, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 425, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation is the most studied epigenetic modification due to its role in regulating gene expression, and its involvement in the pathogenesis of cancer and several diseases upon aberrations in methylation. The method of choice to evaluate genome-wide methylation has been the Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip (450K), but it was recently replaced with the MethylationEPIC BeadChip (EPIC). We therefore sought to validate the EPIC array in comparison to the 450K array for both fresh-frozen (FF) and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumours. We also performed analysis on the EPIC array with paired FF and FFPE samples to adapt to a clinical setting where FFPE is routinely used. Further, we compared two restoration methods, REPLI-g and Infinium, for FFPE-derived DNA on the EPIC array. The Pearson correlation of β values for common probes on the 450K and EPIC array was high for both FF (mean: 0.992) and FFPE (mean: 0.984) samples. The β values generated from the EPIC array for FFPE samples correlated well with the paired FF tumours, but varied between 0.901 and 0.987. We did note that sample pairs with lower correlation had less bimodal density distributions of β values and displayed higher noise in the copy number alteration plots (generated from the methylation array data) in the FFPE sample. Both REPLI-g and the Infinium restoration for FFPE samples performed well on the EPIC array and generated equivalent correlation scores to the paired FF sample.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBrain NeoplasmsCpG IslandsEpigenesis, GeneticHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisParaffin EmbeddingTissue Fixation450KBrain tumourDNA methylationDNA restorationEPICEpigeneticsFormalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue

Identifiers

PMID28392843
PMCPMC5379646

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.