Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29034560›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2018

Estimation of a significance threshold for epigenome-wide association studies.

Ayden Saffari, Matt J Silver, Patrizia Zavattari, Loredana Moi, Amedeo Columbano, Emma L Meaburn, Frank Dudbridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

44 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

7 authors.

Ayden SaffariDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7820-5661
Matt J SilverMRC Unit, The Gambia and MRC International Nutrition Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Patrizia ZavattariDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Loredana MoiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Amedeo ColumbanoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Emma L MeaburnDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Frank DudbridgeDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M01424X/1Medical Research Council MC_PC_MR/R020183/1Medical Research Council MC_U123292700Medical Research Council MC_UU_00026/3Medical Research Council MR/K006215/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) are designed to characterise population-level epigenetic differences across the genome and link them to disease. Most commonly, they assess DNA-methylation status at cytosine-guanine dinucleotide (CpG) sites, using platforms such as the Illumina 450k array that profile a subset of CpGs genome wide. An important challenge in the context of EWAS is determining a significance threshold for declaring a CpG site as differentially methylated, taking multiple testing into account. We used a permutation method to estimate a significance threshold specifically for the 450k array and a simulation extrapolation approach to estimate a genome-wide threshold. These methods were applied to five different EWAS datasets derived from a variety of populations and tissue types. We obtained an estimate of α=2.4×10-7 for the 450k array, and a genome-wide estimate of α=3.6×10-8. We further demonstrate the importance of these results by showing that previously recommended sample sizes for EWAS should be adjusted upwards, requiring samples between ∼10% and ∼20% larger in order to maintain type-1 errors at the desired level.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBipolar DisorderColorectal NeoplasmsCpG IslandsDatasets as TopicDepressionEpigenesis, GeneticGenome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansInfantMiddle AgedCpGDNA methylationepigenetic epidemiologyEWASFWERGWASpermutationresamplingsimulation extrapolation

Identifiers

PMID29034560
PMCPMC5813244

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.