Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29529061›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Profiling DNA methylation differences between inbred mouse strains on the Illumina Human Infinium MethylationEPIC microarray.

Hemant Gujar, Jane W Liang, Nicholas C Wong, Khyobeni Mozhui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lack of Methylation Changes inActa medica Philippina · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Hemant GujarDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.
Jane W LiangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.
Nicholas C WongMonash Bioinformatics Platform, Monash University, Clayton VIC, Australia.
Khyobeni MozhuiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6623-4112

Funding

Translational Systems Genetics of Mitochondria, Metabolism, and AgingR01AG043930 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCI CTR · PI WILLIAMS, ROBERT W. · 2013 to 2017
$2.5M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG043930NIH HHS R01AG043930
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC provides an efficient platform for profiling DNA methylation in humans at over 850,000 CpGs. Model organisms such as mice do not currently benefit from an equivalent array. Here we used this array to measure DNA methylation in mice. We defined probes targeting conserved regions and performed differential methylation analysis and compared between the array-based assay and affinity-based DNA sequencing of methyl-CpGs (MBD-seq) and reduced representation bisulfite sequencing. Mouse samples consisted of 11 liver DNA from two strains, C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA/2J (D2), that varied widely in age. Linear regression was applied to detect differential methylation. In total, 13,665 probes (1.6% of total probes) aligned to conserved CpGs. Beta-values (β-value) for these probes showed a distribution similar to that in humans. Overall, there was high concordance in methylation signal between the EPIC array and MBD-seq (Pearson correlation r = 0.70, p-value < 0.0001). However, the EPIC probes had higher quantitative sensitivity at CpGs that are hypo- (β-value < 0.3) or hypermethylated (β-value > 0.7). In terms of differential methylation, no EPIC probe detected a significant difference between age groups at a Benjamini-Hochberg threshold of 10%, and the MBD-seq performed better at detecting age-dependent change in methylation. However, the top most significant probe for age (cg13269407; uncorrected p-value = 1.8 x 10-5) is part of the clock CpGs used to estimate the human epigenetic age. For strain, 219 EPIC probes detected significant differential methylation (FDR cutoff 10%) with ~80% CpGs associated with higher methylation in D2. This higher methylation profile in D2 compared to B6 was also replicated by the MBD-seq data. To summarize, we found only a small subset of EPIC probes that target conserved sites. However, for this small subset the array provides a reliable assay of DNA methylation and can be effectively used to measure differential methylation in mice.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAnimalsConserved SequenceCpG IslandsEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleHumansLinear ModelsLiverMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred DBAOligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID29529061
PMCPMC5846735

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.