Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29544553›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2018

Comparison of whole-genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data.

Nelly Olova, Felix Krueger, Simon Andrews, David Oxley, Rebecca V Berrens, Miguel R Branco, Wolf Reik

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 176 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
176citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prediagnostic White Blood Cell DNA Methylation and Risk of Breast Cancer in the Prostate Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Cancer-Like Fragmentomic Characteristics of Somatic Variants in Cell-Free DNA.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Laser Capture Microdissection Followed by DNA Methylation Profiling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

116 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.

Nelly OlovaEpigenetics Programme, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8093-4932
Felix KruegerBioinformatics Group, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK.
Simon AndrewsBioinformatics Group, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK.
David OxleyMass Spectrometry Facility, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK.
Rebecca V BerrensEpigenetics Programme, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK.
Miguel R BrancoBlizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 2AT, UK. m.branco@qmul.ac.uk.
Wolf ReikEpigenetics Programme, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, UK. wolf.reik@babraham.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K010867/1EU BLUEPRINT 282510EU EpiGeneSys 257082Sir Henry Dale Fellowship 101225/Z/13/Z)Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 095645/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) is becoming an increasingly accessible technique, used widely for both fundamental and disease-oriented research. Library preparation methods benefit from a variety of available kits, polymerases and bisulfite conversion protocols. Although some steps in the procedure, such as PCR amplification, are known to introduce biases, a systematic evaluation of biases in WGBS strategies is missing.

resultsWe perform a comparative analysis of several commonly used pre- and post-bisulfite WGBS library preparation protocols for their performance and quality of sequencing outputs. Our results show that bisulfite conversion per se is the main trigger of pronounced sequencing biases, and PCR amplification builds on these underlying artefacts. The majority of standard library preparation methods yield a significantly biased sequence output and overestimate global methylation. Importantly, both absolute and relative methylation levels at specific genomic regions vary substantially between methods, with clear implications for DNA methylation studies.

conclusionsWe show that amplification-free library preparation is the least biased approach for WGBS. In protocols with amplification, the choice of bisulfite conversion protocol or polymerase can significantly minimize artefacts. To aid with the quality assessment of existing WGBS datasets, we have integrated a bias diagnostic tool in the Bismark package and offer several approaches for consideration during the preparation and analysis of WGBS datasets.

Indexed as

ArtifactsDNA MethylationGene LibrarySulfitesPolymerase Chain ReactionWhole Genome Sequencinghydrogen sulfiteSulfitesArtefactsBiasesBisulfite conversionDegradationDNA methylationGC skewNGSPolymeraseWGBS

Identifiers

PMID29544553
PMCPMC5856372

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.