Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29588806›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2018

Identifying and correcting epigenetics measurements for systematic sources of variation.

Flavie Perrier, Alexei Novoloaca, Srikant Ambatipudi, Laura Baglietto, Akram Ghantous, Vittorio Perduca, Myrto Barrdahl, Sophia Harlid, Ken K Ong, Alexia Cardona and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Metabolic Signatures of Healthy Lifestyle Patterns and Colorectal Cancer Risk in a European Cohort.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    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

21 authors.

Flavie Perrier1Nutritional Methodology and Biostatistics Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France.
Alexei Novoloaca2Epigenetics Group, IARC, Lyon, France.
Srikant Ambatipudi2Epigenetics Group, IARC, Lyon, France.
Laura Baglietto3Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Akram Ghantous2Epigenetics Group, IARC, Lyon, France.
Vittorio Perduca4MAP5 - UMR CNRS 8145, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Myrto Barrdahl5Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sophia Harlid6Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Ken K Ong7MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Alexia Cardona7MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Silvia PolidoroIIGM - Italian Institute for Genomic Medicine, Torino, Italy.
Therese Haugdahl Nøst9Department of Community Medicine, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Kim Overvad10Section for Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Hanane Omichessan12CESP, Fac. de médecine - Univ. Paris-Sud, Fac. de médecine - UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Martijn Dollé14Centre for Health Protection (pb12), National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Christina Bamia15Hellenic Health Foundation, Athens, Greece.
José Marìa Huerta17Department of Epidemiology, Murcia Regional Health Council, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
Paolo Vineis19MRC/PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Zdenko Herceg2Epigenetics Group, IARC, Lyon, France.
Isabelle Romieu20Nutritional Epidemiology Group, IARC, Lyon, France.
Pietro Ferrari1Nutritional Methodology and Biostatistics Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/2Medical Research Council MR/L00002/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Methylation measures quantified by microarray techniques can be affected by systematic variation due to the technical processing of samples, which may compromise the accuracy of the measurement process and contribute to bias the estimate of the association under investigation. The quantification of the contribution of the systematic source of variation is challenging in datasets characterized by hundreds of thousands of features.In this study, we introduce a method previously developed for the analysis of metabolomics data to evaluate the performance of existing normalizing techniques to correct for unwanted variation. Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450K was used to acquire methylation levels in over 421,000 CpG sites for 902 study participants of a case-control study on breast cancer nested within the EPIC cohort. The principal component partial R-square (PC-PR2) analysis was used to identify and quantify the variability attributable to potential systematic sources of variation. Three correcting techniques, namely ComBat, surrogate variables analysis (SVA) and a linear regression model to compute residuals were applied. The impact of each correcting method on the association between smoking status and DNA methylation levels was evaluated, and results were compared with findings from a large meta-analysis. Results: A sizeable proportion of systematic variability due to variables expressing 'batch' and 'sample position' within 'chip' was identified, with values of the partial R Conclusions: The three correction methods removed systematic variation in DNA methylation data, as assessed by the PC-PR2, which lent itself as a useful tool to explore variability in large dimension data. SVA produced more conservative findings than ComBat in the association between smoking and DNA methylation.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesComputational BiologyCpG IslandsEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisEpigeneticsMethylationNormalizationPC-PR2Smoking status

Identifiers

PMID29588806
PMCPMC5863487

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.