Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29902267›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Evaluation of bisulfite kits for DNA methylation profiling in terms of DNA fragmentation and DNA recovery using digital PCR.

Sam Kint, Ward De Spiegelaere, Jonas De Kesel, Linos Vandekerckhove, Wim Van Criekinge

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT05955079 (Prospective Validation of the Association Between Circulating Tumor DNA Detection and Risk of Metastatic Relapse in Patients With Localized Endometrial Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT05955079 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Validation of the Association Between Circulating Tumor DNA Detection and Risk of Metastatic Relapse in Patients With Localized Endometrial Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2021 to 2026Enrolled130ConditionsEndometrial CancerArmsWhole blood
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sam KintDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6719-2903
Ward De SpiegelaereDepartment of Morphology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2097-8439
Jonas De KeselDepartment of Biotechnology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Linos VandekerckhoveHIV Cure Research Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University and Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim Van CriekingeDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation is one of the most important epigenetic modifications in the regulation of gene transcription. The current gold standard to study this modification is bisulfite sequencing. Although multiple commercial bisulfite treatment kits provide good conversion efficiencies, DNA loss and especially DNA fragmentation remain troublesome. This hampers DNA methylation profiling of long DNA sequences. Here, we explored the performance of twelve commercial bisulfite kits by an in-depth comparison of DNA fragmentation using gel electrophoresis, qPCR and digital PCR, DNA recovery by spectroscopic measurements and digital PCR and conversion efficiency by next generation sequencing. The results show a clear performance difference between the bisulfite kits, and depending on the specific goal of the study, the most appropriate kit might differ. Moreover, we demonstrated that digital PCR is a valuable method to monitor both DNA fragmentation as well as DNA recovery after bisulfite treatment.

Indexed as

DNADNA FragmentationDNA MethylationPolymerase Chain ReactionSulfitesTemperatureTime FactorsDNAhydrogen sulfiteSulfites

Identifiers

PMID29902267
PMCPMC6002050
OpenAlexW2808533107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.