Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30540848›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Exploring the influence from whole blood DNA extraction methods on Infinium 450K DNA methylation.

Hanne Sagsveen Hjorthaug, Kristina Gervin, Petter Mowinckel, Monica Cheng Munthe-Kaas

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Hanne Sagsveen HjorthaugDepartment of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7973-7096
Kristina GervinPharmaTox Strategic Research Initiative, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Petter MowinckelDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Monica Cheng Munthe-KaasDepartment of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide DNA methylation studies are becoming increasingly important in unraveling the epigenetic basis of cell biology, aging and human conditions. The aim of the present study was to explore whether different methods for extracting DNA from whole blood can affect DNA methylation outcome, potentially confounding DNA methylation studies. DNA was isolated from healthy blood donors (n = 10) using three different extraction methods (i.e. two automatic extractions methods based on magnetic beads or isopropanol precipitation, and manual organic extraction). DNA methylation was analyzed using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 Bead Chip (Infinium 450K) (n = 30 samples in total), which is a frequently used method in genome-wide DNA methylation analyses. Overall, the different extraction methods did not have a significant impact on the global DNA methylation patterns. However, DNA methylation differences between organic extraction and each of the automated methods were in general larger than differences between the two automated extraction methods. No CpG sites or regions reached genome-wide significance when testing for differential methylation between extraction methods. Although this study is based on a small sample, these results suggest that extraction method is unlikely to confound Infinium 450K methylation analysis in whole blood.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGenetic TechniquesAutomation, LaboratoryBloodCpG IslandsDNAFemaleHumansLab-On-A-Chip DevicesMaleDNA

Identifiers

PMID30540848
PMCPMC6291135

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.