Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34709110›Full record

ArticleEpigenetics2022

Comparison of EM-seq and PBAT methylome library methods for low-input DNA.

Yanan Han, Galina Yurevna Zheleznyakova, Yanara Marincevic-Zuniga, Majid Pahlevan Kakhki, Amanda Raine, Maria Needhamsen, Maja Jagodic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Laser Capture Microdissection Followed by DNA Methylation Profiling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Yanan HanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3464-2656
Galina Yurevna ZheleznyakovaDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Yanara Marincevic-ZunigaDepartment of Medical Sciences, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Majid Pahlevan KakhkiDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Amanda RaineDepartment of Medical Sciences, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria NeedhamsenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Maja JagodicDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation is the most studied epigenetic mark involved in regulation of gene expression. For low input samples, a limited number of methods for quantifying DNA methylation genome-wide has been evaluated. Here, we compared a series of input DNA amounts (1-10ng) from two methylome library preparation protocols, enzymatic methyl-seq (EM-seq) and post-bisulfite adaptor tagging (PBAT) adapted from single-cell PBAT. EM-seq takes advantage of enzymatic activity while PBAT relies on conventional bisulfite conversion for detection of DNA methylation. We found that both methods accurately quantified DNA methylation genome-wide. They produced expected distribution patterns around genomic features, high C-T transition efficiency at non-CpG sites and high correlation between input amounts. However, EM-seq performed better in regard to library and sequencing quality, i.e. EM-seq produced larger insert sizes, higher alignment rates and higher library complexity with lower duplication rate compared to PBAT. Moreover, EM-seq demonstrated higher CpG coverage, better CpG site overlap and higher consistency between input series. In summary, our data suggests that EM-seq overall performed better than PBAT in whole-genome methylation quantification of low input samples.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenomeCpG IslandsDNAHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNASulfitesDNAhydrogen sulfiteSulfitesEM-seqLow input DNAmethylomePBAT

Identifiers

PMID34709110
PMCPMC9542412

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.