ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2022
A Novel Framework for the Identification of Reference DNA Methylation Libraries for Reference-Based Deconvolution of Cellular Mixtures.
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Spatial Epigenomes to Clinical Diagnostics: Integrative Methylomics Across Scales and Modalities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Guidelines on optimizing DNA methylation reference panels for cell-type deconvolution.Communications biology · 2026Article
- An improved reference library and method for accurate cell-type deconvolution of bulk-tissue miRNA data.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Quantifying the proportion of different cell types in the human cortex using DNA methylation profiles.BMC biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Calculating detection limits and uncertainty of reference-based deconvolution of whole-blood DNA methylation data.Epigenomics · 2023Article
- Hierarchical deconvolution for extensive cell type resolution in the human brain using DNA methylation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reference-based deconvolution methods use reference libraries of cell-specific DNA methylation (DNAm) measurements as a means toward deconvoluting cell proportions in heterogeneous biospecimens (e.g., whole-blood). As the accuracy of such methods depends highly on the CpG loci comprising the reference library, recent research efforts have focused on the selection of libraries to optimize deconvolution accuracy. While existing approaches for library selection work extremely well, the best performing approaches require a training data set consisting of both DNAm profiles over a heterogeneous cell population and gold-standard measurements of cell composition (e.g., flow cytometry) in the same samples. Here, we present a framework for reference library selection without a training dataset (RESET) and benchmark it against the Legacy method (minfi:pickCompProbes), where libraries are constructed based on a pre-specified number of cell-specific differentially methylated loci (DML). RESET uses a modified version of the Dispersion Separability Criteria (DSC) for comparing different libraries and has four main steps: (1) identify a candidate set of cell-specific DMLs, (2) randomly sample DMLs from the candidate set, (3) compute the Modified DSC of the selected DMLs, and (4) update the selection probabilities of DMLs based on their contribution to the Modified DSC. Steps 2-4 are repeated many times and the library with the largest Modified DSC is selected for subsequent reference-based deconvolution. We evaluated RESET using several publicly available datasets consisting of whole-blood DNAm measurements with corresponding measurements of cell composition. We computed the RMSE and
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.