Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35488315›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2022

Batch-effect detection, correction and characterisation in Illumina HumanMethylation450 and MethylationEPIC BeadChip array data.

Jason P Ross, Susan van Dijk, Melinda Phang, Michael R Skilton, Peter L Molloy, Yalchin Oytam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Best practices for using biological data in psychological research.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Analysis of Epigenome-Wide Association Studies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Jason P RossHuman Health Program, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia. jason.ross@csiro.au.
Susan van DijkHuman Health Program, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia.
Melinda PhangCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Michael R SkiltonCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Peter L MolloyHuman Health Program, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, Sydney, Australia.
Yalchin OytamClinical Insights and Analytics Unit, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic technologies can be subject to significant batch-effects which are known to reduce experimental power and to potentially create false positive results. The Illumina Infinium Methylation BeadChip is a popular technology choice for epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS), but presently, little is known about the nature of batch-effects on these designs. Given the subtlety of biological phenotypes in many EWAS, control for batch-effects should be a consideration.

resultsUsing the batch-effect removal approaches in the ComBat and Harman software, we examined two in-house datasets and compared results with three large publicly available datasets, (1214 HumanMethylation450 and 1094 MethylationEPIC BeadChips in total), and find that despite various forms of preprocessing, some batch-effects persist. This residual batch-effect is associated with the day of processing, the individual glass slide and the position of the array on the slide. Consistently across all datasets, 4649 probes required high amounts of correction. To understand the impact of this set to EWAS studies, we explored the literature and found three instances where persistently batch-effect prone probes have been reported in abstracts as key sites of differential methylation. As well as batch-effect susceptible probes, we also discover a set of probes which are erroneously corrected. We provide batch-effect workflows for Infinium Methylation data and provide reference matrices of batch-effect prone and erroneously corrected features across the five datasets spanning regionally diverse populations and three commonly collected biosamples (blood, buccal and saliva).

conclusionsBatch-effects are ever present, even in high-quality data, and a strategy to deal with them should be part of experimental design, particularly for EWAS. Batch-effect removal tools are useful to reduce technical variance in Infinium Methylation data, but they need to be applied with care and make use of post hoc diagnostic measures.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingGenomicsHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSoftwareBatch-effectClusteringComBatEWASFalse positivesHarmanInfiniumMethylationSNP

Identifiers

PMID35488315
PMCPMC9055778

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.