Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35527288›Full record

ReviewActa neuropathologica communications2022

DNA methylation as a diagnostic tool.

Kristyn Galbraith, Matija Snuderl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Mechanisms underlining R-loop biology and implications for human disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  19. Methods in DNA methylation array dataset analysis: A review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Kristyn GalbraithDepartment of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Matija SnuderlDepartment of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Matija.Snuderl@nyulangone.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation of cytosines in CpG sites throughout the genome is an epigenetic mark contributing to gene expression regulation. DNA methylation patterns are specific to tissue type, conserved throughout life and reflect changes during tumorigenesis. DNA methylation recently emerged as a diagnostic tool to classify tumors based on a combination of preserved developmental and mutation induced signatures. In addition to the tumor classification, DNA methylation data can also be used to evaluate copy number variation, assess promoter methylation status of specific genes, such as MGMT or MLH1, and deconvolute the tumor microenvironment, assessing the tumor immune infiltrate as a potential biomarker for immunotherapy. Here we review the role for DNA methylation in tumor diagnosis.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationNeoplasmsCpG IslandsDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair EnzymesHumansMutationPromoter Regions, GeneticTumor MicroenvironmentDNA Modification MethylasesDNA Repair Enzymes

Identifiers

PMID35527288
PMCPMC9080136

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.