Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35948928›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2022

Identification of influential probe types in epigenetic predictions of human traits: implications for microarray design.

Robert F Hillary, Daniel L McCartney, Allan F McRae, Archie Campbell, Rosie M Walker, Caroline Hayward, Steve Horvath, David J Porteous, Kathryn L Evans, Riccardo E Marioni

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Robert F HillaryCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. robert.hillary@ed.ac.uk.
Daniel L McCartneyCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Allan F McRaeInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.
Archie CampbellCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Rosie M WalkerCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Caroline HaywardMRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Steve HorvathDepartment of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7088, USA.
David J PorteousCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Kathryn L EvansCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Riccardo E MarioniCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.

Funding

Validation and optimization of epigenetic clocksU01AG060908 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RITZ, BEATE R. · 2018 to 2022
$3.4M
Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_00007/10Wellcome Trust 104036/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 220857/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCpG methylation levels can help to explain inter-individual differences in phenotypic traits. Few studies have explored whether identifying probe subsets based on their biological and statistical properties can maximise predictions whilst minimising array content. Variance component analyses and penalised regression (epigenetic predictors) were used to test the influence of (i) the number of probes considered, (ii) mean probe variability and (iii) methylation QTL status on the variance captured in eighteen traits by blood DNA methylation. Training and test samples comprised ≤ 4450 and ≤ 2578 unrelated individuals from Generation Scotland, respectively.

resultsAs the number of probes under consideration decreased, so too did the estimates from variance components and prediction analyses. Methylation QTL status and mean probe variability did not influence variance components. However, relative effect sizes were 15% larger for epigenetic predictors based on probes with known or reported methylation QTLs compared to probes without reported methylation QTLs. Relative effect sizes were 45% larger for predictors based on probes with mean Beta-values between 10 and 90% compared to those based on hypo- or hypermethylated probes (Beta-value ≤ 10% or ≥ 90%).

conclusionsArrays with fewer probes could reduce costs, leading to increased sample sizes for analyses. Our results show that reducing array content can restrict prediction metrics and careful attention must be given to the biological and distribution properties of CpG probes in array content selection.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenomicsCpG IslandsEpigenesis, GeneticHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPhenotypeAgeingComplex traitsDNA methylationMethylation QTLsPrediction

Identifiers

PMID35948928
PMCPMC9367152

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.