Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37239934›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Assessing the Differential Methylation Analysis Quality for Microarray and NGS Platforms.

Anna Budkina, Yulia A Medvedeva, Alexey Stupnikov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Anna BudkinaDepartment of Biomedical Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 141701 Dolgoprudny, Russia.ORCID 0009-0006-1135-5896
Yulia A MedvedevaDepartment of Biomedical Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 141701 Dolgoprudny, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-7587-1666
Alexey StupnikovDepartment of Biomedical Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 141701 Dolgoprudny, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-7605-410X

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 22-74-00023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential methylation (DM) is actively recruited in different types of fundamental and translational studies. Currently, microarray- and NGS-based approaches for methylation analysis are the most widely used with multiple statistical models designed to extract differential methylation signatures. The benchmarking of DM models is challenging due to the absence of gold standard data. In this study, we analyze an extensive number of publicly available NGS and microarray datasets with divergent and widely utilized statistical models and apply the recently suggested and validated rank-statistic-based approach Hobotnica to evaluate the quality of their results. Overall, microarray-based methods demonstrate more robust and convergent results, while NGS-based models are highly dissimilar. Tests on the simulated NGS data tend to overestimate the quality of the DM methods and therefore are recommended for use with caution. Evaluation of the top 10 DMC and top 100 DMC in addition to the not-subset signature also shows more stable results for microarray data. Summing up, given the observed heterogeneity in NGS methylation data, the evaluation of newly generated methylation signatures is a crucial step in DM analysis. The Hobotnica metric is coordinated with previously developed quality metrics and provides a robust, sensitive, and informative estimation of methods' performance and DM signatures' quality in the absence of gold standard data solving a long-existing problem in DM analysis.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationModels, StatisticalMicroarray Analysisdifferential methylationmethylation signaturemicroarraysquality metricrank statisticRRBSWGBS

Identifiers

PMID37239934
PMCPMC10218268

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.