Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38448820›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Characterisation and reproducibility of the HumanMethylationEPIC v2.0 BeadChip for DNA methylation profiling.

Timothy J Peters, Braydon Meyer, Lauren Ryan, Joanna Achinger-Kawecka, Jenny Song, Elyssa M Campbell, Wenjia Qu, Shalima Nair, Phuc Loi-Luu, Phillip Stricker and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 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. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

14 authors.

Timothy J PetersGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Braydon MeyerGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Lauren RyanGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Joanna Achinger-KaweckaGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Jenny SongGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Elyssa M CampbellGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Wenjia QuGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Shalima NairGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Phuc Loi-LuuGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Phillip StrickerGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Elgene LimGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Clare StirzakerGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Susan J Clark *Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia. s.clark@garvan.org.au.
Ruth Pidsley *Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia. r.pidsley@garvan.org.au.

Funding

National Breast Cancer Foundation 17-02National Breast Cancer Foundation IIRS-21-047National Breast Cancer Foundation IIRS-22-060National Health and Medical Research Council 1156408National Health and Medical Research Council 2010156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Illumina family of Infinium Methylation BeadChip microarrays has been widely used over the last 15 years for genome-wide DNA methylation profiling, including large-scale and population-based studies, due to their ease of use and cost effectiveness. Succeeding the popular HumanMethylationEPIC BeadChip (EPICv1), the recently released Infinium MethylationEPIC v2.0 BeadChip (EPICv2) claims to extend genomic coverage to more than 935,000 CpG sites. Here, we comprehensively characterise the reproducibility, reliability and annotation of the EPICv2 array, based on bioinformatic analysis of both manifest data and new EPICv2 data from diverse biological samples.

resultsWe find a high degree of reproducibility with EPICv1, evidenced by comparable sensitivity and precision from empirical cross-platform comparison incorporating whole genome bisulphite sequencing (WGBS), and high correlation between technical sample replicates, including between samples with DNA input levels below the manufacturer's recommendation. We provide a full assessment of probe content, evaluating genomic distribution and changes from previous array versions. We characterise EPICv2's new feature of replicated probes and provide recommendations as to the superior probes. In silico analysis of probe sequences demonstrates that probe cross-hybridisation remains a significant problem in EPICv2. By mapping the off-target sites at single nucleotide resolution and comparing with WGBS we show empirical evidence for preferential off-target binding.

conclusionsOverall, we find EPICv2 a worthy successor to the previous Infinium methylation microarrays, however some technical issues remain. To support optimal EPICv2 data analysis we provide an expanded version of the EPICv2 manifest to aid researchers in understanding probe design, data processing, choosing appropriate probes for analysis and for integration with methylation datasets from previous versions of the Infinium Methylation BeadChip.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNA MethylationSulfitesData AnalysisReproducibility of Resultshydrogen sulfiteSulfitesDNA methylationEPICv2ManifestMicroarrayValidationWGBS

Identifiers

PMID38448820
PMCPMC10916044

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.