ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of DNAmAge in paired fresh, frozen, and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded heart tissues.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the HumanMethylationEPIC v2.0 Bead Chip Using Low Quality and Quantity DNA Samples.Biological procedures online · 2025Article
- Transcriptomics and epigenomics datasets of primary brain cancers in formalin-fixed paraffin embedded format.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continued development in methylome analysis has enabled a more precise assessment of DNA methylation, but treatment of target tissue prior to analysis may affect DNA analysis. Prediction of age based on methylation levels in the genome (DNAmAge) has gained much interest in disease predisposition (biological age estimation), but also in chronological donor age estimation in crime case samples. Various epigenetic clocks were designed to predict the age. However, it remains unknown how the storage of the tissues affects the DNAmAge estimation. In this study, we investigated the storage method impact of DNAmAge by the comparing the DNAmAge of the two commonly used storage methods, freezing and formalin-fixation and paraffin-embedding (FFPE) to DNAmAge of fresh tissue. This was carried out by comparing paired heart tissue samples of fresh tissue, samples stored by freezing and FFPE to chronological age and whole blood samples from the same individuals. Illumina EPIC beadchip array was used for methylation analysis and the DNAmAge was evaluated with the following epigenetic clocks: Horvath, Hannum, Levine, Horvath skin+blood clock (Horvath2), PedBE, Wu, BLUP, EN, and TL. We observed differences in DNAmAge among the storage conditions. FFPE samples showed a lower DNAmAge compared to that of frozen and fresh samples. Additionally, the DNAmAge of the heart tissue was lower than that of the whole blood and the chronological age. This highlights caution when evaluating DNAmAge for FFPE samples as the results were underestimated compared with fresh and frozen tissue samples. Furthermore, the study also emphasizes the need for a DNAmAge model based on heart tissue samples for an accurate age estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.