Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38762790›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Computational deconvolution of DNA methylation data from mixed DNA samples.

Maísa R Ferro Dos Santos, Edoardo Giuili, Andries De Koker, Celine Everaert, Katleen De Preter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Maísa R Ferro Dos SantosVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology (CMB), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 75, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1336-5434
Edoardo GiuiliVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology (CMB), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 75, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2763-3767
Andries De KokerVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology (CMB), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 75, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
Celine EveraertVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology (CMB), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 75, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
Katleen De PreterVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology (CMB), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 75, 9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium.

Funding

European Research Council 101044243FWO junior postdoctoral fellowship 1226821 NGOA UGent BOF.GOA.2024.0006.01Kom op tegen Kanker KotK_UG/2020/12444/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the different computational tools that have been published for the deconvolution of bulk DNA methylation (DNAm) data. Here, deconvolution refers to the estimation of cell-type proportions that constitute a mixed sample. The paper reviews and compares 25 deconvolution methods (supervised, unsupervised or hybrid) developed between 2012 and 2023 and compares the strengths and limitations of each approach. Moreover, in this study, we describe the impact of the platform used for the generation of methylation data (including microarrays and sequencing), the applied data pre-processing steps and the used reference dataset on the deconvolution performance. Next to reference-based methods, we also examine methods that require only partial reference datasets or require no reference set at all. In this review, we provide guidelines for the use of specific methods dependent on the DNA methylation data type and data availability.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNA MethylationAlgorithmsDNAHumansDNAcomputational deconvolutionDNA methylation profilingtool comparison

Identifiers

PMID38762790
PMCPMC11102637

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.