ArticleBiological procedures online2025
Evaluation of the HumanMethylationEPIC v2.0 Bead Chip Using Low Quality and Quantity DNA Samples.
Article in Biological procedures online, 2025. 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.
- Promoter hypomethylation ofFrontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Methylation profiling in neuropathological tumors diagnosis: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HumanMethylationEPIC v2.0 BeadChip (EPIC v2.0) microarray is a widely used tool for genome-wide DNA methylation (DNAm) analysis, designed for high-quality human DNA with a recommended input of 250 ng. However, in clinical and forensic settings, DNA samples may be of low quality and/or quantity (highly fragmented and/or available in low amounts). This study assessed the performance of the EPIC v2.0 on DNA samples with various combinations of average DNA fragment size (350, 230, 165, and 95 bp) and DNA input amount (100, 50, 20, and 10 ng), compared to a paired control sample analyzed under optimal conditions (high-quality DNA and 250 ng DNA input).
resultsThe best performance was obtained for samples with average DNA fragment size of 350 bp and 100 ng DNA input (~ 90% probe detection rate, r = 0.995, and median absolute beta value differences|Δβ| = 0.012 when compared with the control sample). Samples with lower average DNA fragment sizes and DNA input amount performed worse, with the lowest probe detection rate (~ 43%), r = 0.946, and the highest|Δβ| (0.038). Samples with average DNA fragment sizes of 95 bp and those with 165 bp at 10 ng DNA input failed to pass sample quality control (QC). CpG sites with intermediate DNAm values (β = 0.1-0.9) showed higher|Δβ| than the extreme DNAm values (β = 0-0.1, and β = 0.9-1). Finally, we assessed an application of DNAm by performing epigenetic age analysis, and observed mean absolute errors (MAEs) below 10 years for 350 bp samples across four epigenetic clocks.
conclusionsBoth DNA fragment size and DNA input amounts affect DNAm analysis on the EPIC v2.0, with the investigated DNA fragment size having a greater impact than the investigated DNA input amount. DNAm measurements were achieved with the EPIC v2.0 microarray down to an average DNA fragment size of 165 bp and a 20 ng DNA input. Highly fragmented DNA (95 bp) did not result in usable DNAm analysis as all samples failed QC. Overall, our study demonstrates the potential and limitations of EPIC v2.0 microarray with low quality and quantity DNA samples.
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.