Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41168686›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2025

Predicting the methylation status of CpG islands from read distribution biases.

Eldar T Abdullaev, Dinesh A Haridoss, Peter F Arndt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Eldar T AbdullaevDepartment of Computational Molecular Biology, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany. abdullae@molgen.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9432-664X
Dinesh A HaridossComputational Health Center, Institute of AI for Health, Munich, Germany.
Peter F ArndtDepartment of Computational Molecular Biology, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1762-9836

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA methylation is an important epigenetic mark that plays a major role in transcriptional regulation, development and genome integrity. There are state-of-the-art methods, such as whole-genome bisulfite sequencing or long-read sequencing, which allow accurate detection of DNA methylation at single-base resolution. However, except for these specialized methods, information about DNA methylation status cannot be obtained directly from ordinary short-read sequencing data. Here we propose an approach to predict the methylation status from mapped read coordinates alone. It relies on previous findings that the DNA fragmentation process during library preparation is not random, but is affected by sequence context. In particular, DNA shearing leads to preferential hydrolysis of the sugar-phosphate backbone at CpG dinucleotides. Notably, methylated CpGs are approximately 30% more susceptible to fragmentation than unmethylated CpGs, likely due to subtle differences in the conformational dynamics. These differences are getting prominent when multiple NGS reads at CpG islands are analyzed. Our trained machine learning model is able to detect these biases and predict whether a CpG island of interest is methylated or not. We provide our methods as a tool, WGS2meth, that predicts CpG island methylation from whole-genome sequencing reads of individual or aggregated samples.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationB-LymphocytesCell LineCpG IslandsDatasets as TopicHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMachine LearningNeoplasmsSequence Analysis, DNAWhole Genome SequencingCpG islandsDNA fragmentationDNA methylation

Identifiers

PMID41168686
PMCPMC12574136

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.