ArticleClinical epigenetics2026
Identification of DNA methylation biomarkers in amniotic fluid for prenatal detection of congenital heart disease (CHD).
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCongenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect worldwide, affecting approximately 1% of live births. Improving the prenatal diagnosis of CHD remains an urgent clinical priority. In this study, we aimed to screen and validate amniotic fluid methylation biomarkers from clinical cases for the prenatal diagnosis of CHD.
methodsA total of 135 amniotic fluid samples (80 cases and 55 controls) collected during the second trimester were included and divided into three independent cohorts. Cohort I was used to screen for differentially methylated regions (DMRs) by whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) during the discovery phase. The above candidate DMRs were detected using target bisulfite sequencing (TBS) in an independent cohort II. The final biomarker set was selected according to adjusted P-values, sequencing depth, group differences, and relevance to cardiac development and key metabolic pathways. The model was built using individual biomarker cut-off values. Its predictive performance and generalizability were evaluated in an independent cohort III.
resultsWGBS and unsupervised clustering analysis revealed differential methylation patterns in amniotic fluid DNA between the CHD and normal groups. The 52 DMRs (adj P < 0.01) were identified by screening with the above factors. Then, the analysis of cohort II via TBS identified 25 differentially methylated sites. From these, a predictive model was constructed using the four hypermethylated sites with the greatest group differences, all located within a single intron of the PCNT gene. Validation in an independent cohort III identified 11 differentially methylated sites, with an 8-site overlap with cohort II. Notably, 7 of the overlapping sites were associated with PCNT, highlighting strong reproducibility. This model showed consistent and decent performance in the cohort III (specificity: 95.65%, sensitivity: 70.45%), the cohort II (specificity: 73.08%, sensitivity: 83.33%), as well as in simple congenital heart disease (SCHD) (specificity: 83.67%, sensitivity: 76.09%) and complex congenital heart disease (CCHD) sample sets (specificity: 83.67%, sensitivity: 75.00%).
conclusionsDNA methylation profiles in amniotic fluid differ significantly between fetuses with CHD and normal fetuses. The methylation of PCNT was suggested to be associated with the pathogenesis of CHD. Furthermore, the four-marker methylation panel identified in this study demonstrated decent efficacy in distinguishing fetuses with CHD, highlighting its promise as a new adjunctive diagnostic approach for prenatal CHD in high-risk pregnant women.
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.