ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of references for the quantitative analysis of LINE-1 and Alu methylation in cellular DNA and circulating cell-free DNA of cancer patients.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The LINE-1 and Alu retrotransposon elements, with more than 90% of their sequences being methylated, contribute to 30% of the human genome. Their hypomethylation profile, representing global methylation in cellular and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from cancer, has been considered an attractive noninvasive biomarker of cancer. LINE-1 and Alu methylation profiling has preferentially been performed by real-time methylation-specific PCR (qMSP), pyrosequencing, and methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM), which are bisulfite-based PCR approaches that require reference sequences amplified by the Methylation Independent PCR (MIP) primers to normalize the quantification data. A technical weakness of MIP primers is unequal amplification, termed PCR amplification bias, leading to an under- or overestimation of expected methylation levels, and thus, hindering the effectiveness of DNA methylation-based biomarkers. To date, the PCR amplification bias of MIP primers that may affect the methylation analysis of repeat sequences such as LINE-1 and Alu has not yet been described. Our study demonstrated for the first time the detrimental impact of biased MIP primers on LINE-1 and Alu methylation profiles, causing a significant shift from the hypomethylated status to hypermethylated in cancer tissues and in cfDNA from cancer patients. Unexpectedly, this shift was also observed in cfDNA, even when quantified by the unbiased MIP primers, depending on the reference sequences. Our results suggest that an impartial reference for the methylation quantitation of repetitive elements, most importantly in cfDNA, should be further established to ensure cross-platform consistencies in DNA methylation profiling through bisulfite-based PCR techniques.
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.