ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Assessing the influence of different alignment tools on the accuracy of a forensic epigenetic clock.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationDNA methylation (DNAm) has long been a commonly investigated biomarker in biomedical research. The current gold standard for DNAm detection is bisulfite sequencing which requires dedicated alignment tools that can handle reduced sequence complexity. One commonly used application of DNAm are epigenetic clock measurements. These clocks have been adapted by many fields for their specific needs, including forensic genetics. Here, epigenetic clocks were designed to help estimate the chronological age of a biological stain donor for investigative purposes.
resultsIn this study, data generated with a well-established forensic epigenetic clock is aligned with four different bisulfite-specific alignment tools: "Bwa-meth," "Abismal," "Bismark," and "BS-Seeker2." For each tool, we tested up to six different settings, altering parameters such as the maximum number of mismatches or the score function setting. The goal was to investigate whether the final predicted ages differed considerably between the tested alignment tools and settings. Quality controls such as read depth, precision, recall, F1 score, and alignment run time were also assessed. To allow other researchers to easily perform such methylation comparison analyses on their own data, a Shiny app called "MethylAge Explorer" was developed within this study. None of the tested settings for the three alignment tools "Abismal," "Bismark," and "BS-Seeker2" outperformed the originally used alignment tool "Bwa-meth" in terms of age prediction accuracy. However, differences in final age predictions were observed between the different alignment tools. Therefore, it is necessary to be aware of which alignment tool to use for particular epigenetic clocks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The data underlying this article and the code for the shiny app are available on GitHub (https://github.com/charlsut/methylage_explorer).
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.