Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42840455›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in epigenetics and epigenomics2025

Comparison of enzymatic and bisulfite-based methods for sequencing-based cell-free DNA methylation profiling.

Mark Ezegbogu, Peter Averill Stockwell, Glen Reid, Ben Brockway, Rajiv Kumar, Euan Rodger, Aniruddha Chatterjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in epigenetics and epigenomics, 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

7 authors.

Mark EzegboguDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Peter Averill StockwellDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Glen ReidDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Ben BrockwayDepartment of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Rajiv KumarDepartment of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Euan RodgerDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Aniruddha ChatterjeeDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenetic analysis, especially DNA methylation profiling of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), has recently emerged as a promising clinical tool. Choosing the right analytical method is crucial for working with limited cfDNA, ensuring cost-effectiveness, and supporting clinical translation. While bisulfite-based methods have long been the standard for methylation analysis, enzymatic conversion is a potential alternative. However, their comparative performance for cfDNA remains unclear. In this study, we compared enzymatic (EM-Seq) and bisulfite-based (cfRRBS and cfMethyl-seq) methods. EM-Seq showed higher mapping efficiency, broader genomic coverage, and captured more CpGs at low coverage thresholds, while the bisulfite methods had higher conversion rates, lower costs, and better coverage of functional regions like promoters and exons. The bisulfite-based methods also demonstrated superior reproducibility. Overall, cfRRBS offered the best balance of cost, accuracy, and reproducibility. Our findings fill a key gap in cancer epigenetics, outline the strengths and limitations of each method, and provide a practical guide for selecting cfDNA methylation profiling methods in liquid biopsy applications.

Indexed as

cancercell-free DNAcfMethyl-SeqcfRRBSEM-seqmethylation

Identifiers

PMID42840455
PMCPMC13639271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.