ArticleEpigenetics & chromatin2026
Apparent methylation of mitochondrial DNA in WGBS is dominated by technical artifacts.
Article in Epigenetics & chromatin, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA methylation is a critical epigenetic modification that occurs on cytosine residues and plays essential roles in regulating gene expression, cellular differentiation, and genomic imprinting. However, the existence of cytosine methylation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) remains highly controversial. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) has been widely used to assess mtDNA methylation, but signals detected in mitochondrial DNA are frequently influenced by technical artifacts.
resultsWe systematically evaluated technical factors that influence mtDNA methylation measurements using zebrafish WGBS datasets derived from a wide range of tissues and experimental conditions, complemented by analyses of human and mouse datasets. mtDNA methylation measurements varied widely among samples within CpG, CHG, and CHH contexts, and mtDNA CpG methylation estimates above 2% were often accompanied by comparable CHG and CHH methylation estimates, even when lambda DNA CpG methylation remained below 2%. Notably, samples lacking documented DNA fragmentation tended to show substantially elevated mtDNA methylation compared with those subjected to fragmentation. Although strand-specific sequencing biases were common, they were not a sufficient cause of elevated false-positive methylation signals. The degree of strand coverage imbalance did not predict high methylation in datasets with documented fragmentation, and high methylation in undocumented samples was preferentially observed where strand coverage was balanced rather than imbalanced. Kit annotations were associated with dataset-level variation in mtDNA methylation, particularly for library preparation kits, but elevated signals were not confined to any single bisulfite conversion or library preparation kit. Cross-species analyses showed that human and mouse datasets displayed comparable patterns of elevated mtDNA methylation.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that high mtDNA methylation signals detected in WGBS data are dominated by technical artifacts, particularly DNA fragmentation status and bisulfite conversion efficiency. These results highlight the need for careful interpretation of mitochondrial methylation signals and provide a framework for distinguishing technical noise from potential biological signals in WGBS-based analyses.
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.