DNA methylation is a chemical modification of cytosine bases that is pivotal for gene regulation, cellular specification and cancer development. Here, we describe an R package, methylKit, that rapidly analyzes genome-wide cytosine epigenetic profiles from high-throughput methylation and hydroxymethylation sequencing experiments. methylKit includes functions for clustering, sample quality visualization, differential methylation analysis and annotation features, thus automating and simplifying many of the steps for discerning statistically significant bases or regions of DNA methylation. Finally, we demonstrate methylKit on breast cancer data, in which we find statistically significant regions of differential methylation and stratify tumor subtypes. methylKit is available at http://code.google.com/p/methylkit.
DNA methylation is a chemical modification of cytosine bases that is pivotal for gene regulation, cellular specification and cancer development. Here, we describe an R package, methylKit, that rapidly analyzes genome-wide cytosine epigenetic profiles from high-throughput methylation and hydroxymethylation sequencing experiments. methylKit includes functions for clustering, sample quality visualization, differential methylation analysis and annotation features, thus automating and simplifying many of the steps for discerning statistically significant bases or regions of DNA methylation. Finally, we demonstrate methylKit on breast cancer data, in which we find statistically significant regions of differential methylation and stratify tumor subtypes. methylKit is available at http://code.google.com/p/methylkit.
DNA methylation is a critical epigenetic modification that guides development, cellular
differentiation and the manifestation of some cancers [1,2]. Specifically, cytosine methylation is a widespread modification in the genome, and it
most often occurs in CpG dinucleotides, although non-CpG cytosines are also methylated in certain
tissues such as embryonic stem cells [3]. DNA methylation is one of the many epigenetic control mechanisms associated with gene
regulation. Specifically, cytosine methylation can directly hinder binding of transcription factors
and methylated bases can also be bound by methyl-binding-domain proteins that recruit
chromatin-remodeling factors [4,5]. In addition, aberrant DNA methylation patterns have been observed in many humanmalignancies and can also be used to define the severity of leukemia subtypes [6]. In malignant tissues, DNA is either hypo-methylated or hyper-methylated compared to the
normal tissue. The location of hyper- and hypo-methylated sites gives distinct signatures within
many diseases [7]. Often, hypomethylation is associated with gene activation and hypermethylation is
associated with gene repression, although there are many exceptions to this trend [7]. DNA methylation is also involved in genomic imprinting, where the methylation state of a
gene is inherited from the parents, but de novo methylation also can occur in the early
stages of development [8,9].A common technique for measuring DNA methylation is bisulfite sequencing, which has the advantage
of providing single-base, quantitative cytosine methylation levels. In this technique, DNA is
treated with sodium bisulfite, which deaminates cytosine residues to uracil, but leaves
5-methylcytosine residues unaffected. Single-base resolution, %methylation levels are then
calculated by counting the ratio of C/(C+T) at each base. There are multiple techniques that
leverage high-throughput bisulfite sequencing such as: reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS)[10] and its variants [11], whole-genome shotgun bisulfite sequencing (BS-seq) [12], methylC-Seq [13], and target capture bisulfite sequencing [14]. In addition, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) levels can be measured through a
modification of bisulfite sequencing techniques [15].Yet, as bisulfite sequencing techniques have expanded, there are few computational tools
available to analyze the data. Moreover, there is a need for an end-to-end analysis package with
comprehensive features and ease of use. To address this, we have created methylKit, a
multi-threaded R package that can rapidly analyze and characterize data from many methylation
experiments at once. methylKit can read DNA methylation information from a text file and
also from alignment files (for example, SAM files) and carry out operations such as differential
methylation analysis, sample clustering and annotation, and visualization of DNA methylation events
(See Figure 1 for a diagram of possible operations). methylKit has
open-source code and is available at [16] and as Additional file 1 (see also Additional file 2 for the user guide and Additional file 3 for the
package documentation ). Our data framework is also extensible to emerging methods in quantization
of other base modifications, such as 5hmC [14], or sites discovered through single molecule sequencing [17,18]. For clarity, we describe only examples with DNA methylation data.
Figure 1
Flowchart of possible operations by methylKit. A summary of the most important
methylKit features is shown in a flow chart. It depicts the main features of methylKit
and the sequential relationship between them. The functions that could be used for those
features are also printed in the boxes.
Flowchart of possible operations by methylKit. A summary of the most important
methylKit features is shown in a flow chart. It depicts the main features of methylKit
and the sequential relationship between them. The functions that could be used for those
features are also printed in the boxes.
Flexible data integration and regional analysis
High-throughput bisulfite sequencing experiments typically yield millions of reads with reduced
complexity due to cytosine conversion, and there are several different aligners suited for mapping
these reads to the genome (see Frith et al. [19] and Krueger et al. [20] for a review and comparison between aligners). Since methylKit only requires a
methylation score per base for all analyses, it is a modular package that can be applied independent
of any aligner. Currently, there are two ways that information can be supplied to
methylKit:: 1) methylKit can read per base methylation scores from a text file
(see Table 1 for an example of such a file); and, 2) methylKit can
read SAM format [21] alignments files obtained from Bismark aligner [22]. If a SAM file is supplied, methylkit first processes the alignment file to get
%methylation scores and then reads that information into memory.
Table 1
Sample text file that can be read by methylKit.
chrBase
chr
base
strand
coverage
freqC
freqT
chr21.9764539
chr21
9764539
R
12
25
75
chr21.9764513
chr21
9764513
R
12
0
100
chr21.9820622
chr21
9820622
F
13
0
100
chr21.9837545
chr21
9837545
F
11
0
100
chr21.9849022
chr21
9849022
F
124
72.58
27.42
chr21.9853326
chr21
9853326
F
17
70.59
29.41
methylKit can read tab-delimited text files with the following format: the text file
should include a unique.id, chromosome name, base position, strand, read coverage, % of C bases and
% of T bases on that location.
Sample text file that can be read by methylKit.methylKit can read tab-delimited text files with the following format: the text file
should include a unique.id, chromosome name, base position, strand, read coverage, % of C bases and
% of T bases on that location.Most bisulfite experiments have a set of test and control samples or samples across multiple
conditions, and methylKit can read and store (in memory) methylation data simultaneously
for N-experiments, limited only by memory of the node or computer. The default setting of the
processing algorithm requires that there be least 10 reads covering a base and each of the bases
covering the genomic base position have at least 20 PHRED quality score. Also, since DNA methylation
can occur in CpG, CHG and CHH contexts (H = A, T, or C) [3], users of methylKit have the option to provide methylation information for all
these contexts: CpG, CHG and CHH from SAM files.
Summarizing DNA methylation information over pre-defined regions or tiling windows
Although base-pair resolution DNA methylation information is obtained through most bisulfite
sequencing experiments, it might be desirable to summarize methylation information over tiling
windows or over a set of predefined regions (promoters, CpG islands, introns, and so on). For
example, Smith et al. [9] investigated methylation profiles with RRBS experiments on gametes and zygote and
summarized methylation information on 100bp tiles across the genome. Their analysis revealed a
unique set of differentially methylated regions maintained in early embryo. Using tiling windows or
predefined regions, such as promoters or CpG islands, is desirable when there is not enough
coverage, when bases in close proximity will have similar methylation profiles, or where methylation
properties of a region as a whole determines its function. In accordance with these potential
analytic foci, methylKit provides functionality to do either analysis on tiling windows
across the genome or predefined regions of the genome. After reading the base pair methylation
information, users can summarize the methylation information on pre-defined regions they select or
on tiling windows covering the genome (parameter for tiles are user provided). Then, subsequent
analyses, such as clustering or differential methylation analysis, can be carried out with the same
functions that are used for base pair resolution analysis.
Example methylation data set: breast cancer cell lines
We demonstrated the capabilities of methylKit using an example data set from seven
breast cancer cell lines from Sun et al. [23]. Four of the cell lines express estrogen receptor-alpha (MCF7, T47D, BT474, ZR75-1), and
from here on are referred to as ER+. The other three cell lines (BT20, MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468) do
not express estrogen receptor-alpha, and from here on are referred to as ER-. It has been previously
shown that ER+ and ER- tumor samples have divergent gene expression profiles and that those profiles
are associated with disease outcome [24,25]. Methylation profiles of these cell lines were measured using reduced RRBS [10]. The R objects contained the methylation information for breast cancer cell lines and
functions that produce plots and other results that are shown in the remainder of this manuscript
are in Additional file 4.
Whole methylome characterization: descriptive statistics, sample correlation and clustering
Descriptive statistics on DNA methylation profiles
Read coverage per base and % methylation per base are the basic information contained in the
methylKit data structures. methylKit has functions for easy visualization of such
information (Figure 2a and 2b for % methylation and read
coverage distributions, respectively - for code see Additional file 4). In
normal cells, % methylation will have a bimodal distribution, which denotes that the majority of
bases have either high or low methylation. The read coverage distribution is also an important
metric that will help reveal if experiments suffer from PCR duplication bias (clonal reads). If such
bias occurs, some reads will be asymmetrically amplified and this will impair accurate determination
of % methylation scores for those regions. If there is a high degree of PCR duplication bias, read
coverage distribution will have a secondary peak on the right side. To correct for this issue,
methylKit has the option to filter bases with very high read coverage.
Figure 2
Descriptive statistics per sample. (a) Histogram of %methylation per cytosine for
ER+ T47D sample. Most of the bases have either high or low methylation. (b) Histogram of read
coverage per cytosine for ER+ T47D sample. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing.
Descriptive statistics per sample. (a) Histogram of %methylation per cytosine for
ER+ T47D sample. Most of the bases have either high or low methylation. (b) Histogram of read
coverage per cytosine for ER+ T47D sample. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing.
Measuring and visualizing similarity between samples
We have also included methods to assess sample similarity. Users can calculate pairwise
correlation coefficients (Pearson, Kendall or Spearman) between the %methylation profiles across all
samples. However, to ensure comparable statistics, a new data structure is formed before these
calculations, wherein only cytosines covered in all samples are stored. Subsequently, pairwise
correlations are calculated, to produce a correlation matrix. This matrix allows the user to easily
compare correlation coefficients between pairs of samples and can also be used to perform
hierarchical clustering using 1- correlation distance. methylKit can also further visualize
similarities between all pairs of samples by creating scatterplots of the %methylation scores
(Figure 3). These functions are essential for detecting sample outliers or for
functional clustering of samples based on their molecular signatures.
Figure 3
Scatter plots for sample pairs. Scatter plots of %methylation values for each pair in
seven breast cancer cell lines. Numbers on upper right corner denote pair-wise Pearson's correlation
scores. The histograms on the diagonal are %methylation histograms similar to Figure 2a for each
sample.
Scatter plots for sample pairs. Scatter plots of %methylation values for each pair in
seven breast cancer cell lines. Numbers on upper right corner denote pair-wise Pearson's correlation
scores. The histograms on the diagonal are %methylation histograms similar to Figure 2a for each
sample.
Hierarchical clustering of samples
methylKit can also be used to cluster samples hierarchically in a variety of ways. The
user can specify the distance metric between samples ('1 - correlation' 'Euclidean', 'maximum',
'manhattan', 'canberra', 'binary' or 'minkowski') as well as the agglomeration method to be used in
the hierarchical clustering algorithm (for example, 'Ward's method', or 'single/complete linkage',
and so on). Results can either be returned as a dendrogram object or a plot. Dendrogram plots will
be color coded based on user defined groupings of samples. For example, we found that most ER+ and
ER- samples clustered together except MDMB231 (Figure 4a). Moreover, the user
may be interested in employing other more model-intensive clustering algorithms to their data. Users
can easily obtain the %methylation data from methylKit object and perform their own
analysis with the multitude of R-packages already available for clustering. An example of such a
procedure (k-means clustering) is shown in Additional file 4.
Figure 4
Sample clustering. (a) Hierarchical clustering of seven breast cancer methylation
profiles using 1-Pearson's correlation distance. (b) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of seven
breast cancer methylation profiles, plot shows principal component 1 and principal component 2 for
each sample. Samples closer to each other in principal component space are similar in their
methylation profiles.
Sample clustering. (a) Hierarchical clustering of seven breast cancer methylation
profiles using 1-Pearson's correlation distance. (b) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of seven
breast cancer methylation profiles, plot shows principal component 1 and principal component 2 for
each sample. Samples closer to each other in principal component space are similar in their
methylation profiles.
Principal component analysis of samples
methylKit can be used to perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the samples'
%-methylation profiles (see for example [26]). PCA can reduce the high dimensionality of a data set by transforming the large number
of regions to a few principal components. The principal components are ordered so that the first few
retain most of the variation present in the original data and are often used to emphasize grouping
structure in the data. For example, a plot of the first two or three principal components could
potentially reveal a biologically meaningful clustering of the samples. Before the PCA is performed,
a new data matrix is formed, containing the samples and only those cytosines that are covered in all
samples. After PCA, methylKit then returns to the user a 'prcomp' object, which can be used
to extract and plot the principal components. We found that in the breast cancer data set, PCA
reveals a similar clustering to the hierarchical clustering where MDMB231 is an outlier.
Differential methylation calculation
Parallelized methods for detecting significant methylation changes
Differential methylation patterns have been previously described in malignancies [27-29] and can be used to differentiate cancer and normal cells [30]. In addition, normal human tissues harbor unique DNA methylation profiles [7]. Differential DNA methylation is usually calculated by comparing methylation levels
between multiple conditions, which can reveal important locations of divergent changes between a
test and a control set. We have designed methylKit to implement two main methods for
determining differential methylation across all regions: logistic regression and Fisher's exact
test. However, the data frames in methylKit can easily be used with other statistical tests
and an example is shown in Additional file 4 (using a moderated t-test,
although we maintain that most natural tests for this kind of data are Fisher's exact and logistic
regression based tests). For our example data set we compared ER+ to ER- samples, with our 'control
group' being the ER- set.
Method #1: logistic regression
In logistic regression, information from each sample is specified (the number of methylated Cs
and number of unmethylated Cs at a given region), and a logistic regression test will be applied to
compare fraction of methylated Cs across the test and the control groups. More specifically, at a
given base/region we model the methylation proportion Pi, for sample i= 1,...,n (where n
is the number of biological samples) through the logistic regression model:where Ti denotes the treatment indicator for sample i, Ti = 1 if sample i
is in the treatment group and Ti = 0 if sample i is in control group. The parameter
β0 denotes the log odds of the control group and β1 the log
oddsratio between the treatment and control group. Therefore, independent tests for all the
bases/regions of interest are against the null hypothesis H0: β1= 0. If
the null hypothesis is rejected it implies that the logodds (and hence the methylation proportions)
are different between the treatment and the control group and the base/region would subsequently be
classified as a differentially methylated cytosine (DMC) or region (DMR). However, if the null
hypothesis is not rejected it implies no statistically significant difference in methylation between
the two groups. One important consideration in logistic regression is the sample size and in many
biological experiments the number of biological samples in each group can be quite small. However,
it is important to keep in mind that the relevant sample sizes in logistic regression are not merely
the number of biological samples but rather the total read coverages summed over all samples in each
group separately. For our example dataset, we used bases with at least 10 reads coverage for each
biological sample and we advise (at least) the same for other users to improve power to detect
DMCs/DMRs.In addition, we have designed methylKit such that the logistic regression framework can
be generalized to handle more than two experimental groups or data types. In such a case, the
inclusion of additional treatment indicators is analogous to multiple regression when there are
categorical variables with multiple groups. Additional covariates can be incorporated into model (1)
by adding to the right side of the model:where Covariate1,i, ..., CovariateK,i denote K measured covariates
(continuous or categorical) for sample i = 1,...,n and α1,..., αk
denote the corresponding parameters.
Method #2: Fisher's exact test
The Fisher's exact test compares the fraction of methylated Cs in test and control samples in the
absence of replicates. The main advantage of logistic regression over Fisher's exact test is that it
allows for the inclusion of sample specific covariates (continuous or categorical) and the ability
to adjust for confounding variables. In practice, the number of samples per group will determine
which of the two methods will be used (logistic regression or Fisher's exact test). If there are
multiple samples per group, methylKit will employ the logistic regression test. Otherwise,
when there is one sample per group, Fisher's exact test will be used.Following the differential methylation test and calculation of P-values, methylKit
will use the sliding linear model (SLIM) method to correct P-values to q-values [31], which corrects for the problem of multiple hypothesis testing [32,33]. However, we also implemented the standard false discovery rate (FDR)-based method
(Benjamini-Hochberg) as an option for P-value correction, which is faster but more
conservative. Finally, methylKit can use multi-threading so that differential methylation
calculations can be parallelized over multiple cores and be completed faster.
Extraction and visualization of differential methylation events
We have designed methylKit to allow a user to specify the parameters that define the
DMCs/DMRs based on: q-value, %methylation difference, and type of differential methylation
(hypo-/hyper-). By default, it will extract bases/regions with a q-value <0.01 and %methylation
difference >25%. These defaults can easily be changed when calling get.methylDiff()
function. In addition, users can specify if they want hyper-methylated bases/regions
(bases/regions with higher methylation compared to control samples) or hypo-methylated bases/regions
(bases/regions with lower methylation compared to control samples). In the literature, hyper- or
hypo-methylated DMCs/DMRs are usually defined relative to a control group. In our examples, and in
methylKit in general, a control group is defined when creating the objects through supplied
treatment vector, and hyper-/hypomethylation definitions are based on that control group.Furthermore, DMCs/DMRs can be visualized as horizontal barplots showing percentage of hyper- and
hypo-methylated bases/regions out of covered cytosines over all chromosomes (Figure 5a). We observed higher levels of hypomethylation than hypermethylation in the breast cancer
cell lines, which indicates that ER+ cells have lower levels of methylation. Since another common
way to visualize differential methylation events is with a genome browser, methylKit can
output bedgraph tracks (Figure 5b) for use with the UCSC Genome Browser or
Integrated Genome Viewer.
Figure 5
Visualizing differential methylation events. (a) Horizontal bar plots show the
number of hyper- and hypomethylation events per chromosome, as a percent of the sites with the
minimum coverage and differential. By default this is a 25% change in methylation and all samples
with 10X coverage. (b) Example of bedgraph file uploaded to UCSC browser. The bedraph file is
for differentially methylated CpGs with at least a 25% difference and q-value <0.01. Hyper- and
hypo-methylated bases are color coded. The bar heights correspond to % methylation difference
between ER+ and ER- sets. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing; ER-, estrogen receptor-alpha
non-expressing. UCSC, University of California Santa Cruz.
Visualizing differential methylation events. (a) Horizontal bar plots show the
number of hyper- and hypomethylation events per chromosome, as a percent of the sites with the
minimum coverage and differential. By default this is a 25% change in methylation and all samples
with 10X coverage. (b) Example of bedgraph file uploaded to UCSC browser. The bedraph file is
for differentially methylated CpGs with at least a 25% difference and q-value <0.01. Hyper- and
hypo-methylated bases are color coded. The bar heights correspond to % methylation difference
between ER+ and ER- sets. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing; ER-, estrogen receptor-alpha
non-expressing. UCSC, University of California Santa Cruz.
Annotating differential methylation events
Annotation with gene models and CpG islands
To discern the biological impact of differential methylation events, each event must be put into
its genomic context for subsequent analysis. Indeed, Hansen et al. [34] showed that most variable regions in terms of methylation in the human genome are CpG
island shores, rather than CpG islands themselves. Thus, it is interesting to know the location of
differential methylation events with regard to CpG islands, their shores, and also the proximity to
the nearest transcription start site (TSS) and gene components. Accordingly, methylKit can
annotate differential methylation events with regard to the nearest TSS (Figure 6a) and it also can annotate regions based on their overlap with CpG islands/shores and
regions within genes (Figures 6b and 6c are output from
methylKit).
Figure 6
Annotation of differentially methylated CpGs. (a) Distance to TSS for
differentially methylated CpGs are plotted from ER+ versus ER- analysis. (b) Pie chart
showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on promoters, exons, introns and intergenic
regions. (c) Pie chart showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on CpG islands,
CpG island shores (defined as 2kb flanks of CpG islands) and other regions outside of shores and CpG
islands. (d) Pie chart showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on enhancers and
other regions. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing; ER-, estrogen receptor-alpha non-expressing,
TSS, transcription start site.
Annotation of differentially methylated CpGs. (a) Distance to TSS for
differentially methylated CpGs are plotted from ER+ versus ER- analysis. (b) Pie chart
showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on promoters, exons, introns and intergenic
regions. (c) Pie chart showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on CpG islands,
CpG island shores (defined as 2kb flanks of CpG islands) and other regions outside of shores and CpG
islands. (d) Pie chart showing percentages of differentially methylated CpGs on enhancers and
other regions. ER+, estrogen receptor-alpha expressing; ER-, estrogen receptor-alpha non-expressing,
TSS, transcription start site.
Annotation with custom regions
As with most genome-wide assays, the regions of interest for DNA methylation analysis may be
quite numerous. For example, several reports show that Alu elements are aberrantly methylated in
cancers [35,36] and enhancers are also differentially methylated [37,38]. Since users may need to focus on specific genomic regions and require customized
annotation for capturing differential DNA methylation events, methylKit can annotate
differential methylation events using user-supplied regions. As an example, we identified
differentially methylated bases of ER+ and ER- cells that overlap with ENCODE enhancer regions [39], and we found a large proportion of differentially methylated CpGs overlapping with the
enhancer marks, and then plotted them with methylKit (Figure 6d).
Analyzing 5-hydroxymethylcytosine data with methylKit
5-Hydroxymethylcytosine is a base modification associated with pluropotency, hematopoiesis and
certain brain tissues (reviewed in [40]). It is possible to measure base-pair resolution 5hmC levels using variations of
traditional bisulfite sequencing. Recently, Yu et al. [41] and Booth et al. [15] published similar methods for detecting 5hmC levels in base-pair resolution. Both methods
require measuring 5hmC and 5mC levels simultaneously and use 5hmC levels as a substrate to deduce
real 5mC levels, since traditional bisulfite sequencing cannot distinguish between the two [42]. However, both the 5hmC and 5mC data generated by these protocols are bisulfite
sequencing based, and the alignments and text files of 5hmC levels can be used directly in
methylKit. Furthermore, methylKit has an adjust.methylC() function to
adjust 5mC levels based on 5hmC levels as described in Booth et al. [15].
Customizing analysis with convenience functions
methylKit is dependent on Bioconductor [43] packages such as GenomicRanges and its objects are coercible to
GenomicRanges objects and regular R data structures such as data frames via provided
convenience functions. That means users can integrate methylKit objects to other
Bioconductor and R packages and customize the analysis according to their needs or extend the
analysis further by using other packages available in R.
Conclusions
Methods for detecting methylation across the genome are widely used in research laboratories, and
they are also a substantial component of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) EpiGenome
roadmap and upcoming projects such as BLUEPRINT [44]. Thus, tools and techniques that enable researchers to process and utilize genome-wide
methylation data in an easy and fast manner will be of critical utility.Here, we show a large set of tools and cross-sample analysis algorithms built into
methylKit, our open-source, multi-threaded R package that can be used for any base-level
dataset of DNA methylation or base modifications, including 5hmC. We demonstrate its utility with
breast cancer RRBS samples, provide test data sets, and also provide extensive documentation with
the release.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
AA designed methylKit, developed the first codebase, and added most features.
MK designed the logistic regression based statistical test for methylKit and worked on
statistical modeling and initial clustering features. SL wrote some of the features in methylKit
and prepared plots for the manuscript. MEF, FGB and AM tested the code and provided initial
data for development of methylKit. CEM supervised the work, tested code, and coordinated
test data for validation. All authors have read and approved the manuscript for publication.
Additional file 1
methylKit v0.5.3. This version of methylKit is included for archival purposes only. Please
download the most recent version from [16].Click here for file
Additional file 2
methylKit User Guide. A vignette file to accompany the methylKit software package; the
most recent software and vignette can be downloaded at [16].Click here for file
Additional file 3
methylKit documentation. Documentation for functions and classes in the methylKit software
package; the most recent software and documentation can be downloaded at [16].Click here for file
Additional file 4
R script for example analysis. The file contains R commands that are needed to do analysis
and to produce graphs used in this manuscript. The file contains both the commands and detailed
comments on how those commands can be used. An up to date version of this script will be
consistently maintained at [16].Click here for file
Authors: Christos Sotiriou; Soek-Ying Neo; Lisa M McShane; Edward L Korn; Philip M Long; Amir Jazaeri; Philippe Martiat; Steve B Fox; Adrian L Harris; Edison T Liu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-08-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alexander Meissner; Tarjei S Mikkelsen; Hongcang Gu; Marius Wernig; Jacob Hanna; Andrey Sivachenko; Xiaolan Zhang; Bradley E Bernstein; Chad Nusbaum; David B Jaffe; Andreas Gnirke; Rudolf Jaenisch; Eric S Lander Journal: Nature Date: 2008-07-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ryan Lister; Ronan C O'Malley; Julian Tonti-Filippini; Brian D Gregory; Charles C Berry; A Harvey Millar; Joseph R Ecker Journal: Cell Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Shawn J Cokus; Suhua Feng; Xiaoyu Zhang; Zugen Chen; Barry Merriman; Christian D Haudenschild; Sriharsa Pradhan; Stanley F Nelson; Matteo Pellegrini; Steven E Jacobsen Journal: Nature Date: 2008-02-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Madeleine P Ball; Jin Billy Li; Yuan Gao; Je-Hyuk Lee; Emily M LeProust; In-Hyun Park; Bin Xie; George Q Daley; George M Church Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2009-03-29 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Jairo Rodriguez; Laura Vives; Mireia Jordà; Cristina Morales; Mar Muñoz; Elisenda Vendrell; Miguel A Peinado Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Rabea Meyberg; Pierre-François Perroud; Fabian B Haas; Lucas Schneider; Thomas Heimerl; Karen S Renzaglia; Stefan A Rensing Journal: New Phytol Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Michael J Ziller; Juan A Ortega; Katharina A Quinlan; David P Santos; Hongcang Gu; Eric J Martin; Christina Galonska; Ramona Pop; Susanne Maidl; Alba Di Pardo; Mei Huang; Herbert Y Meltzer; Andreas Gnirke; C J Heckman; Alexander Meissner; Evangelos Kiskinis Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 24.633
Authors: N Hasegawa; M Oshima; G Sashida; H Matsui; S Koide; A Saraya; C Wang; T Muto; K Takane; A Kaneda; K Shimoda; C Nakaseko; K Yokote; A Iwama Journal: Leukemia Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Joseph Kochmanski; Elizabeth H Marchlewicz; Raymond G Cavalcante; Maureen A Sartor; Dana C Dolinoy Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 4.528