Literature DB >> 35505205

Accurate Measurement of DNA Methylation: Challenges and Bias Correction.

Eguzkine Ochoa1,2, Verena Zuber3,4, Leonardo Bottolo5,6,7.   

Abstract

DNA methylation is a key epigenetic modification involved in gene regulation whose contribution to disease susceptibility is still not fully understood. As the cost of genome sequencing technologies continues to drop, it will soon become commonplace to perform genome-wide quantification of DNA methylation at a single base-pair resolution. However, the demand for its accurate quantification might vary across studies. When the scope of the analysis is to detect regions of the genome with different methylation patterns between two or more conditions, e.g., case vs control; treatments vs placebo, accuracy is not crucial. This is the case in epigenome-wide association studies used as genome-wide screening of methylation changes to detect new candidate genes and regions associated with a specific disease or condition. If the aim of the analysis is to use DNA methylation measurements as a biomarker for diseases diagnosis and treatment (Laird, Nat Rev Cancer 3:253-266, 2003; Bock, Epigenomics 1:99-110, 2009), it is instead recommended to produce accurate methylation measurements. Furthermore, if the objective is the detection of DNA methylation in subclonal tumor cell populations or in circulating tumor DNA or in any case of mosaicism, the importance of accuracy becomes critical. The aim of this chapter is to describe the factors that could affect the precise measurement of methylation levels and a recent Bayesian statistical method called MethylCal and its extension that have been proposed to minimize this problem.
© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calibration technical replicates; Corrected methylation degree; Differential calibrated analysis; Incomplete bisulfite conversion; Region and coverage bias

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35505205     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1994-0_3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  29 in total

1.  A genomic sequencing protocol that yields a positive display of 5-methylcytosine residues in individual DNA strands.

Authors:  M Frommer; L E McDonald; D S Millar; C M Collis; F Watt; G W Grigg; P L Molloy; C L Paul
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1992-03-01       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Epigenetic biomarker development.

Authors:  Christoph Bock
Journal:  Epigenomics       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.778

3.  Primer design versus PCR bias in methylation independent PCR amplifications.

Authors:  Tomasz K Wojdacz; Tanni Borgbo; Lise Lotte Hansen
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 4.528

4.  Influence of DNA sequence and methylation status on bisulfite conversion of cytosine residues.

Authors:  K I Rother; J Silke; O Georgiev; W Schaffner; K Matsuo
Journal:  Anal Biochem       Date:  1995-10-10       Impact factor: 3.365

5.  Detection and measurement of PCR bias in quantitative methylation analysis of bisulphite-treated DNA.

Authors:  P M Warnecke; C Stirzaker; J R Melki; D S Millar; C L Paul; S J Clark
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1997-11-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 6.  The power and the promise of DNA methylation markers.

Authors:  Peter W Laird
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  The addition of sodium bisulfite to uracil and to cytosine.

Authors:  H Hayatsu; Y Wataya; K Kazushige
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  1970-02-11       Impact factor: 15.419

8.  Bisulfite-catalyzed transamination of cytosine and cytidine.

Authors:  R Shapiro; J M Weisgras
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  1970-08-24       Impact factor: 3.575

9.  Comparison of bisulfite modification of 5-methyldeoxycytidine and deoxycytidine residues.

Authors:  R Y Wang; C W Gehrke; M Ehrlich
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1980-10-24       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  MethylCal: Bayesian calibration of methylation levels.

Authors:  Eguzkine Ochoa; Verena Zuber; Nora Fernandez-Jimenez; Jose Ramon Bilbao; Graeme R Clark; Eamonn R Maher; Leonardo Bottolo
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.