Discordance of DNA Methylation Variance Between two Accessible Human Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population epigenetic studies have been seeking to identify differences in DNA methylation between specific exposures, demographic factors, or diseases in accessible tissues, but relatively little is known about how inter-individual variability differs between these tissues. This study presents an analysis of DNA methylation differences between matched peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs) and buccal epithelial cells (BECs), the two most accessible tissues for population studies, in 998 promoter-located CpG sites. Specifically we compared probe-wise DNA methylation variance, and how this variance related to demographic factors across the two tissues. PBMCs had overall higher DNA methylation than BECs, and the two tissues tended to differ most at genomic regions of low CpG density. Furthermore, although both tissues showed appreciable probe-wise variability, the specific regions and magnitude of variability differed strongly between tissues. Lastly, through exploratory association analysis, we found indication of differential association of BEC and PBMC with demographic variables. The work presented here offers insight into variability of DNA methylation between individuals and across tissues and helps guide decisions on the suitability of buccal epithelial or peripheral mononuclear cells for the biological questions explored by epigenetic studies in human populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".