MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107162232 · doi:10.1002/jcp.22009

Methylation analysis by DNA immunoprecipitation

2009· review· en· W2107162232 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelsie L. Thu, Larissa A. Pikor, Jennifer Y. Kennett, Carlos E. Alvarez, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Physiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsDNA methylationChromatin immunoprecipitationMethylated DNA immunoprecipitationMethylationBiologyHuman genomeRNA-Directed DNA MethylationEpigenomicsPromoterIllumina Methylation AssayComputational biologyDNAEpigenetics of physical exerciseGeneChromatinGeneticsGenomeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA methylation regulates gene expression primarily through modification of chromatin structure. Global methylation studies have revealed biologically relevant patterns of DNA methylation in the human genome affecting sequences such as gene promoters, gene bodies, and repetitive elements. Disruption of normal methylation patterns and subsequent gene expression changes have been observed in several diseases especially in human cancers. Immunoprecipitation (IP)-based methods to evaluate methylation status of DNA have been instrumental in such genome-wide methylation studies. This review describes techniques commonly used to identify and quantify methylated DNA with emphasis on IP based platforms. In an effort to consolidate the wealth of information and highlight critical aspects of methylated DNA analysis, sample considerations, experimental and bioinformatic approaches for analyzing genome-wide methylation profiles, and the benefit of integrating DNA methylation data with complementary dimensions of genomic data are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular PhysiologySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207