MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167501668 · doi:10.2144/000114087

Optimizing methodologies for PCR-based DNA methylation analysis

2013· review· en· W2167501668 on OpenAlexaff
Hernán Guillermo Hernández, M. Yat Tse, Stephen C. Pang, Humberto Arboleda, Diego A. Forero

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsHigh Resolution MeltDNA methylationMethylationComputational biologyBisulfite sequencingBiologyIllumina Methylation AssayBisulfiteGeneticsPolymerase chain reactionDNAMolecular biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comprehensive analysis of DNA methylation patterns is critical for understanding the molecular basis of many human diseases. While hundreds of PCR-based DNA methylation studies are published every year, the selection and implementation of appropriate methods for these studies can be challenging for molecular genetics researchers not yet familiar with methylation analysis. Here we review the most commonly used PCR-based DNA methylation analysis techniques: bisulfite sequencing PCR (BSP), methylation specific PCR (MSP), MethyLight, and methylation-sensitive high resolution melting (MS-HRM). We provide critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach as well as a series of guidelines to assist in selecting and implementing an appropriate method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.010

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations173
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207