Comparison of Methyl-capture Sequencing vs. Infinium 450K methylation array for methylome analysis in clinical samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interindividual variability in the epigenome has gained tremendous attention for its potential in pathophysiological investigation, disease diagnosis, and evaluation of clinical intervention. DNA methylation is the most studied epigenetic mark in epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) as it can be detected from limited starting material. Infinium 450K methylation array is the most popular platform for high-throughput profiling of this mark in clinical samples, as it is cost-effective and requires small amounts of DNA. However, this method suffers from low genome coverage and errors introduced by probe cross-hybridization. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing can overcome these limitations but elevates the costs tremendously. Methyl-Capture Sequencing (MC Seq) is an attractive intermediate solution to increase the methylome coverage in large sample sets. Here we first demonstrate that MC Seq can be employed using DNA amounts comparable to the amounts used for Infinium 450K. Second, to provide guidance when choosing between the 2 platforms for EWAS, we evaluate and compare MC Seq and Infinium 450K in terms of coverage, technical variation, and concordance of methylation calls in clinical samples. Last, since the focus in EWAS is to study interindividual variation, we demonstrate the utility of MC Seq in studying interindividual variation in subjects from different ethnicities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".