Choice of surrogate tissue influences neonatal EWAS findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epigenomes are tissue specific and thus the choice of surrogate tissue can play a critical role in interpreting neonatal epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) and in their extrapolation to target tissue. To develop a better understanding of the link between tissue specificity and neonatal EWAS, and the contributions of genotype and prenatal factors, we compared genome-wide DNA methylation of cord tissue and cord blood, two of the most accessible surrogate tissues at birth. METHODS: In 295 neonates, DNA methylation was profiled using Infinium HumanMethylation450 beadchip arrays. Sites of inter-individual variability in DNA methylation were mapped and compared across the two surrogate tissues at birth, i.e., cord tissue and cord blood. To ascertain the similarity to target tissues, DNA methylation profiles of surrogate tissues were compared to 25 primary tissues/cell types mapped under the Epigenome Roadmap project. Tissue-specific influences of genotype on the variable CpGs were also analyzed. Finally, to interrogate the impact of the in utero environment, EWAS on 45 prenatal factors were performed and compared across the surrogate tissues. RESULTS: Neonatal EWAS results were tissue specific. In comparison to cord blood, cord tissue showed higher inter-individual variability in the epigenome, with a lower proportion of CpGs influenced by genotype. Both neonatal tissues were good surrogates for target tissues of mesodermal origin. They also showed distinct phenotypic associations, with effect sizes of the overlapping CpGs being in the same order of magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-relationship between genetics, prenatal factors and epigenetics is tissue specific, and requires careful consideration in designing and interpreting future neonatal EWAS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This birth cohort is a prospective observational study, designed to study the developmental origins of health and disease, and was retrospectively registered on 1 July 2010 under the identifier NCT01174875 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".