MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918269253 · doi:10.1186/s13148-018-0599-4

Analysis of two birth tissues provides new insights into the epigenetic landscape of neonates born preterm

2019· article· en· W2918269253 on OpenAlexaff
Yonghui Wu, Xinyi Lin, Ives Lim, Li Chen, Ai Ling Teh, Julia L. MacIsaac, Kok Hian Tan, Michael S. Kobor, Yap Seng Chong, Peter D. Gluckman, Neerja Karnani

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epigenetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilNational Research FoundationMinistry of Education - SingaporeAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchMinistry of Education, IndiaMedical Research CouncilDuke-NUS Medical School
KeywordsdNaMCord bloodEpigeneticsMedicineEpigenomeGestational ageUmbilical cordPregnancyPremature birthDNA methylationPlacentaGestationCohort studyObstetricsBioinformaticsPediatricsFetusBiologyGeneticsInternal medicineImmunologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (PTB), defined as child birth before completion of 37 weeks of gestation, is a major challenge in perinatal health care and can bear long-term medical and financial burden. Over a million children die each year due to PTB complications, and those who survive can face developmental delays. Unfortunately, our understanding of the molecular pathways associated with PTB remains limited. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting the role of DNA methylation (DNAm) in mediating the effects of PTB on future health outcomes. Thus, epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS), where DNAm sites are examined for associations with PTB, can help shed light on the biological mechanisms linking the two. RESULTS: In an Asian cohort of 1019 infants (68 preterm, 951 full term), we examined and compared the associations between PTB and genome-wide DNAm profiles using both cord tissue (n = 1019) and cord blood (n = 332) samples on Infinium HumanMethylation450 arrays. PTB was significantly associated (P < 5.8e-7) with DNAm at 296 CpGs (209 genes) in the cord blood. Over 95% of these CpGs were replicated in other PTB/gestational age EWAS conducted in (cord) blood. This replication was apparent even across populations of different ethnic origin (Asians, Caucasians, and African Americans). More than a third of these 296 CpGs were replicated in at least 4 independent studies, thereby identifying a robust set of PTB-linked epigenetic signatures in cord blood. Interrogation of cord tissue in addition to cord blood provided novel insights into the epigenetic status of the neonates born preterm. Overall, 994 CpGs (608 genes, P < 3.7e-7) associated with PTB in cord tissue, of which only 10 of these CpGs were identified in the analysis using cord blood. Genes from cord tissue showed enrichment of molecular pathways related to fetal growth and development, while those from cord blood showed enrichment of immune response pathways. A substantial number of PTB-associated CpGs from both the birth tissues were also associated with gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insights into the epigenetic landscape of neonates born preterm, and that its status is captured more comprehensively by interrogation of more than one neonatal tissue in tandem. Both these neonatal tissues are clinically relevant in their unique ways and require careful consideration in identification of biomarkers related to PTB and gestational age. 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EpigeneticsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207