Epigenetic analysis of cell-free DNA by fragmentomic profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentation patterns contain important molecular information linked to tissues of origin. We explored the possibility of using fragmentation patterns to predict cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) methylation of cfDNA, obviating the use of bisulfite treatment and associated risks of DNA degradation. This study investigated the cfDNA cleavage profile surrounding a CpG (i.e., within an 11-nucleotide [nt] window) to analyze cfDNA methylation. The cfDNA cleavage proportion across positions within the window appeared nonrandom and exhibited correlation with methylation status. The mean cleavage proportion was ∼twofold higher at the cytosine of methylated CpGs than unmethylated ones in healthy controls. In contrast, the mean cleavage proportion rapidly decreased at the 1-nt position immediately preceding methylated CpGs. Such differential cleavages resulted in a characteristic change in relative presentations of CGN and NCG motifs at 5′ ends, where N represented any nucleotide. CGN/NCG motif ratios were correlated with methylation levels at tissue-specific methylated CpGs (e.g., placenta or liver) (Pearson’s absolute r > 0.86). cfDNA cleavage profiles were thus informative for cfDNA methylation and tissue-of-origin analyses. Using CG-containing end motifs, we achieved an area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.98 in differentiating patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma and enhanced the positive predictive value of nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening (from 19.6 to 26.8%). Furthermore, we elucidated the feasibility of using cfDNA cleavage patterns to deduce CpG methylation at single CpG resolution using a deep learning algorithm and achieved an AUC of 0.93. FRAGmentomics-based Methylation Analysis (FRAGMA) presents many possibilities for noninvasive prenatal, cancer, and organ transplantation assessment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".