The application of epiphenotyping approaches to DNA methylation array studies of the human placenta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Genome-wide DNA methylation (DNAme) profiling of the placenta with Illumina Infinium Methylation bead arrays is often used to explore the connections between in utero exposures, placental pathology, and fetal development. However, many technical and biological factors can lead to signals of DNAme variation between samples and between cohorts, and understanding and accounting for these factors is essential to ensure meaningful and replicable data analysis. Recently, “epiphenotyping” approaches have been developed whereby DNAme data can be used to impute information about phenotypic variables such as gestational age, sex, cell composition, and ancestry. These epiphenotypes offer avenues to compare phenotypic data across cohorts, and to understand how phenotypic variables relate to DNAme variability. However, the relationships between placental epiphenotyping variables and other technical and biological variables, and their application to downstream epigenome analyses, have not been well studied. Results Using DNAme data from 204 placentas across three cohorts, we applied the PlaNET R package to estimate epiphenotypes gestational age, ancestry, and cell composition in these samples. PlaNET ancestry estimates were highly correlated with independent polymorphic ancestry-informative markers, and epigenetic gestational age, on average, was estimated within 4 days of reported gestational age, underscoring the accuracy of these tools. Cell composition estimates varied both within and between cohorts, as well as over very long placental processing times. Interestingly, the ratio of cytotrophoblast to syncytiotrophoblast proportion decreased with increasing gestational age, and differed slightly by both maternal ethnicity (lower in white vs. non-white) and genetic ancestry (lower in higher probability European ancestry). The cohort of origin and cytotrophoblast proportion were the largest drivers of DNAme variation in this dataset, based on their associations with the first principal component. Conclusions This work confirms that cohort, array (technical) batch, cell type proportion, self-reported ethnicity, genetic ancestry, and biological sex are important variables to consider in any analyses of Illumina DNAme data. We further demonstrate the specific utility of epiphenotyping tools developed for use with placental DNAme data, and show that these variables (i) provide an independent check of clinically obtained data and (ii) provide a robust approach to compare variables across different datasets. Finally, we present a general framework for the processing and analysis of placental DNAme data, integrating the epiphenotype variables discussed here.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".