Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33975521›Full record

ArticleEpigenetics2022

Genome-wide CpG density and DNA methylation analysis method (MeDIP, RRBS, and WGBS) comparisons.

Daniel Beck, Millissia Ben Maamar, Michael K Skinner

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Methods for Investigating the Sperm Epigenome.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Promoter hypomethylation ofFrontiers in genetics · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel BeckCenter for Reproductive Biology, School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Millissia Ben MaamarCenter for Reproductive Biology, School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Michael K SkinnerCenter for Reproductive Biology, School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Washington State University · US

Funding

EPIGENETIC TRANSGENERATIONAL ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR ACTIONSR01ES012974 · NIEHS · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SKINNER, MICHAEL K · 2005 to 2018
$4.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES012974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis is one of the most common epigenetic processes analysed for genome characterization and differential DNA methylation assessment. Previous genome-wide analysis has suggested an important variable in DNA methylation methods involves CpG density. The current study was designed to investigate the CpG density in a variety of different species genomes and correlate this to various DNA methylation analysis data sets. The majority of all genomes had >90% of the genome in the low density 1-3 CpG/100 bp category, while <10% of the genome was in the higher density >5 CpG/100 bp category. Similar observations with human, rat, bird, and fish genomes were observed. The methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) procedure uses the anti-5-methylcytosine antibody immunoprecipitation followed by next-generation sequencing (MeDIP-Seq). The MeDIP procedure is biased to lower CpG density of <5 CpG/100 bp, which corresponds to >95% of the genome. The reduced representation bisulphite (RRBS) protocol generally identifies DMRs in higher CpG density regions of ≥3 CpG/100 bp which corresponds to approximately 20% of the genome. The whole-genome bisulphite (WGBS) analyses resulted in higher CpG densities, often greater than 10 CpG/100bp. WGBS generally identifies ≥2 CpG/100bp, which corresponds to approximately 50% of the genome. Limitations and potential optimization approaches for each method are discussed. None of the procedures can provide complete genome-wide assessment of the genome, but MeDIP-Seq provides coverage of the highest percentage. Observations demonstrate that CpG density is a critical variable in DNA methylation analysis, and different molecular techniques focus on distinct genomic regions.

Indexed as

DNADNA MethylationAnimalsCpG IslandsImmunoprecipitationRatsSequence Analysis, DNASulfitesDNAhydrogen sulfiteSulfitesbirdCpG densityDNA methylationfishgenomehumanMeDIPmethodsratreviewRRBSWGBS

Identifiers

PMID33975521
PMCPMC9067529
OpenAlexW3162542350

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.