Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36609459›Full record

ArticleEpigenetics & chromatin2023

Who's afraid of the X? Incorporating the X and Y chromosomes into the analysis of DNA methylation array data.

Amy M Inkster, Martin T Wong, Allison M Matthews, Carolyn J Brown, Wendy P Robinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epigenetics & chromatin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy M InksterBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, 950 W 28th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada. ainkster@bcchr.ca.
Martin T WongDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, 4500 Oak St, Vancouver, V6H 3N1, Canada.
Allison M MatthewsBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, 950 W 28th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada.
Carolyn J BrownDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, 4500 Oak St, Vancouver, V6H 3N1, Canada.
Wendy P RobinsonBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, 950 W 28th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada.
BC Children's Hospital · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research F19-04091CIHR GSK-171375CIHR SVB-158613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany human disease phenotypes manifest differently by sex, making the development of methods for incorporating X and Y-chromosome data into analyses vital. Unfortunately, X and Y chromosome data are frequently excluded from large-scale analyses of the human genome and epigenome due to analytical complexity associated with sex chromosome dosage differences between XX and XY individuals, and the impact of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) on the epigenome. As such, little attention has been given to considering the methods by which sex chromosome data may be included in analyses of DNA methylation (DNAme) array data.

resultsWith Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 DNAme array data from 634 placental samples, we investigated the effects of probe filtering, normalization, and batch correction on DNAme data from the X and Y chromosomes. Processing steps were evaluated in both mixed-sex and sex-stratified subsets of the analysis cohort to identify whether including both sexes impacted processing results. We found that identification of probes that have a high detection p-value, or that are non-variable, should be performed in sex-stratified data subsets to avoid over- and under-estimation of the quantity of probes eligible for removal, respectively. All normalization techniques investigated returned X and Y DNAme data that were highly correlated with the raw data from the same samples. We found no difference in batch correction results after application to mixed-sex or sex-stratified cohorts. Additionally, we identify two analytical methods suitable for XY chromosome data, the choice between which should be guided by the research question of interest, and we performed a proof-of-concept analysis studying differential DNAme on the X and Y chromosome in the context of placental acute chorioamnionitis. Finally, we provide an annotation of probe types that may be desirable to filter in X and Y chromosome analyses, including probes in repetitive elements, the X-transposed region, and cancer-testis gene promoters.

conclusionWhile there may be no single "best" approach for analyzing DNAme array data from the X and Y chromosome, analysts must consider key factors during processing and analysis of sex chromosome data to accommodate the underlying biology of these chromosomes, and the technical limitations of DNA methylation arrays.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationPlacentaFemaleHumansMalePhenotypePregnancyX Chromosome InactivationY ChromosomeArrayBatch-correctionDNA methylationIllumina DNA methylationSex chromosomesSex differencesX chromosomeX-chromosome inactivationY chromosome

Identifiers

PMID36609459
PMCPMC9825011
OpenAlexW4313643069

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.