ArticleElectrophoresis2025
A Ge.F.I. Collaborative Study: Evaluating Reproducibility and Accuracy of a DNA-Methylation-Based Age-Predictive Assay for Routine Implementation in Forensic Casework.
Article in Electrophoresis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing interest in DNA methylation (DNAm) analysis within the forensic scientific community prompted a collaborative project by Ge.F.I. (Genetisti Forensi Italiani). The study evaluated a standardized bisulfite conversion-based Single Base Extension (SBE) protocol for the analysis of the methylation levels at five age-predictive loci (ELOVL2, FHL2, KLF14, C1orf132/MIR29B2C, and TRIM59). The study encompassed three phases: (1) setting up and validating the protocol to ensure consistency and reproducibility; (2) comparing fresh peripheral blood with blood spots; and (3) evaluating sources of intra- and inter-laboratory variability. Samples from 22 Italian volunteers were analyzed by 6 laboratories in replicates for a total of 528 records. From phase I emerged that the choice of genetic sequencer significantly contributed to inter-laboratory data variation, resulting in separate regression analyses performed for each laboratory. In phase II, blood spots were found to be a reliable source for DNAm analysis, despite exhibiting increased experimental variation compared to fresh peripheral blood. In phase III, a strong correlation between the individual's predicted and true ages was observed across different laboratories. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the residuals indicated that one-third of the total variance could be attributed to laboratory-specific factors, whereas two-thirds could be attributed to inter-individual biological differences. The leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO-CV) method yielded an overall mean absolute deviation (MAD) value of 4.41 years, with an average 95% confidence interval of 5.24 years. Stepwise regression analysis proved that a restricted model (ELOVL2, C1orf132/MIR29B2C, and TRIM59) produced results virtually indistinguishable from the five-loci model. Additionally, the analysis of samples in replicates greatly improved the fit of the regression model, balancing the slight effects of intra-laboratory variability. In conclusion, the bisulfite conversion-based SBE protocol, combined with replicate analysis and in-lab calibration of a regression-prediction model, proves to be a reliable and easily implementable method for age prediction in forensic laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.