ArticlePloS one2025
Measuring technical variability in illumina DNA methylation microarrays.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological Versus Technical Reliability of Epigenetic Clocks and Implications for Disease Prognosis and Intervention Response.Aging cell · 2026Article
- Blood DNA methylation and breast cancer risk: a prospective nested case-control study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for comprehensive DNA methylation analysis: overview, challenges, and future directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- iComBat: An incremental framework for batch effect correction in DNA methylation array data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA methylation microarrays have become a widely used tool for investigating epigenetic modifications in various aspects of biomedical research. However, technical variability in methylation data poses challenges for downstream applications such as predictive modeling of health and disease. In this study, we measure the impact of common sources of technical variability in Illumina DNA methylation microarray data, with a specific focus on positional biases inherent within the microarray technology. By utilizing a dataset comprised of multiple, highly similar technical replicates, we identified a chamber number bias, with different chambers of the microarray exhibiting systematic differences in fluorescence intensities (FI) and their derived methylation beta values, which are only partially corrected for by existing preprocessing methods and demonstrate that this positional bias can lead to false positive results during differential methylation testing. Additionally, our investigation identified outliers in low-level fluorescence data which might play a role in contributing to predictive error in computational models of health-relevant traits such as age.
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.