Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41708983›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2026

Guidelines on optimizing DNA methylation reference panels for cell-type deconvolution.

Xiaolong Guo, Andrew E Teschendorff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Xiaolong GuoShanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 320 Yue Yang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China. guoxiaolong2022@sinh.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4072-134X
Andrew E TeschendorffShanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 320 Yue Yang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China. andrew@sinh.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7410-6527

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 32570775National Science Foundation of China | National Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan Joint Fund (NSFC-Yunnan Joint Fund) 32370699National Science Foundation of China | National Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan Joint Fund (NSFC-Yunnan Joint Fund) W2431024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate cell-type deconvolution is critical for correct interpretation of Epigenome-Wide Association Studies. For all cell-type deconvolution tasks, it is necessary to estimate underlying cell-type fractions in a sample, which is usually accomplished using a DNA methylation reference panel built from sorted or single-cell DNAm data. Two competing approaches have emerged to build such reference panels, one which uses machine-learning, and another based on optimizing effect size and cell-type specificity. Here we demonstrate that the latter approach is preferable, because, owing to the relatively small number of sorted samples used in building panels, standard machine learning does not optimize effect size and cell-type specificity, causing the model to overfit and underperform when tested in independent data. Furthermore, adult blood panels built from cell-type specific hypomethylated markers improves estimation of cell-type fractions when compared to panels built from hypermethylated ones. These insights provide important guidelines for optimizing the construction of future DNAm reference panels. To aid this task, we have added a function for building an optimized DNAm reference panel to our EpiDISH R-package.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticHumansMachine LearningSingle-Cell Analysis

Identifiers

PMID41708983
PMCPMC13031392

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.