Cargando…
Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison
DNA methylation is a key component of mammalian gene regulation and the most classical example of an epigenetic mark. DNA methylation patterns are mitotically heritable and stable over time, but they undergo considerable changes in response to cell differentiation, diseases and environmental influen...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20852634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1681 |
_version_ | 1782201083541585920 |
---|---|
author | Bock, Christoph Tomazou, Eleni M. Brinkman, Arjen Müller, Fabian Simmer, Femke Gu, Hongcang Jäger, Natalie Gnirke, Andreas Stunnenberg, Hendrik G. Meissner, Alexander |
author_facet | Bock, Christoph Tomazou, Eleni M. Brinkman, Arjen Müller, Fabian Simmer, Femke Gu, Hongcang Jäger, Natalie Gnirke, Andreas Stunnenberg, Hendrik G. Meissner, Alexander |
author_sort | Bock, Christoph |
collection | PubMed |
description | DNA methylation is a key component of mammalian gene regulation and the most classical example of an epigenetic mark. DNA methylation patterns are mitotically heritable and stable over time, but they undergo considerable changes in response to cell differentiation, diseases and environmental influences. Several methods have been developed for DNA methylation profiling on a genomic scale. Here, we benchmark four of these methods on two sample pairs, comparing their accuracy and power to detect DNA methylation differences. The results show that all evaluated methods (MeDIP-seq: methylated DNA immunoprecipitation, MethylCap-seq: methylated DNA capture by affinity purification, RRBS: reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, and the Infinium HumanMethylation27 assay) produce accurate DNA methylation data. However, these methods differ in their ability to detect differentially methylated regions between pairs of samples. We highlight strengths and weaknesses of the four methods and give practical recommendations for the design of epigenomic case-control studies. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3066564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30665642011-04-01 Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison Bock, Christoph Tomazou, Eleni M. Brinkman, Arjen Müller, Fabian Simmer, Femke Gu, Hongcang Jäger, Natalie Gnirke, Andreas Stunnenberg, Hendrik G. Meissner, Alexander Nat Biotechnol Article DNA methylation is a key component of mammalian gene regulation and the most classical example of an epigenetic mark. DNA methylation patterns are mitotically heritable and stable over time, but they undergo considerable changes in response to cell differentiation, diseases and environmental influences. Several methods have been developed for DNA methylation profiling on a genomic scale. Here, we benchmark four of these methods on two sample pairs, comparing their accuracy and power to detect DNA methylation differences. The results show that all evaluated methods (MeDIP-seq: methylated DNA immunoprecipitation, MethylCap-seq: methylated DNA capture by affinity purification, RRBS: reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, and the Infinium HumanMethylation27 assay) produce accurate DNA methylation data. However, these methods differ in their ability to detect differentially methylated regions between pairs of samples. We highlight strengths and weaknesses of the four methods and give practical recommendations for the design of epigenomic case-control studies. 2010-09-19 2010-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3066564/ /pubmed/20852634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1681 Text en Users may view, print, copy, download and text and data- mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms |
spellingShingle | Article Bock, Christoph Tomazou, Eleni M. Brinkman, Arjen Müller, Fabian Simmer, Femke Gu, Hongcang Jäger, Natalie Gnirke, Andreas Stunnenberg, Hendrik G. Meissner, Alexander Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title | Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title_full | Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title_fullStr | Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title_full_unstemmed | Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title_short | Genome-wide mapping of DNA methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
title_sort | genome-wide mapping of dna methylation: a quantitative technology comparison |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20852634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1681 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bockchristoph genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT tomazouelenim genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT brinkmanarjen genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT mullerfabian genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT simmerfemke genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT guhongcang genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT jagernatalie genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT gnirkeandreas genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT stunnenberghendrikg genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison AT meissneralexander genomewidemappingofdnamethylationaquantitativetechnologycomparison |