Cargando…

The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data

Epigenetic modifications are crucial for normal development and implicated in disease pathogenesis. While epigenetics continues to be a burgeoning research area in neuroscience, unaddressed issues related to data reproducibility across laboratories remain. Separating meaningful experimental changes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boison, Detlev, Masino, Susan A., Lubin, Farah D., Guo, Kai, Lusardi, Theresa, Sanchez, Richard, Ruskin, David N., Ohm, Joyce, Geiger, Jonathan D., Hur, Junguk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8748700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35013473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04346-w
_version_ 1784631061501706240
author Boison, Detlev
Masino, Susan A.
Lubin, Farah D.
Guo, Kai
Lusardi, Theresa
Sanchez, Richard
Ruskin, David N.
Ohm, Joyce
Geiger, Jonathan D.
Hur, Junguk
author_facet Boison, Detlev
Masino, Susan A.
Lubin, Farah D.
Guo, Kai
Lusardi, Theresa
Sanchez, Richard
Ruskin, David N.
Ohm, Joyce
Geiger, Jonathan D.
Hur, Junguk
author_sort Boison, Detlev
collection PubMed
description Epigenetic modifications are crucial for normal development and implicated in disease pathogenesis. While epigenetics continues to be a burgeoning research area in neuroscience, unaddressed issues related to data reproducibility across laboratories remain. Separating meaningful experimental changes from background variability is a challenge in epigenomic studies. Here we show that seemingly minor experimental variations, even under normal baseline conditions, can have a significant impact on epigenome outcome measures and data interpretation. We examined genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression profiles of hippocampal tissues from wild-type rats housed in three independent laboratories using nearly identical conditions. Reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing and RNA-seq respectively identified 3852 differentially methylated and 1075 differentially expressed genes between laboratories, even in the absence of experimental intervention. Difficult-to-match factors such as animal vendors and a subset of husbandry and tissue extraction procedures produced quantifiable variations between wild-type animals across the three laboratories. Our study demonstrates that seemingly minor experimental variations, even under normal baseline conditions, can have a significant impact on epigenome outcome measures and data interpretation. This is particularly meaningful for neurological studies in animal models, in which baseline parameters between experimental groups are difficult to control. To enhance scientific rigor, we conclude that strict adherence to protocols is necessary for the execution and interpretation of epigenetic studies and that protocol-sensitive epigenetic changes, amongst naive animals, may confound experimental results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8748700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87487002022-01-11 The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data Boison, Detlev Masino, Susan A. Lubin, Farah D. Guo, Kai Lusardi, Theresa Sanchez, Richard Ruskin, David N. Ohm, Joyce Geiger, Jonathan D. Hur, Junguk Sci Rep Article Epigenetic modifications are crucial for normal development and implicated in disease pathogenesis. While epigenetics continues to be a burgeoning research area in neuroscience, unaddressed issues related to data reproducibility across laboratories remain. Separating meaningful experimental changes from background variability is a challenge in epigenomic studies. Here we show that seemingly minor experimental variations, even under normal baseline conditions, can have a significant impact on epigenome outcome measures and data interpretation. We examined genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression profiles of hippocampal tissues from wild-type rats housed in three independent laboratories using nearly identical conditions. Reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing and RNA-seq respectively identified 3852 differentially methylated and 1075 differentially expressed genes between laboratories, even in the absence of experimental intervention. Difficult-to-match factors such as animal vendors and a subset of husbandry and tissue extraction procedures produced quantifiable variations between wild-type animals across the three laboratories. Our study demonstrates that seemingly minor experimental variations, even under normal baseline conditions, can have a significant impact on epigenome outcome measures and data interpretation. This is particularly meaningful for neurological studies in animal models, in which baseline parameters between experimental groups are difficult to control. To enhance scientific rigor, we conclude that strict adherence to protocols is necessary for the execution and interpretation of epigenetic studies and that protocol-sensitive epigenetic changes, amongst naive animals, may confound experimental results. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8748700/ /pubmed/35013473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04346-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Boison, Detlev
Masino, Susan A.
Lubin, Farah D.
Guo, Kai
Lusardi, Theresa
Sanchez, Richard
Ruskin, David N.
Ohm, Joyce
Geiger, Jonathan D.
Hur, Junguk
The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title_full The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title_fullStr The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title_full_unstemmed The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title_short The impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of DNA methylation data
title_sort impact of methodology on the reproducibility and rigor of dna methylation data
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8748700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35013473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04346-w
work_keys_str_mv AT boisondetlev theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT masinosusana theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT lubinfarahd theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT guokai theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT lusarditheresa theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT sanchezrichard theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT ruskindavidn theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT ohmjoyce theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT geigerjonathand theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT hurjunguk theimpactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT boisondetlev impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT masinosusana impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT lubinfarahd impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT guokai impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT lusarditheresa impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT sanchezrichard impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT ruskindavidn impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT ohmjoyce impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT geigerjonathand impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata
AT hurjunguk impactofmethodologyonthereproducibilityandrigorofdnamethylationdata