↓ Skip to main content

A systematic evaluation of normalization methods and probe replicability using infinium EPIC methylation data

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic evaluation of normalization methods and probe replicability using infinium EPIC methylation data
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13148-023-01459-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Welsh, C. M. P. F. Batalha, W. Li, K. L. Mpye, N. C. Souza-Pinto, M. S. Naslavsky, E. J. Parra

Abstract

The Infinium EPIC array measures the methylation status of > 850,000 CpG sites. The EPIC BeadChip uses a two-array design: Infinium Type I and Type II probes. These probe types exhibit different technical characteristics which may confound analyses. Numerous normalization and pre-processing methods have been developed to reduce probe type bias as well as other issues such as background and dye bias. This study evaluates the performance of various normalization methods using 16 replicated samples and three metrics: absolute beta-value difference, overlap of non-replicated CpGs between replicate pairs, and effect on beta-value distributions. Additionally, we carried out Pearson's correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses using both raw and SeSAMe 2 normalized data. The method we define as SeSAMe 2, which consists of the application of the regular SeSAMe pipeline with an additional round of QC, pOOBAH masking, was found to be the best performing normalization method, while quantile-based methods were found to be the worst performing methods. Whole-array Pearson's correlations were found to be high. However, in agreement with previous studies, a substantial proportion of the probes on the EPIC array showed poor reproducibility (ICC < 0.50). The majority of poor performing probes have beta values close to either 0 or 1, and relatively low standard deviations. These results suggest that probe reliability is largely the result of limited biological variation rather than technical measurement variation. Importantly, normalizing the data with SeSAMe 2 dramatically improved ICC estimates, with the proportion of probes with ICC values > 0.50 increasing from 45.18% (raw data) to 61.35% (SeSAMe 2).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Researcher 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 43%
Mathematics 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,529,394
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#713
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,263
of 427,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#17
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.