↓ Skip to main content

Correcting for cell-type effects in DNA methylation studies: reference-based method outperforms latent variable approaches in empirical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Correcting for cell-type effects in DNA methylation studies: reference-based method outperforms latent variable approaches in empirical studies
Published in
Genome Biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13059-017-1148-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad W. Hattab, Andrey A. Shabalin, Shaunna L. Clark, Min Zhao, Gaurav Kumar, Robin F. Chan, Lin Ying Xie, Rick Jansen, Laura K. M. Han, Patrik K. E. Magnusson, Gerard van Grootheest, Christina M. Hultman, Brenda W. J. H. Penninx, Karolina A. Aberg, Edwin J. C. G. van den Oord

Abstract

Based on an extensive simulation study, McGregor and colleagues recently recommended the use of surrogate variable analysis (SVA) to control for the confounding effects of cell-type heterogeneity in DNA methylation association studies in scenarios where no cell-type proportions are available. As their recommendation was mainly based on simulated data, we sought to replicate findings in two large-scale empirical studies. In our empirical data, SVA did not fully correct for cell-type effects, its performance was somewhat unstable, and it carried a risk of missing true signals caused by removing variation that might be linked to actual disease processes. By contrast, a reference-based correction method performed well and did not show these limitations. A disadvantage of this approach is that if reference methylomes are not (publicly) available, they will need to be generated once for a small set of samples. However, given the notable risk we observed for cell-type confounding, we argue that, to avoid introducing false-positive findings into the literature, it could be well worth making this investment.Please see related Correspondence article: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10/1186/s13059-017-1149-7 and related Research article: https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-0935-y.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 4 16%
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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,918,049
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#3,899
of 4,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,512
of 424,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#49
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 424,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.