↓ Skip to main content

The influence of menstrual cycle and endometriosis on endometrial methylome

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
The influence of menstrual cycle and endometriosis on endometrial methylome
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13148-015-0168-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Merli Saare, Vijayachitra Modhukur, Marina Suhorutshenko, Balaji Rajashekar, Kadri Rekker, Deniss Sõritsa, Helle Karro, Pille Soplepmann, Andrei Sõritsa, Cecilia M. Lindgren, Nilufer Rahmioglu, Alexander Drong, Christian M. Becker, Krina T. Zondervan, Andres Salumets, Maire Peters

Abstract

Alterations in endometrial DNA methylation profile have been proposed as one potential mechanism initiating the development of endometriosis. However, the normal endometrial methylome is influenced by the cyclic hormonal changes, and the menstrual cycle phase-dependent epigenetic signature should be considered when studying endometrial disorders. So far, no studies have been performed to evaluate the menstrual cycle influences and endometriosis-specific endometrial methylation pattern at the same time. Infinium HumanMethylation 450K BeadChip arrays were used to explore DNA methylation profiles of endometrial tissues from various menstrual cycle phases from 31 patients with endometriosis and 24 healthy women. The DNA methylation profile of patients and controls was highly similar and only 28 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) between patients and controls were found. However, the overall magnitude of the methylation differences between patients and controls was rather small (Δβ ranging from -0.01 to -0.16 and from 0.01 to 0.08, respectively, for hypo- and hypermethylated CpGs). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the methylation data divided endometrial samples based on the menstrual cycle phase rather than diseased/non-diseased status. Further analysis revealed a number of menstrual cycle phase-specific epigenetic changes with largest changes occurring during the late-secretory and menstrual phases when substantial rearrangements of endometrial tissue take place. Comparison of cycle phase- and endometriosis-specific methylation profile changes revealed that 13 out of 28 endometriosis-specific DMRs were present in both datasets. The results of our study accentuate the importance of considering normal cyclic epigenetic changes in studies investigating endometrium-related disease-specific methylation patterns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Unspecified 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 22 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,244,230
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#411
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,187
of 395,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#26
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 395,128 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.