↓ Skip to main content

Establishing an analytic pipeline for genome-wide DNA methylation

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Establishing an analytic pipeline for genome-wide DNA methylation
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13148-016-0212-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle L. Wright, Mikhail G. Dozmorov, Aaron R. Wolen, Colleen Jackson-Cook, Angela R. Starkweather, Debra E. Lyon, Timothy P. York

Abstract

The need for research investigating DNA methylation (DNAm) in clinical studies has increased, leading to the evolution of new analytic methods to improve accuracy and reproducibility of the interpretation of results from these studies. The purpose of this article is to provide clinical researchers with a summary of the major data processing steps routinely applied in clinical studies investigating genome-wide DNAm using the Illumina HumanMethylation 450K BeadChip. In most studies, the primary goal of employing DNAm analysis is to identify differential methylation at CpG sites among phenotypic groups. Experimental design considerations are crucial at the onset to minimize bias from factors related to sample processing and avoid confounding experimental variables with non-biological batch effects. Although there are currently no de facto standard methods for analyzing these data, we review the major steps in processing DNAm data recommended by several research studies. We describe several variations available for clinical researchers to process, analyze, and interpret DNAm data. These insights are applicable to most types of genome-wide DNAm array platforms and will be applicable for the next generation of DNAm array technologies (e.g., the 850K array). Selection of the DNAm analytic pipeline followed by investigators should be guided by the research question and supported by recently published methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 25%
Researcher 28 20%
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Computer Science 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 26 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,808,454
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#189
of 1,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,601
of 312,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 312,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.