↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of methods correcting for cell-type heterogeneity in DNA methylation studies

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
An evaluation of methods correcting for cell-type heterogeneity in DNA methylation studies
Published in
Genome Biology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-0935-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin McGregor, Sasha Bernatsky, Ines Colmegna, Marie Hudson, Tomi Pastinen, Aurélie Labbe, Celia M.T. Greenwood

Abstract

Many different methods exist to adjust for variability in cell-type mixture proportions when analyzing DNA methylation studies. Here we present the result of an extensive simulation study, built on cell-separated DNA methylation profiles from Illumina Infinium 450K methylation data, to compare the performance of eight methods including the most commonly used approaches. We designed a rich multi-layered simulation containing a set of probes with true associations with either binary or continuous phenotypes, confounding by cell type, variability in means and standard deviations for population parameters, additional variability at the level of an individual cell-type-specific sample, and variability in the mixture proportions across samples. Performance varied quite substantially across methods and simulations. In particular, the number of false positives was sometimes unrealistically high, indicating limited ability to discriminate the true signals from those appearing significant through confounding. Methods that filtered probes had consequently poor power. QQ plots of p values across all tested probes showed that adjustments did not always improve the distribution. The same methods were used to examine associations between smoking and methylation data from a case-control study of colorectal cancer, and we also explored the effect of cell-type adjustments on associations between rheumatoid arthritis cases and controls. We recommend surrogate variable analysis for cell-type mixture adjustment since performance was stable under all our simulated scenarios.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 188 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 30%
Researcher 40 21%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 22 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Computer Science 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 33 17%
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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#3,489
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,213
of 312,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#67
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 4,467 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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 312,399 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.