001     132751
005     20240229105030.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1186/s13148-018-0471-6
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:29588806
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC5863487
|2 pmc
024 7 _ |a 1868-7075
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1868-7083
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a altmetric:34979052
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2018-00404
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Perrier, Flavie
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Identifying and correcting epigenetics measurements for systematic sources of variation.
260 _ _ |a [S.l.]
|c 2018
|b BioMed Central
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1524827851_15061
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Methylation measures quantified by microarray techniques can be affected by systematic variation due to the technical processing of samples, which may compromise the accuracy of the measurement process and contribute to bias the estimate of the association under investigation. The quantification of the contribution of the systematic source of variation is challenging in datasets characterized by hundreds of thousands of features.In this study, we introduce a method previously developed for the analysis of metabolomics data to evaluate the performance of existing normalizing techniques to correct for unwanted variation. Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450K was used to acquire methylation levels in over 421,000 CpG sites for 902 study participants of a case-control study on breast cancer nested within the EPIC cohort. The principal component partial R-square (PC-PR2) analysis was used to identify and quantify the variability attributable to potential systematic sources of variation. Three correcting techniques, namely ComBat, surrogate variables analysis (SVA) and a linear regression model to compute residuals were applied. The impact of each correcting method on the association between smoking status and DNA methylation levels was evaluated, and results were compared with findings from a large meta-analysis.A sizeable proportion of systematic variability due to variables expressing 'batch' and 'sample position' within 'chip' was identified, with values of the partial R2 statistics equal to 9.5 and 11.4% of total variation, respectively. After application of ComBat or the residuals' methods, the contribution was 1.3 and 0.2%, respectively. The SVA technique resulted in a reduced variability due to 'batch' (1.3%) and 'sample position' (0.6%), and in a diminished variability attributable to 'chip' within a batch (0.9%). After ComBat or the residuals' corrections, a larger number of significant sites (k = 600 and k = 427, respectively) were associated to smoking status than the SVA correction (k = 96).The three correction methods removed systematic variation in DNA methylation data, as assessed by the PC-PR2, which lent itself as a useful tool to explore variability in large dimension data. SVA produced more conservative findings than ComBat in the association between smoking and DNA methylation.
536 _ _ |a 313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313
|c POF3-313
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
700 1 _ |a Novoloaca, Alexei
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Ambatipudi, Srikant
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Baglietto, Laura
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Ghantous, Akram
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Perduca, Vittorio
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Barrdahl, Myrto
|0 P:(DE-He78)9c1a5b028ca0ab2ef3468a9266f81f63
|b 6
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Harlid, Sophia
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Ong, Ken K
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Cardona, Alexia
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Polidoro, Silvia
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Nøst, Therese Haugdahl
|b 11
700 1 _ |a Overvad, Kim
|b 12
700 1 _ |a Omichessan, Hanane
|b 13
700 1 _ |a Dollé, Martijn
|b 14
700 1 _ |a Bamia, Christina
|b 15
700 1 _ |a Huerta, José Marìa
|b 16
700 1 _ |a Vineis, Paolo
|b 17
700 1 _ |a Herceg, Zdenko
|b 18
700 1 _ |a Romieu, Isabelle
|b 19
700 1 _ |a Ferrari, Pietro
|b 20
773 _ _ |a 10.1186/s13148-018-0471-6
|g Vol. 10, no. 1, p. 38
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2553921-8
|n 1
|p 38
|t Clinical epigenetics
|v 10
|y 2018
|x 1868-7083
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:132751
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 6
|6 P:(DE-He78)9c1a5b028ca0ab2ef3468a9266f81f63
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|v Cancer risk factors and prevention
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Gesundheit
914 1 _ |y 2018
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b CLIN EPIGENETICS : 2015
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331
|k C020
|l Epidemiologie von Krebserkrankungen
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)C020-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21