↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the MethylationEPIC BeadChip for fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Validation of the MethylationEPIC BeadChip for fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumours
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13148-017-0333-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresia Kling, Anna Wenger, Stephan Beck, Helena Carén

Abstract

DNA methylation is the most studied epigenetic modification due to its role in regulating gene expression, and its involvement in the pathogenesis of cancer and several diseases upon aberrations in methylation. The method of choice to evaluate genome-wide methylation has been the Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip (450K), but it was recently replaced with the MethylationEPIC BeadChip (EPIC). We therefore sought to validate the EPIC array in comparison to the 450K array for both fresh-frozen (FF) and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumours. We also performed analysis on the EPIC array with paired FF and FFPE samples to adapt to a clinical setting where FFPE is routinely used. Further, we compared two restoration methods, REPLI-g and Infinium, for FFPE-derived DNA on the EPIC array. The Pearson correlation of β values for common probes on the 450K and EPIC array was high for both FF (mean: 0.992) and FFPE (mean: 0.984) samples. The β values generated from the EPIC array for FFPE samples correlated well with the paired FF tumours, but varied between 0.901 and 0.987. We did note that sample pairs with lower correlation had less bimodal density distributions of β values and displayed higher noise in the copy number alteration plots (generated from the methylation array data) in the FFPE sample. Both REPLI-g and the Infinium restoration for FFPE samples performed well on the EPIC array and generated equivalent correlation scores to the paired FF sample.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 27 36%
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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#12,838,216
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#588
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,620
of 308,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 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 1,261 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 52% 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 308,981 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.