首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Evaluating DNA methylation age on the Illumina MethylationEPIC Bead Chip
【2h】

Evaluating DNA methylation age on the Illumina MethylationEPIC Bead Chip

机译:在Illumina甲基化EPIC磁珠芯片上评估DNA甲基化年龄

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

DNA methylation age (DNAm age) has become a widely utilized epigenetic biomarker for the aging process. The Horvath method for determining DNAm age is perhaps the most widely utilized and validated DNA methylation age assessment measure. Horvath DNAm age is calculated based on methylation measurements at 353 loci, present on Illumina’s 450k and 27k DNA methylation microarrays. With increasing use of the more recently developed Illumina MethylationEPIC (850k) microarray, it is worth revisiting this aging measure to evaluate estimation differences due to array design. Of the requisite 353 loci, 17 are missing from the 850k microarray. Similarly, an alternate, 71 loci DNA methylation age assessment measure created by Hannum et al. is missing 6 requisite loci. Using 17 datasets with 27k, 450k, and/or 850k methylation data, we compared each sample’s epigenetic age estimated from all 353 loci required by the Horvath DNAm age calculator, and using only the 336 loci available on the 850k array. In 450k/27k data, removing loci not on the 850k array resulted in underestimation of Horvath’s DNAm age. Underestimation of Horvath DNAm age increased from ages 0 to ~20, remaining stable thereafter (mean deviation = -3.46 y, SD = 1.13 for individuals ≥20 years). Underestimation of Horvath’s DNAm age by the reduced 450k/27k data was similar to the underestimation observed in the 850k data indicating it is driven by missing probes. In analogous examination of Hannum’s DNAm age, the magnitude and direction of epigenetic age misestimation varied with chronological age. In conclusion, inter-array deviations in DNAm age estimations may be largely driven by missing probes between arrays, despite default probe imputation procedures. Though correlations and associations based on Horvath’s DNAm age may be unaffected, researchers should exercise caution when interpreting results based on absolute differences in DNAm age or when mixing samples assayed on different arrays.
机译:DNA甲基化年龄(DNAm age)已成为衰老过程中广泛使用的表观遗传标记。用于确定DNAm年龄的Horvath方法可能是使用最广泛且经过验证的DNA甲基化年龄评估方法。 Horvath DNAm年龄是根据Illumina的450k和27k DNA甲基化微阵列上353个位点的甲基化测量值计算得出的。随着最近开发的Illumina MethylationEPIC(850k)微阵列的使用增加,值得重新审视这种老化措施以评估由于阵列设计而产生的估计差异。在必要的353个基因座中,850k基因芯片缺少17个基因座。同样,由Hannum等人创建的另一种71位点DNA甲基化年龄评估方法。缺少6个必需位点。我们使用17个具有27k,450k和/或850k甲基化数据的数据集,比较了每个样品的表观遗传年龄,这些年龄是根据Horvath DNAm年龄计算器所需的全部353个基因座估算的,并且仅使用了850k阵列上可用的336个基因座。在450k / 27k数据中,删除不在850k阵列上的基因座会导致Horvath的DNAm年龄被低估。对Horvath DNAm年龄的低估从0岁增加到20岁,此后保持稳定(对于20岁以上的人群,平均偏差= -3.46 y,SD = 1.13)。减少的450k / 27k数据低估了Horvath的DNAm年龄,与850k数据中低估的相似,表明它是由缺少探针驱动的。在类似地检查Hannum的DNAm年龄时,表观遗传年龄错误估计的幅度和方向随年代年龄而变化。总之,尽管采用了默认的探针插补程序,但DNAm年龄估算中的阵列间偏差可能很大程度上是由阵列之间缺少探针引起的。尽管基于Horvath DNAm年龄的相关性和关联性可能不会受到影响,但研究人员在根据DNAm年龄的绝对差异解释结果或混合以不同阵列分析的样品时应谨慎行事。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号