Exploring the influence from whole blood DNA extraction methods on Infinium 450K DNA methylation.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Genome-wide DNA methylation studies are becoming increasingly important in unraveling the epigenetic basis of cell biology, aging and human conditions. The aim of the present study was to explore whether different methods for extracting DNA from whole blood can affect DNA methylation outcome, potentially confounding DNA methylation studies. DNA was isolated from healthy blood donors (n = 10) using three different extraction methods (i.e. two automatic extractions methods based on magnetic beads or isopropanol precipitation, and manual organic extraction). DNA methylation was analyzed using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 Bead Chip (Infinium 450K) (n = 30 samples in total), which is a frequently used method in genome-wide DNA methylation analyses. Overall, the different extraction methods did not have a significant impact on the global DNA methylation patterns. However, DNA methylation differences between organic extraction and each of the automated methods were in general larger than differences between the two automated extraction methods. No CpG sites or regions reached genome-wide significance when testing for differential methylation between extraction methods. Although this study is based on a small sample, these results suggest that extraction method is unlikely to confound Infinium 450K methylation analysis in whole blood.
      Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
    • References:
      Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):877-87. (PMID: 26857854)
      Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Dec 1;19(6):808-822. (PMID: 27867036)
      Clin Epigenetics. 2017 Feb 7;9:15. (PMID: 28194238)
      PLoS Genet. 2014 Nov 06;10(11):e1004735. (PMID: 25375650)
      Nat Methods. 2014 Nov;11(11):1138-1140. (PMID: 25262207)
      Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115. (PMID: 24138928)
      J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015 Jul;136(1):69-80. (PMID: 25769910)
      Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10. (PMID: 2868172)
      Bioinformatics. 2014 May 15;30(10):1363-9. (PMID: 24478339)
      Methods. 2002 Jun;27(2):101-7. (PMID: 12095266)
      Genome Res. 2013 Mar;23(3):555-67. (PMID: 23325432)
      PLoS One. 2016 Jan 22;11(1):e0147519. (PMID: 26799745)
      PLoS Genet. 2015 Jan 29;11(1):e1004958. (PMID: 25634236)
      Nat Genet. 1999 Oct;23(2):185-8. (PMID: 10508514)
      Lancet. 2014 Jun 7;383(9933):1990-8. (PMID: 24630777)
      Biochemistry. 2004 Mar 30;43(12):3537-54. (PMID: 15035624)
      Hum Genet. 2011 Aug;130(2):187-201. (PMID: 21597963)
      Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;41(1):200-9. (PMID: 22422453)
      Biopolymers. 1965;3(2):195-208. (PMID: 5889540)
    • Accession Number:
      9007-49-2 (DNA)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20181213 Date Completed: 20190509 Latest Revision: 20200309
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      PMC6291135
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0208699
    • Accession Number:
      30540848