↓ Skip to main content

Choice of surrogate tissue influences neonatal EWAS findings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Choice of surrogate tissue influences neonatal EWAS findings
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0970-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xinyi Lin, Ai Ling Teh, Li Chen, Ives Yubin Lim, Pei Fang Tan, Julia L. MacIsaac, Alexander M. Morin, Fabian Yap, Kok Hian Tan, Seang Mei Saw, Yung Seng Lee, Joanna D. Holbrook, Keith M. Godfrey, Michael J. Meaney, Michael S. Kobor, Yap Seng Chong, Peter D. Gluckman, Neerja Karnani

Abstract

Epigenomes are tissue specific and thus the choice of surrogate tissue can play a critical role in interpreting neonatal epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) and in their extrapolation to target tissue. To develop a better understanding of the link between tissue specificity and neonatal EWAS, and the contributions of genotype and prenatal factors, we compared genome-wide DNA methylation of cord tissue and cord blood, two of the most accessible surrogate tissues at birth. In 295 neonates, DNA methylation was profiled using Infinium HumanMethylation450 beadchip arrays. Sites of inter-individual variability in DNA methylation were mapped and compared across the two surrogate tissues at birth, i.e., cord tissue and cord blood. To ascertain the similarity to target tissues, DNA methylation profiles of surrogate tissues were compared to 25 primary tissues/cell types mapped under the Epigenome Roadmap project. Tissue-specific influences of genotype on the variable CpGs were also analyzed. Finally, to interrogate the impact of the in utero environment, EWAS on 45 prenatal factors were performed and compared across the surrogate tissues. Neonatal EWAS results were tissue specific. In comparison to cord blood, cord tissue showed higher inter-individual variability in the epigenome, with a lower proportion of CpGs influenced by genotype. Both neonatal tissues were good surrogates for target tissues of mesodermal origin. They also showed distinct phenotypic associations, with effect sizes of the overlapping CpGs being in the same order of magnitude. The inter-relationship between genetics, prenatal factors and epigenetics is tissue specific, and requires careful consideration in designing and interpreting future neonatal EWAS. This birth cohort is a prospective observational study, designed to study the developmental origins of health and disease, and was retrospectively registered on 1 July 2010 under the identifier NCT01174875 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 35%

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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,709,593
of 12,706,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,548
of 2,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,260
of 386,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#148
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,706,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 386,357 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.