Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications

  • Author(s): Bock, C
  • Halbritter, F
  • Carmona, FJ
  • Tierling, S
  • Datlinger, P
  • Assenov, Y
  • Berdasco, M
  • Bergmann, AK
  • Booher, K
  • Busato, F
  • Campan, M
  • Dahl, C
  • Dahmcke, CM
  • Diep, D
  • Fernández, AF
  • Gerhauser, C
  • Haake, A
  • Heilmann, K
  • Holcomb, T
  • Hussmann, D
  • Ito, M
  • Kläver, R
  • Kreutz, M
  • Kulis, M
  • Lopez, V
  • Nair, SS
  • Paul, DS
  • Plongthongkum, N
  • Qu, W
  • Queirós, AC
  • Reinicke, F
  • Sauter, G
  • Schlomm, T
  • Statham, A
  • Stirzaker, C
  • Strogantsev, R
  • Urdinguio, RG
  • Walter, K
  • Weichenhan, D
  • Weisenberger, DJ
  • Beck, S
  • Clark, SJ
  • Esteller, M
  • Ferguson-Smith, AC
  • Fraga, MF
  • Guldberg, P
  • Hansen, LL
  • Laird, PW
  • Martín-Subero, JI
  • Nygren, AOH
  • Peist, R
  • Plass, C
  • Shames, DS
  • Siebert, R
  • Sun, X
  • Tost, J
  • Walter, J
  • Zhang, K
  • et al.

Published Web Location

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3605
Abstract

© 2016 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. DNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
Current View