Cited by 243Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGene expression and cancer classificationHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

On the outside, looking in: A review and evaluation of the comparability of blood and brain “‐omes”

Tylee, Daniel S., Kawaguchi, Daniel M., Glatt, Stephen J.·2013·American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics

Abstract

In this article, we review studies detailing the correspondence between peripheral blood and brain tissue across various domains of high‐throughput ‐omic analysis in order to provide a context for evaluating blood‐based biomarker studies. Specifically, we reviewed seven studies comparing patterns of DNA methylation (i.e., an aspect of the epigenome), eight articles comparing patterns of gene expression (i.e., the transcriptome), and three articles comparing patterns of protein expression (i.e., the proteome). Our review of the epigenomic literature suggests that CpG‐island methylation levels are generally highly correlated (r = 0.90) between blood and brain. Our review of transcriptomic studies suggests that between 35% and 80% of known transcripts are present in both brain and blood tissue samples; estimates of cross‐tissue correlation in expression levels were found to range from 0.25 to 0.64, with stronger correlations observed among particular subsets of genes. Relative to the epigenome and transcriptome, the proteome has not been as fully compared between brain and blood samples, highlighting an important area for future work as whole‐proteome profiling methods mature. Beyond reviewing the relevant studies, we discuss some of the assumptions, methodological issues, and gaps in knowledge that should be addressed in order to better understand how the multiple “‐omes” of the brain are reflected in the peripheral blood. A better understanding of these relationships is a critical precursor to the validation of biomarkers for brain disorders. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajmg.b.32150

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tylee, D. S., Kawaguchi, D. M., & Glatt, S. J.
Affiliations
SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
Corresponding author
Glatt, Stephen J.
Venue
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10
Volume
162
Issue
7
Pages
595-603
ISSN
  • 1552-4841 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-485X
OpenAlex
W2023496972
Cited by
243
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 8
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
peripheral blood biomarkers, brain tissue, DNA methylation, CpG island methylation, transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, brain disorders, biomarker validation
MeSH terms
Blood, Brain, Humans, Proteome, Epigenomics, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review