Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 712

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications

Open access
Harris, R Alan, Wang, Ting, Coarfa, Cristian, Nagarajan, Raman P, Hong, Chibo, Downey, Sara L, Johnson, Brett E, Fouse, Shaun D, Delaney, Allen, Zhao, Yongjun, Olshen, Adam, Ballinger, Tracy, Zhou, Xin, Forsberg, Kevin J, Gu, Junchen, Echipare, Lorigail, O'Geen, Henriette, Lister, Ryan, Pelizzola, Mattia, Xi, Yuanxin, Epstein, Charles B, Bernstein, Bradley E, Hawkins, R David, Ren, Bing, Chung, Wen-Yu, Gu, Hongcang, Bock, Christoph, Gnirke, Andreas, Zhang, Michael Q, Haussler, David, Ecker, Joseph R, Li, Wei, Farnham, Peggy J, Waterland, Robert A, Meissner, Alexander, Marra, Marco A, Hirst, Martin, Milosavljevic, Aleksandar, Costello, Joseph F·2010·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Analysis of DNA methylation patterns relies increasingly on sequencing-based profiling methods. The four most frequently used sequencing-based technologies are the bisulfite-based methods MethylC-seq and reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS), and the enrichment-based techniques methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeDIP-seq) and methylated DNA binding domain sequencing (MBD-seq). We applied all four methods to biological replicates of human embryonic stem cells to assess their genome-wide CpG coverage, resolution, cost, concordance and the influence of CpG density and genomic context. The methylation levels assessed by the two bisulfite methods were concordant (their difference did not exceed a given threshold) for 82% for CpGs and 99% of the non-CpG cytosines. Using binary methylation calls, the two enrichment methods were 99% concordant and regions assessed by all four methods were 97% concordant. We combined MeDIP-seq with methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme (MRE-seq) sequencing for comprehensive methylome coverage at lower cost. This, along with RNA-seq and ChIP-seq of the ES cells enabled us to detect regions with allele-specific epigenetic states, identifying most known imprinted regions and new loci with monoallelic epigenetic marks and monoallelic expression.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.1682

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 712

Metadata

Authors
Harris, R. A., Wang, T., Coarfa, C., Nagarajan, R. P., Hong, C., Downey, S. L., Johnson, B. E., Fouse, S. D., Delaney, A., Zhao, Y., Olshen, A., Ballinger, T., Zhou, X., Forsberg, K. J., Gu, J., Echipare, L., O'Geen, H., Lister, R., Pelizzola, M., Xi, Y., Epstein, C. B., Bernstein, B. E., Hawkins, R. D., Ren, B., Chung, W.-Y., Gu, H., Bock, C., Gnirke, A., Zhang, M. Q., Haussler, D., Ecker, J. R., Li, W., Farnham, P. J., Waterland, R. A., Meissner, A., Marra, M. A., Hirst, M., Milosavljevic, A., & Costello, J. F.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2010-09-19
Volume
28
Issue
10
Pages
1097-1105
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2109715726
Cited by
712
References
9
FWCI
26.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nbt.1682
The paper
Harris, R. A., Wang, T., Coarfa, C., Nagarajan, R. P., Hong, C., Downey, S. L., Johnson, B. E., Fouse, S. D., Delaney, A., Zhao, Y., Olshen, A., Ballinger, T., Zhou, X., Forsberg, K. J., Gu, J., Echipare, L., O'Geen, H., Lister, R., Pelizzola, M., . . . Costello, J. F. (2010). Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1682

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.