Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 812

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative high-throughput analysis of DNA methylation patterns by base-specific cleavage and mass spectrometry

Open access
Ehrich, Mathias, Nelson, Matthew R., Stanssens, Patrick, Zabeau, Marc, Liloglou, Triantafillos, Xinarianos, George, Cantor, Charles R., Field, John K., van den Boom, Dirk·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Methylation is one of the major epigenetic processes pivotal to our understanding of carcinogenesis. It is now widely accepted that there is a relationship between DNA methylation, chromatin structure, and human malignancies. DNA methylation is potentially an important clinical marker in cancer molecular diagnostics. Understanding epigenetic modifications in their biological context involves several aspects of DNA methylation analysis. These aspects include the de novo discovery of differentially methylated genes, the analysis of methylation patterns, and the determination of differences in the degree of methylation. Here we present a previously uncharacterized method for high-throughput DNA methylation analysis that utilizes MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS) analysis of base-specifically cleaved amplification products. We use the IGF2/H19 region to show that a single base-specific cleavage reaction is sufficient to discover methylation sites and to determine methylation ratios within a selected target region. A combination of cleavage reactions enables the complete evaluation of all relevant aspects of DNA methylation, with most CpGs represented in multiple reactions. We successfully applied this technology under high-throughput conditions to quantitatively assess methylation differences between normal and neoplastic lung cancer tissue samples from 48 patients in 47 genes and demonstrate that the quantitative methylation results allow accurate classification of samples according to their histopathology.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0507816102

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 812

Metadata

Authors
Ehrich, M., Nelson, M. R., Stanssens, P., Zabeau, M., Liloglou, T., Xinarianos, G., Cantor, C. R., Field, J. K., & van den Boom, D.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-10-21
Volume
102
Issue
44
Pages
15785-15790
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2098362718
Cited by
812
References
1
FWCI
10.49
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: Quantitative high-throughput analysis of DNA methylation patterns by base-specific cleavage and mass spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0507816102
The paper
Ehrich, M., Nelson, M. R., Stanssens, P., Zabeau, M., Liloglou, T., Xinarianos, G., Cantor, C. R., Field, J. K., & van den Boom, D. (2005). Quantitative high-throughput analysis of DNA methylation patterns by base-specific cleavage and mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507816102

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.