Cited by 108Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Batch effect correction for genome-wide methylation data with Illumina Infinium platform

Open access
Sun, Zhifu, Chai, High Seng, Wu, Yanhong, White, Wendy M, Donkena, Krishna V, Klein, Christopher J, Garovic, Vesna D, Therneau, Terry M +1 more·2011·BMC Medical Genomics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide methylation profiling has led to more comprehensive insights into gene regulation mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Illumina Human Methylation BeadChip is one of the most commonly used genome-wide methylation platforms. Similar to other microarray experiments, methylation data is susceptible to various technical artifacts, particularly batch effects. To date, little attention has been given to issues related to normalization and batch effect correction for this kind of data. METHODS: We evaluated three common normalization approaches and investigated their performance in batch effect removal using three datasets with different degrees of batch effects generated from HumanMethylation27 platform: quantile normalization at average β value (QNβ); two step quantile normalization at probe signals implemented in "lumi" package of R (lumi); and quantile normalization of A and B signal separately (ABnorm). Subsequent Empirical Bayes (EB) batch adjustment was also evaluated. RESULTS: Each normalization could remove a portion of batch effects and their effectiveness differed depending on the severity of batch effects in a dataset. For the dataset with minor batch effects (Dataset 1), normalization alone appeared adequate and "lumi" showed the best performance. However, all methods left substantial batch effects intact in the datasets with obvious batch effects and further correction was necessary. Without any correction, 50 and 66 percent of CpGs were associated with batch effects in Dataset 2 and 3, respectively. After QNβ, lumi or ABnorm, the number of CpGs associated with batch effects were reduced to 24, 32, and 26 percent for Dataset 2; and 37, 46, and 35 percent for Dataset 3, respectively. Additional EB correction effectively removed such remaining non-biological effects. More importantly, the two-step procedure almost tripled the numbers of CpGs associated with the outcome of interest for the two datasets. CONCLUSION: Genome-wide methylation data from Infinium Methylation BeadChip can be susceptible to batch effects with profound impacts on downstream analyses and conclusions. Normalization can reduce part but not all batch effects. EB correction along with normalization is recommended for effective batch effect removal.

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 · 10.1186/1755-8794-4-84

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Disappearance of batch effects is a useful but insufficient indicator of normalization performance because it does not show whether true differences can still be detected.

    “the disappearance of batch effects is a useful indicator [12], but not sufficient as a performance indicator because it does not indicate whether true differences can”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, Z., Chai, H. S., Wu, Y., White, W. M., Donkena, K. V., Klein, C. J., Garovic, V. D., Therneau, T. M., & Kocher, J.-P. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Kocher, Jean-Pierre A
Venue
BMC Medical Genomics
Published
2011-12
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
84-84
ISSN
1755-8794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108947463
Cited by
108
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
batch effect correction, DNA methylation, genome-wide methylation profiling, quantile normalization, data normalization, CpG methylation
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Human, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Databases, Genetic

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