Cited by 210Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingBirth, Development, and Health

Sex differences in DNA methylation assessed by 450 K BeadChip in newborns

Open access
Yousefi, Paul, Huen, Karen, Davé, Veronica, Barcellos, Lisa, Eskenazi, Brenda, Holland, Nina·2015·BMC Genomics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: DNA methylation is an important epigenetic mark that can potentially link early life exposures to adverse health outcomes later in life. Host factors like sex and age strongly influence biological variation of DNA methylation, but characterization of these relationships is still limited, particularly in young children. METHODS: In a sample of 111 Mexican-American subjects (58 girls , 53 boys), we interrogated DNA methylation differences by sex at birth using the 450 K BeadChip in umbilical cord blood specimens, adjusting for cell composition. RESULTS: We observed that ~3% of CpG sites were differentially methylated between girls and boys at birth (FDR P < 0.05). Of those CpGs, 3031 were located on autosomes, and 82.8% of those were hypermethylated in girls compared to boys. Beyond individual CpGs, we found 3604 sex-associated differentially methylated regions (DMRs) where the majority (75.8%) had higher methylation in girls. Using pathway analysis, we found that sex-associated autosomal CpGs were significantly enriched for gene ontology terms related to nervous system development and behavior. Among hits in our study, 35.9% had been previously reported as sex-associated CpG sites in other published human studies. Further, for replicated hits, the direction of the association with methylation was highly concordant (98.5-100%) with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first reported epigenome-wide analysis by sex at birth that examined DMRs and adjusted for confounding by cell composition. We confirmed previously reported trends that methylation profiles are sex-specific even in autosomal genes, and also identified novel sex-associated CpGs in our methylome-wide analysis immediately after birth, a critical yet relatively unstudied developmental window.

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/s12864-015-2034-y

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Biological confounders known to affect epigenetic patterns such as age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking behavior or nutritional aspects may introduce critical biases limiting the interpretation of epigenetic data.

    “Biological confounders known to affect epigenetic patterns such as age (Xiao, Wang, & Kong, 2019), sex (Yousefi et al., 2015), ethnicity (Fraser, Lam, Neumann, & Kobor, 2012), body mass index (Sayols-Baixeras et al., 2017), smoking behavior (Li et al., 2018) or nutritional aspects (Gadecka & Bielak-Zmijewska, 2019) may introduce critical biases limiting the interpretation of epigenetic data.”

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

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Turgeon ML Clinical hematology 2011 5 Philadelphia Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 40 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yousefi, P., Huen, K., Davé, V., Barcellos, L., Eskenazi, B., & Holland, N.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Holland, Nina
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2015-11-09
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
911-911
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112500414
Cited by
205
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (RD83451301)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES009605, R01ES021369)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Birth, Development, and Health
Keywords
DNA methylation, sex differences, neonates, umbilical cord blood, differentially methylated regions, hypermethylation, brain development, epigenome-wide association study, Mexican-American population
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Male, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic, Genome-Wide Association Study, Epigenomics

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