Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 493

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

DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening

Lofton-Day, Catherine, Model, Fabian, DeVos, Theo, Tetzner, Reimo, Distler, Juergen, Schuster, Matthias, Song, Xiaoling, Lesche, Ralf, Liebenberg, Volker, Ebert, Matthias, Molnar, Bela, Grützmann, Robert, Pilarsky, Christian, Sledziewski, Andrew·2008·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Sensitive, specific blood-based tests are difficult to develop unless steps are taken to maximize performance characteristics at every stage of marker discovery and development. We describe a sieving strategy for identifying high-performing marker assays that detect colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific methylated DNA in plasma. Methods: We first used restriction enzyme–based discovery methods to identify marker candidates with obviously different methylation patterns in CRC tissue and nonpathologic tissue. We then used a selection process incorporating microarrays and/or real-time PCR analysis of tissue samples to further test marker candidates for maximum methylation in CRC tissue and minimum amplification in tissues from both healthy individuals and patients with other diseases. Real-time assays of 3 selected markers were validated with plasma samples from 133 CRC patients and 179 healthy control individuals in the same age range. Results: Restriction enzyme–based testing identified 56 candidate markers. This group was reduced to 6 with microarray and real-time PCR testing. Three markers, TMEFF2, NGFR, and SEPT9, were tested with plasma samples. TMEFF2 methylation was detected in 65% [95% confidence interval, 56%–73%] of plasma samples from CRC patients and not detected in 69% (62%–76%) of the controls. The corresponding results for NGFR were 51% (42%–60%) and 84% (77%–89%); for SEPT9, the values were 69% (60%–77%) and 86% (80%–91%). Conclusions: The stringent criteria applied at all steps of the selection and validation process enabled successful identification and ranking of blood-based marker candidates.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2007.095992

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 493

Metadata

Authors
Lofton-Day, C., Model, F., DeVos, T., Tetzner, R., Distler, J., Schuster, M., Song, X., Lesche, R., Liebenberg, V., Ebert, M., Molnar, B., Grützmann, R., Pilarsky, C., & Sledziewski, A.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
414-423
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2115578647
Cited by
493
References
1
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2007.095992
The paper
Lofton-Day, C., Model, F., DeVos, T., Tetzner, R., Distler, J., Schuster, M., Song, X., Lesche, R., Liebenberg, V., Ebert, M., Molnar, B., Grützmann, R., Pilarsky, C., & Sledziewski, A. (2008). DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Blood-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.095992

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.