Updates to data versions and analytic methods influence the reproducibility of results from epigenome-wide association studies

References

• Petronis A. Epigenetics as a unifying principle in the aetiology of complex traits and diseases. Nature. 2010;465(7299):721–727.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce WT, Kobor MS. Development and the epigenome: the ‘synapse’ of gene-environment interplay. Dev Sci. 2015;18:1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu Y, Simpkin AJ, AJ, Suderman, MJ, et al. A structured approach to evaluating life course hypotheses: moving beyond analyses of exposed versus unexposed in the omics context. Am J Epidemiol. 2020. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwaa246.
   Google Scholar
• Mishra G, Nitsch D, Black S, et al. A structured approach to modelling the effects of binary exposure variables over the life course. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:528–537.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn EC, Soare TW, Zhu Y, et al. sensitive periods for the effect of childhood adversity on dna methylation: results from a prospective, longitudinal study. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;85:838–849.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond RC, Suderman M, Langdon R, et al. DNA methylation as a marker for prenatal smoke exposure in adults. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:1120–1130.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser A, Macdonald-Wallis C, Tilling K, et al. Cohort profile: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J, et al. Cohort profile: the ‘children of the 90s’–the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:111–127.
   Google Scholar
• Relton CL, Gaunt T, McArdle W, et al. Data resource profile: accessible resource for integrated epigenomic studies (ARIES). Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:1181–1190.
   Google Scholar
• Touleimat N, Tost J. Complete pipeline for infiniu ®Human Methylation 450k BeadChip data processing using subset quantile normalization for accurate DNA methylation estimation. Epigenomics. 2012;4(3):325–341.
   Google Scholar
• Maksimovic J, Gordon L, Oshlack ASWAN. Subset-quantile within array normalization for illumina infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChips. Genome Biol. 2012;13(6):R44.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig FP, Davey Smith G, Simpkin AJ, et al. Association between breastfeeding and DNA methylation over the life course: findings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Nutrients. 2020;12:3309.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson N, Brown H, Antoun E, et al. Childhood DNA methylation as a marker of early life rapid weight gain and subsequent overweight. Clin Epigenetics. 2021;13:8.
   Google Scholar
• Alfano R, Guida F, Galobardes B, et al. Socioeconomic position during pregnancy and DNA methylation signatures at three stages across early life: epigenome-wide association studies in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48:30–44.
   Google Scholar
• Teschendorff AE, Marabita F, Lechner M, et al. A beta-mixture quantile normalization method for correcting probe design bias in Illumina Infinium 450 k DNA methylation data. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:189–196.
   Google Scholar
• Fortin J-P, Labbe A, Lemire M, et al. Functional normalization of 450k methylation array data improves replication in large cancer studies. Genome Biol. 2014;15:503.
   Google Scholar
• Heiss JA, Brenner H. Between-array normalization for 450K data. Front Genet. 2015;6. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2015.00092.
   Google Scholar
• Cazaly E, Thomson R, Marthick JR, et al. Comparison of pre-processing methodologies for Illumina 450k methylation array data in familial analyses. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8:75.
   Google Scholar
• Fortin J-P, Triche TJ Jr., Hansen KD. Preprocessing, normalization and integration of the illumina humanmethylationEPIC array with minfi. Bioinformatics. 2017;33:558–560.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderlinden LA, Johnson RK, Carry PM, et al. An effective processing pipeline for harmonizing DNA methylation data from Illumina’s 450K and EPIC platforms for epidemiological studies. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14:352.
   Google Scholar
• Min JL, Hemani G, Davey Smith G, et al. Meffil: efficient normalization and analysis of very large DNA methylation datasets. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:3983–3989.
   Google Scholar
• Triche TJ Jr., Weisenberger DJ, Van Den Berg D, et al. Low-level processing of illumina infinium DNA methylation BeadArrays. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e90–e90.
   Google Scholar
• Houseman EA, Molitor J, Marsit CJ. Reference-free cell mixture adjustments in analysis of DNA methylation data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1431–1439.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth GK. limma: Linear Models for Microarray Data. In Robert Gentleman, Vincent J. Carey, Wolfgang Huber, Rafael A. Irizarry, Sandrine Dudoit (eds)., Bioinformatics and computational biology solutions using R and bioconductor. Springer. 2005. p. 397–420. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-29362-0_23.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57:289–300.
   Google Scholar
• van Iterson M, van Zwet EW, Heijmans BT, et al. Controlling bias and inflation in epigenome- and transcriptome-wide association studies using the empirical null distribution. Genome Biol. 2017;18:19.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B.J., Smith, A.D.A.C., Dunn, E.C.et al (in press) Statistical Modeling of Sensitive Period Effects Using the Structured Life Course Modeling Approach (SLCMA). In Geyer, M.A., and Marsden, C.A. (Eds.) Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Smith ADAC, Hardy R, Heron J, et al. A structured approach to hypotheses involving continuous exposures over the life course. Int J Epidemiol. 2016. DOI:10.1093/ije/dyw164.
   Google Scholar
• Smith ADAC, Heron J, Mishra G, et al. Model selection of the effect of binary exposures over the life course. Epidemiology. 2015;26:719–726.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn EC, Soare TW, Raffeld MR, et al. What life course theoretical models best explain the relationship between exposure to childhood adversity and psychopathology symptoms: recency, accumulation, or sensitive periods? Psychological Medicine. 2018;48(15):2562–2572.
   Google Scholar
• Lockhart R, Taylor J, Tibshirani RJ, et al. A significance test for the lasso. Ann Stat. 2014;42:413–468.
   Google Scholar
• Tibshirani RJ, Taylor J, Lockhart R, et al. Exact post-selection inference for sequential regression procedures. J Am Stat Assoc. 2016;111:600–620.
   Google Scholar
• Frisch R, Waugh VF. Partial time regressions as compared with individual trends. Econometrica. 1933;1:387.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada H. The Frisch–Waugh–Lovell theorem for the lasso and the ridge regression. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2017;46:10897–10902.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer MS, Séguin L, Lydon J, et al. Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2000;14:194–210.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Z, Aryee MJ. Subset quantile normalization using negative control features. J Comput Biol. 2010;17:1385–1395.
   Google Scholar
• Islam SA, Goodman SJ, MacIsaac JL, et al. Integration of DNA methylation patterns and genetic variation in human pediatric tissues help inform EWAS design and interpretation. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2019;12:1.
   Google Scholar
• Paul DS, Teschendorff AE, Dang MAN, et al. Increased DNA methylation variability in type 1 diabetes across three immune effector cell types. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13555.
   Google Scholar
• Garg P, Joshi RS, Watson C, et al. A survey of inter-individual variation in DNA methylation identifies environmentally responsive co-regulated networks of epigenetic variation in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 2018;14:e1007707.
   Google Scholar
• Huak CY. Are you a p-value worshipper? Eur J Dent. 2009;3:161–164.
   Google Scholar
• Jones D, Matloff N. Statistical hypothesis testing in biology: a contradiction in terms. J Econ Entomol. 1986;79:1156–1160.
   Google Scholar
• Sterne JA, Davey Smith G. Sifting the evidence-what’s wrong with significance tests? Bmj. 2001;322:226–231.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05.” Am Stat. 2019;73:1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–133.
   Google Scholar
• Staley JR, Windmeijer, F., Suderman, M. et al. A robust mean and variance test with application to high-dimensional phenotypes. Eur J Epidemiol, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00805-w
   Google Scholar
• Kaur G, Begum R, Thota S, et al. A systematic review of smoking-related epigenetic alterations. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93:2715–2740.
   Google Scholar
• Silva CP, and Kamens HM. Cigarette smoke-induced alterations in blood: A review of research on DNA methylation and gene expression. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021;29(1):116–135. doi:10.1037/pha0000382.
   Google Scholar
• Cecil CAM, Zhang Y, Nolte T. Childhood maltreatment and DNA methylation: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;112:392–409.
   Google Scholar
• Smith AK, Kilaru V, Klengel T, et al. DNA extracted from saliva for methylation studies of psychiatric traits: evidence tissue specificity and relatedness to brain. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2015;168:36–44.
   Google Scholar
• Dudek KA, Kaufmann FN, Lavoie O, et al. Central and peripheral stress-induced epigenetic mechanisms of resilience. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2021;34:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Gatev E, Gladish N, Mostafavi S, et al. DNA methylation array data analysis for co-methylated regions. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:2675–2683.
   Google Scholar
• Peters TJ, Buckley MJ, Statham AL, et al. De novo identification of differentially methylated regions in the human genome. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2015;8:6.
   Google Scholar
• Langfelder P, Horvath S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:559.
   Google Scholar
• Gatev E, Inkster AM, Negri GL, Konwar C, et al. Autosomal sex-associated co-methylated regions predict biological sex from DNA methylation. Nucleic Acid Res. 2021;49(16):9097–9116. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab682.
   Google Scholar
• Liu J, Siegmund KD. An evaluation of processing methods for HumanMethylation450 BeadChip data. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:469.
   Google Scholar
• Spiers H, Hannon E, Schalkwyk L, et al. Biorxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Labs Journals; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Kriaucionis S, and Heintz N. The nuclear DNA base 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is present in Purkinje neurons and the brain. Science. 2009;324(5929):929–930. doi: 10.1126/science.1169786.
   Google Scholar
• Wen L, Tang F. Genomic distribution and possible functions of DNA hydroxymethylation in the brain. Genomics. 2014;104:341–346.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg MVC, Bourc’his D. The diverse roles of DNA methylation in mammalian development and disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2019;20:590–607.
   Google Scholar
• van Rooij J, Mandaviya PR, Claringbould A, et al. Evaluation of commonly used analysis strategies for epigenome- and transcriptome-wide association studies through replication of large-scale population studies. Genome Biol. 2019;20:235.
   Google Scholar
• Joubert BR, Felix J, Yousefi P, et al. DNA methylation in newborns and maternal smoking in pregnancy: genome-wide consortium meta-analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98:680–696.
   Google Scholar