Comprehensive comparison of enzymatic and bisulfite DNA methylation analysis in clinically relevant samples.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Barrett Nuttall, Daniel L Karl, Kathleen Burke, Megan Callahan, Kerrin Mendler, Pablo Cingolani, Steven Criscione, Serhiy Naumenko, Elena Bibikova, Veerendra Munugalavadla, John C Byrd, Richard R Furman, Jennifer R Brown, Andrew Mortlock, Brian A Dougherty, J Carl Barrett, Maurizio Scaltriti, James Hadfield
{"title":"Comprehensive comparison of enzymatic and bisulfite DNA methylation analysis in clinically relevant samples.","authors":"Barrett Nuttall, Daniel L Karl, Kathleen Burke, Megan Callahan, Kerrin Mendler, Pablo Cingolani, Steven Criscione, Serhiy Naumenko, Elena Bibikova, Veerendra Munugalavadla, John C Byrd, Richard R Furman, Jennifer R Brown, Andrew Mortlock, Brian A Dougherty, J Carl Barrett, Maurizio Scaltriti, James Hadfield","doi":"10.1186/s13148-025-01959-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bisulfite conversion is considered the gold standard for DNA methylation analysis, but it damages DNA and performs sub-optimally with clinical samples (e.g., formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded and circulating free plasma DNA (cfDNA)). Here we describe a comprehensive comparison of bisulfite and enzymatic methylation sequencing, using commercially available assays in clinically relevant patient samples and cell lines. We also report the first clinical enzymatic whole genome methylation sequencing (WGMS) in a cohort of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We report data from a multi-arm experiment comprising controlled reference material and clinically relevant samples to assess technical differences between enzymatic and chemical methylation conversion technologies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Enzymatic methylation sequencing was highly concordant to bisulfite data but outperformed bisulfite conversion in key sequencing metrics; the enzymatic method demonstrated significantly higher estimated counts of unique reads, reduced DNA fragmentation, and higher library yields than bisulfite conversion. Enzymatic conversion produced inferior methylation array data. Although bisulfite and enzymatic methods were highly concordant, the increased quality of multiple sequencing metrics seen in the enzymatic method enabled the development of robust clinical sample pipelines including targeted sequencing in cfDNA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using the enzymatic methylation sequencing methods described, we report a putative link of interleukin (IL)-15 methylation changes to acalabrutinib treatment response in a CLL clinical trial cohort (ACE-CL-001 trial, NCT02029443).</p>","PeriodicalId":10366,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epigenetics","volume":"17 1","pages":"156"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12495756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epigenetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-025-01959-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bisulfite conversion is considered the gold standard for DNA methylation analysis, but it damages DNA and performs sub-optimally with clinical samples (e.g., formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded and circulating free plasma DNA (cfDNA)). Here we describe a comprehensive comparison of bisulfite and enzymatic methylation sequencing, using commercially available assays in clinically relevant patient samples and cell lines. We also report the first clinical enzymatic whole genome methylation sequencing (WGMS) in a cohort of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We report data from a multi-arm experiment comprising controlled reference material and clinically relevant samples to assess technical differences between enzymatic and chemical methylation conversion technologies.

Results: Enzymatic methylation sequencing was highly concordant to bisulfite data but outperformed bisulfite conversion in key sequencing metrics; the enzymatic method demonstrated significantly higher estimated counts of unique reads, reduced DNA fragmentation, and higher library yields than bisulfite conversion. Enzymatic conversion produced inferior methylation array data. Although bisulfite and enzymatic methods were highly concordant, the increased quality of multiple sequencing metrics seen in the enzymatic method enabled the development of robust clinical sample pipelines including targeted sequencing in cfDNA.

Conclusions: Using the enzymatic methylation sequencing methods described, we report a putative link of interleukin (IL)-15 methylation changes to acalabrutinib treatment response in a CLL clinical trial cohort (ACE-CL-001 trial, NCT02029443).

临床相关样品中酶和亚硫酸氢盐DNA甲基化分析的综合比较。
亚硫酸氢盐转化被认为是DNA甲基化分析的金标准,但它会破坏DNA,并且在临床样品(例如,福尔马林固定石蜡包埋和循环游离血浆DNA (cfDNA))中表现不佳。在这里,我们描述了亚硫酸氢盐和酶甲基化测序的全面比较,使用市售的分析在临床相关的患者样本和细胞系。我们还报道了慢性淋巴细胞白血病(CLL)患者队列中的第一个临床酶全基因组甲基化测序(WGMS)。我们报告了一项由对照对照物质和临床相关样本组成的多臂实验数据,以评估酶和化学甲基化转化技术之间的技术差异。结果:酶甲基化测序与亚硫酸氢盐数据高度一致,但在关键测序指标上优于亚硫酸氢盐转化;与亚硫酸盐转化相比,酶促法显示出更高的独特reads估计计数、更少的DNA片段和更高的文库产量。酶转化产生较差的甲基化阵列数据。虽然亚硫酸氢盐和酶促法高度一致,但酶促法中多个测序指标的质量提高,使得包括cfDNA靶向测序在内的临床样品管道得以发展。结论:在CLL临床试验队列(ACE-CL-001试验,NCT02029443)中,使用上述酶促甲基化测序方法,我们报道了白细胞介素(IL)-15甲基化变化与阿卡拉布替尼治疗反应的推定联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.30%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Clinical Epigenetics, the official journal of the Clinical Epigenetics Society, is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of epigenetic principles and mechanisms in relation to human disease, diagnosis and therapy. Clinical trials and research in disease model organisms are particularly welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信