IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207834.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating DNA methylation age on the Illumina MethylationEPIC Bead Chip

Author

Listed:
  • Radhika Dhingra
  • Lydia Coulter Kwee
  • David Diaz-Sanchez
  • Robert B Devlin
  • Wayne Cascio
  • Elizabeth R Hauser
  • Simon Gregory
  • Svati Shah
  • William E Kraus
  • Kenneth Olden
  • Cavin K Ward-Caviness

Abstract

DNA methylation age (DNAm age) has become a widely utilized epigenetic biomarker for the aging process. The Horvath method for determining DNAm age is perhaps the most widely utilized and validated DNA methylation age assessment measure. Horvath DNAm age is calculated based on methylation measurements at 353 loci, present on Illumina’s 450k and 27k DNA methylation microarrays. With increasing use of the more recently developed Illumina MethylationEPIC (850k) microarray, it is worth revisiting this aging measure to evaluate estimation differences due to array design. Of the requisite 353 loci, 17 are missing from the 850k microarray. Similarly, an alternate, 71 loci DNA methylation age assessment measure created by Hannum et al. is missing 6 requisite loci. Using 17 datasets with 27k, 450k, and/or 850k methylation data, we compared each sample’s epigenetic age estimated from all 353 loci required by the Horvath DNAm age calculator, and using only the 336 loci available on the 850k array. In 450k/27k data, removing loci not on the 850k array resulted in underestimation of Horvath’s DNAm age. Underestimation of Horvath DNAm age increased from ages 0 to ~20, remaining stable thereafter (mean deviation = -3.46 y, SD = 1.13 for individuals ≥20 years). Underestimation of Horvath’s DNAm age by the reduced 450k/27k data was similar to the underestimation observed in the 850k data indicating it is driven by missing probes. In analogous examination of Hannum’s DNAm age, the magnitude and direction of epigenetic age misestimation varied with chronological age. In conclusion, inter-array deviations in DNAm age estimations may be largely driven by missing probes between arrays, despite default probe imputation procedures. Though correlations and associations based on Horvath’s DNAm age may be unaffected, researchers should exercise caution when interpreting results based on absolute differences in DNAm age or when mixing samples assayed on different arrays.

Suggested Citation

  • Radhika Dhingra & Lydia Coulter Kwee & David Diaz-Sanchez & Robert B Devlin & Wayne Cascio & Elizabeth R Hauser & Simon Gregory & Svati Shah & William E Kraus & Kenneth Olden & Cavin K Ward-Caviness, 2019. "Evaluating DNA methylation age on the Illumina MethylationEPIC Bead Chip," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207834
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207834
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207834&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207834?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207834. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.