Raw Data Library
About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User Guide
Green Science
​
​
Sign inGet started
​
​

About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User GuideGreen Science

Sign inGet started
RDL logo

Verified research datasets. Instant access. Built for collaboration.

Navigation

About

Aims and Scope

Advisory Board Members

More

Who We Are?

Add Raw Data

User Guide

Legal

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Support

Got an issue? Email us directly.

Email: info@rawdatalibrary.netOpen Mail App
​
​

© 2025 Raw Data Library. All rights reserved.
PrivacyTerms
  1. Raw Data Library
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications

Verified authors • Institutional access • DOI aware
50,000+ researchers120,000+ datasets90% satisfaction
Article
en
2016

Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications

0 Datasets

0 Files

en
2016
Vol 34 (7)
Vol. 34
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3605

Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.

Create free accountHow it works
Access Research Data

Join our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.

Get Free Access
Institutional SSO
Secure
This PDF is not available in different languages.
No localized PDFs are currently available.
Manel Esteller
Manel Esteller

Institution not specified

Verified
Christoph Bock
Florian Halbritter
Francisco javier García Carmona
+55 more

Abstract

DNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics.

How to cite this publication

Christoph Bock, Florian Halbritter, Francisco javier García Carmona, Sascha Tierling, Paul Datlinger, Yassen Assenov, María Berdasco, Anke Bergmann, Keith Booher, Florence Busato, Mihaela Campan, Christina Dahl, Christina M. Dahmcke, Dinh Diep, Agustín F. Fernández, Clarissa Gerhäuser, Andrea Haake, Katharina Heilmann, Thomas Holcomb, Dianna Hussmann, Mitsuteru Ito, Ruth Kläver, Martin Kreutz, Marta Kulis, Virginia López, Shalima S. Nair, Dirk S. Paul, Nongluk Plongthongkum, Wenjia Qu, Ana C. Queirós, Frank Reinicke, Guido Sauter, Thorsten Schlomm, Aaron L. Statham, Clare Stirzaker, Ruslan Strogantsev, Rocío G. Urdinguio, Kimberly Walter, Dieter Weichenhan, Daniel J. Weisenberger, Stephan Beck, Susan J. Clark, Manel Esteller, Anne C. Ferguson‐Smith, Mario F. Fraga, Per Guldberg, Lise Lotte Hansen, Peter W. Laird, José I. Martı́n-Subero, Anders O.H. Nygren, Ralf Peist, Christoph Plass, David S. Shames, Reiner Siebert, Xueguang Sun, Jörg Tost, Jörn Walter, Kun Zhang (2016). Quantitative comparison of DNA methylation assays for biomarker development and clinical applications. , 34(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3605.

Related publications

Why join Raw Data Library?

Quality

Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.

Control

Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.

Free for Academia

Students and faculty get instant access after verification.

Publication Details

Type

Article

Year

2016

Authors

58

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3605

Join Research Community

Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.

Get Free Access

Frequently asked questions

Is access really free for academics and students?

Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.

How is my data protected?

Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.

Can I request additional materials?

Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.

Advance your research today

Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.

Get free academic accessLearn more
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaboration