Comparison of Bisulfite Pyrosequencing and Methylation-Specific qPCR for Methylation Assessment
Identificadores
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/16747
PMID: 33287451
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21239242
ISSN: 1661-6596
Visualización o descarga de ficheros
Visualización o descarga de ficheros
Fecha de publicación
2020Título de revista
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES
Tipo de contenido
Journal Article
DeCS
curva ROC | inhibidor p16 de cinasas dependientes de ciclinas | humanos | metilación del ADNMeSH
Humans | ROC Curve | Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16 | DNA MethylationResumen
Different methodological approaches are available to assess DNA methylation biomarkers. In this study, we evaluated two sodium bisulfite conversion-dependent methods, namely pyrosequencing and methylation-specific qPCR (MS-qPCR), with the aim of measuring the closeness of agreement of methylation values between these two methods and its effect when setting a cut-off. Methylation of tumor suppressor gene p16/INK4A was evaluated in 80 lung cancer patients from which cytological lymph node samples were obtained. Cluster analyses were used to establish methylated and unmethylated groups for each method. Agreement and concordance between pyrosequencing and MS-qPCR was evaluated with Pearson's correlation, Bland-Altman, Cohen's kappa index and ROC curve analyses. Based on these analyses, cut-offs were derived for MS-qPCR. An acceptable correlation (Pearson's R2 = 0.738) was found between pyrosequencing (PYRmean) and MS-qPCR (NMP; normalized methylation percentage), providing similar clinical results when categorizing data as binary using cluster analysis. Compared to pyrosequencing, MS-qPCR tended to underestimate methylation for values between 0 and 15%, while for methylation >30% overestimation was observed. The estimated cut-off for MS-qPCR data based on cluster analysis, kappa-index agreement and ROC curve analysis were much lower than that derived from pyrosequencing. In conclusion, our results indicate that independently of the approach used for estimating the cut-off, the methylation percentage obtained through MS-qPCR is lower than that calculated for pyrosequencing. These differences in data and therefore in the cut-off should be examined when using methylation biomarkers in the clinical practice.