4.8 Article

A cell-type deconvolution meta-analysis of whole blood EWAS reveals lineage-specific smoking-associated DNA methylation changes

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18618-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSFC (National Science Foundation of China) [31571359, 31771464, 31970632]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project [2017SHZDZX01]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology [2015FY111700]
  4. National Key Research and Development Project [2018YFC0910403]
  5. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB38020400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly reproducible smoking-associated DNA methylation changes in whole blood have been reported by many Epigenome-Wide-Association Studies (EWAS). These epigenetic alterations could have important implications for understanding and predicting the risk of smoking-related diseases. To this end, it is important to establish if these DNA methylation changes happen in all blood cell subtypes or if they are cell-type specific. Here, we apply a cell-type deconvolution algorithm to identify cell-type specific DNA methylation signals in seven large EWAS. We find that most of the highly reproducible smoking-associated hypomethylation signatures are more prominent in the myeloid lineage. A meta-analysis further identifies a myeloid-specific smoking-associated hypermethylation signature enriched for DNase Hypersensitive Sites in acute myeloid leukemia. These results may guide the design of future smoking EWAS and have important implications for our understanding of how smoking affects immune-cell subtypes and how this may influence the risk of smoking related diseases. Smoking-associated DNA methylation changes in whole blood have been reported by many EWAS. Here, the authors use a cell-type deconvolution algorithm to identify cell-type specific DNA methylation signals in seven EWAS, identifying lineage-specific smoking-associated DNA methylation changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据