Accounting for differences between Infinium MethylationEPIC v2 and v1 in DNA methylation-based tools
Beryl C ZhuangiD, Marcia Smiti Jude, Chaini KonwariD, Natan Yusupov, Calen Patrick RyaniD, Hannah-Ruth EngelbrechtiD, Joanne WhiteheadiD, Alexandra A. HalberstamiD, Julia L. MacIsaaciD, Kristy DeveriD, Trần Khánh ToàniD, Kim KorinekiD, Zachary ZimmeriD, Nanette R. Lee, Thomas W. McDadeiD, Christopher W. KuzawaiD, Kim M. HuffmaniD, Daniel W. BelskyiD, Elisabeth B. BinderiD, Darina CzamaraiD, Keegan D. KorthaueriD, Michael Steffen KoboriD
Abstract
The recently launched Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC v2.0 (EPICv2), successor of MethylationEPIC v1.0 (EPICv1), retains a majority of probes in EPICv1, while expanding coverage of regulatory elements. The concordance between the two EPIC versions in DNA methylation-based tools has not yet been investigated. To address this, DNA methylation was profiled on both versions using matched blood samples across four cohorts spanning early to late adulthood. High concordance between versions at the array level but variable agreement at the individual probe level was noted. A significant contribution of EPIC version to DNA methylation variation was observed, though it was to a smaller extent compared to sample relatedness and cell type composition. Modest but significant differences in DNA methylation-based estimates between versions were observed, irrespective of the data preprocessing method used. Adjustments for EPIC version or calculation of estimates separately for each version largely mitigated these version-specific discordances. This work emphasizes the importance of accounting for EPIC version differences in research scenarios, especially in meta-analyses and longitudinal studies that require data harmonization across versions. Summary blurbOur work illustrates the importance of accounting for EPIC version in DNA methylation-based tools, specifically in research scenarios when samples profiled across different versions are harmonized.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 17
- FWCI
- 4.81
- Field percentile
- top 3%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Profiling DNA Methylation Differences Between Inbred Mouse Strains on the Illumina Human Infinium MethylationEPIC Microarray
Hemant Gujar, Jane W. Liang, … Khyobeni Mozhui·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Mar 12, 2018
- Cross-Platform Calibration of Epigenetic Age Between the EPICv2 and MSA Arrays
Yui Tomo, Tatsuma Shoji, Ryo Nakaki·bioRxiv·Aug 5, 2026
- Re-annotating the EPICv2 manifest with genes, intragenic features, and regulatory elements
Bethan Mallabar-Rimmer, Jonathan S. Mill, … Amy P. Webster·bioRxiv·Mar 12, 2025
- Updates to data versions and analytic methods influence the reproducibility of results from epigenome-wide association studies
Alexandre A. Lussier, Yiwen Zhu, … Erin C. Dunn·EpigeneticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 14, 2022
- mLiftOver: Harmonizing Data Across Infinium DNA Methylation Platforms
Brian H. Chen, Wanding Zhou·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2024
- Evaluating DNA methylation age on the Illuminas methylationEPIC BeadChip
Radhika Dhingra, Lydia Coulter Kwee, … Cavin K Ward-Caviness·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Apr 19, 2019