Skip to Content
IJMSInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

13 January 2026

HPV-Driven Cervical Carcinogenesis: Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Approaches

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Laboratory of Biology, Department of Basic Biological Science, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
2
Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieion Hospital, 11528 Athens, Greece
3
Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieion Hospital, 11528 Athens, Greece
4
Department of Molecular Diagnosis, Reprogenetica, Dios 44, 15235 Vrilissia, Greece

Abstract

Cervical cancer remains a major global public health concern, with persistent infection by high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types recognized as the primary etiological factor. This review explores the multifactorial nature of the disease, focusing on the complex interplay between host genetic susceptibility and epigenetic alterations that drive cervical carcinogenesis. Evidence from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is discussed, highlighting the contribution of specific genetic loci, predominantly within the HLA region, to susceptibility to HPV infection and disease progression. In parallel, the review examines the molecular mechanisms by which the viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 promote genetic instability and epigenetic reprogramming, including histone modifications and dysregulation of non-coding RNAs. Particular emphasis is placed on DNA methylation, affecting both the viral genome and host genes such as FAM19A4, CADM1, PAX1, and MAL, as a promising biomarker for triage and detection of high-grade intraepithelial lesions (CIN2+). Finally, the review evaluates currently available methylation-based assays and self-sampling devices, highlighting their potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and increase participation in cervical cancer screening programs.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer (CC) remains a major public health challenge, representing the fourth most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide. In 2022, its global incidence exceeded half a million cases, ranking ninth in overall female cancer deaths [1]. Despite being largely preventable through vaccination and screening, cervical cancer continues to impose a disproportionate burden in low- and middle-income countries, where approximately 85% of new cases and 94% of related deaths occur annually. The disease accounts for an estimated 662,044 cases and 348,709 deaths [2]. Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types, particularly HPV-16 and HPV-18, is recognized as the primary etiologic factor in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer [3].
More than 90% of HPV infections resolve spontaneously within 6–18 months; however, persistent infection is a necessary prerequisite for progression to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and, ultimately, invasive carcinoma [4]. CIN1 generally reflects transient infection, CIN2 represents lesions with variable malignant potential, and CIN3 constitutes the most clinically significant precursor to invasive disease [5].
Histologically, cervical cancer is predominantly squamous cell carcinoma, accounting for approximately 80–85% of cases, while adenocarcinoma comprises around 5% of invasive cervical cancers globally, with a rising incidence in certain populations. Both histological subtypes arise from precursor lesions, including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma in situ (CIS). Prognosis is largely determined by disease stage, patient comorbidities, and access to timely, evidence-based care. Five-year relative survival rates reach approximately 92% for early-stage disease but decline to 60% with regional spread and to 19% in metastatic cases [6].
Although the vast majority of cervical squamous cell carcinomas are associated with hrHPV infection, a small subset of tumors appears to be HPV-independent. These cases are more frequently non-squamous histological subtypes, such as gastric-type adenocarcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, and mesonephric carcinoma, and exhibit distinct molecular characteristics compared with HPV-associated tumors [7]. Mutations in oncogenes including TP53, PIK3CA, STK11, and KRAS have been implicated in their pathogenesis [8,9]. Importantly, some reported HPV-independent cases may reflect diagnostic misclassification, as endometrial or metastatic adenocarcinomas can mimic primary cervical lesions, underscoring the need for accurate histopathological assessment [7].
From an epidemiological perspective, the global prevalence of hrHPV infection is estimated at approximately 10.4%, reaching up to 36.5% in developing regions [10]. Established risk factors include early onset of sexual activity, multiple sexual partners, immunosuppression (e.g., HIV infection), exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), and a history of high-grade cervical lesions such as CIN2 or CIN3 [11]. Age is also an important determinant, with HPV infection rates peaking among young, sexually active women aged 18–30 years and declining thereafter, whereas invasive disease typically presents later in life due to the prolonged natural history of persistent infection [10].
Screening and vaccination have markedly improved cervical cancer prevention. Contemporary guidelines recommend high-risk HPV testing as the preferred screening strategy. In the United States, the 2024 USPSTF draft proposes cytology alone every three years for women aged 21–29, and primary hrHPV testing every five years for those aged 30–65, with co-testing or cytology alone as acceptable alternatives [12]. The 2025 ASCCP guidelines incorporate self-collected vaginal samples for hrHPV testing, expanding screening accessibility [13,14].
At the global level, the World Health Organization advocates HPV DNA testing as the preferred screening approach, with shorter screening intervals recommended for women living with HIV. Novel triage strategies, including DNA methylation–based assays, are currently under evaluation to improve specificity following a positive HPV test. [15]
Although the causal role of HPV in cervical carcinogenesis is well established, not all infections lead to malignancy. Persistent HPV infection induces cellular and molecular alterations that can disrupt genomic stability and promote neoplastic transformation. These processes involve both genetic mutations and epigenetic reprogramming, which together underpin the transition from infection to cancer [16]. The following sections of this review explore the genetic background of cervical cancer development and the epigenetic mechanisms that drive HPV-mediated oncogenesis.

2. Heredity and Genetic Factors in Cervical Cancer

The contribution of genetic factors to the development of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL) and invasive cervical cancer remains incompletely understood. Nonetheless, evidence of familial clustering suggests that inherited susceptibility may play a role in disease risk. Families with multiple affected individuals are rarely reported, indicating that highly penetrant mutations are uncommon and that most hereditary effects are likely mediated by common variants of low to moderate penetrance that interact with persistent HPV infection. While HPV infection is the decisive etiological factor, advances in genomic technologies have enabled a more refined investigation of host genetic susceptibility. Genetic analyses estimate that inherited factors may account for approximately 27–36% of the variability in cervical cancer risk, largely attributable to common autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with low penetrance [17]. In addition, pan-cancer heritability estimates derived from the UK Biobank and GERA cohorts suggest an overall heritability of approximately 7% for cervical cancer, comparable to that observed for ovarian and colorectal cancers [18].
Studies based on candidate genes have focused primarily on genes related to the cell cycle, DNA repair, and immune response. These include TP53, MDM2, ATM, BRIP1, CDKN1A, CDKN2A, FANCA, XRCC1, XRCC3, as well as genes of immune significance such as CD83, CTLA4, TNFA, interleukins, TGFB1, and IFNG. The development of high-throughput technologies has enabled the detection of new risk variants, paving the way for a more complete understanding of genetic predisposition to cervical cancer [19].

3. GWAS

Over the past decade, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have consistently demonstrated that genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer is dominated by immune-related loci, particularly within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on chromosome 6p21. The most robust and reproducible associations map to the HLA region, underscoring the central role of antigen presentation and immune recognition in HPV persistence and disease progression [19,20].
Across diverse populations, variants within the 6p21.32–6p21.33 region show the strongest effects, with repeated associations involving HLA class I and II genes, including HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRB1, HLA-B, as well as stress-induced ligands such as MICA and MICB. Fine-mapping analyses further indicate that specific amino acid residues within HLA molecules contribute to differential immune responses to HPV infection, reinforcing the functional relevance of these loci in cervical carcinogenesis [19].
Beyond the HLA region, GWAS have identified additional non-MHC susceptibility loci, although with more modest effect sizes and lower consistency across ethnic groups. These loci implicate genes involved in epithelial differentiation, inflammation, apoptosis, and cell-cycle regulation, including PAX8/PAX8-AS1, CLPTM1L, GSDMB, EXOC1, and ADGRV1. Population-specific studies have expanded this landscape, with loci such as EXOC1 and GSDMB reported in East Asian cohorts, while large-scale analyses in European and multi-ethnic populations have confirmed both known immune-related regions and novel signals [18,20,21,22,23,24].
Cross-trait and pan-cancer GWAS further suggest partial overlap between cervical cancer susceptibility and other malignancies, identifying pleiotropic loci such as INS–IGF2, SOX9-proximal regions, GABBR2, SH3GL3/BNC1, and TET2. These findings indicate shared biological pathways related to cellular proliferation, differentiation, and genomic stability, extending cervical cancer risk beyond HPV-specific mechanisms [18,25].
Overall, GWAS findings support a polygenic model of cervical cancer susceptibility in which immune-related loci—particularly within the HLA region—play a dominant role, while non-HLA variants act as modifiers of risk. Rare high-penetrance mutations, such as those affecting PTPN14, likely contribute to disease predisposition in a limited subset of families or populations. Integrating GWAS signals with functional approaches, including eQTL analyses, chromatin profiling, and CRISPR-based validation, will be essential to distinguish causal variants from statistical associations and to clarify how host genetic architecture interacts with persistent HPV infection to drive cervical carcinogenesis.
While GWAS have primarily identified genetic variants that influence host susceptibility to HPV persistence and cervical cancer risk, these variants rarely act in isolation. Many risk loci, particularly within immune-related genes and regulatory regions, are thought to exert their effects by modulating gene expression rather than protein structure. This regulatory influence frequently operates through epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA regulation. In the context of persistent HPV infection, host genetic variation may therefore shape the epigenetic landscape of cervical epithelial cells, predisposing them to virus-driven epigenetic reprogramming and malignant transformation. This genetic–epigenetic interplay provides a mechanistic framework linking inherited susceptibility with the epigenetic alterations that characterize cervical carcinogenesis.

4. Mechanisms of HPV-Driven Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations in Cervical Carcinogenesis

Human papillomavirus (HPV)–driven cervical carcinogenesis arises from a complex interplay of genetic disruption and epigenetic reprogramming initiated by persistent infection with high-risk HPV types, predominantly HPV16 and HPV18. The viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 (Table 1) play a central role in this process by inducing profound alterations in host genomic stability and chromatin architecture [26,27]. Following infection, HPV exerts potent genetic effects on cervical epithelial cells by targeting key regulators of cell proliferation, apoptosis, and DNA repair. Specifically, E6 promotes ubiquitin-mediated degradation of the tumor suppressor p53, thereby inhibiting apoptosis and allowing the survival of cells harboring DNA damage, while E7 inactivates the retinoblastoma protein pRb, releasing E2F transcription factors (Table 1) that drive the expression of genes required for S-phase entry and uncontrolled cell cycle progression [26,27]. The coordinated inactivation of these tumor suppressive pathways promotes genomic instability, increasing the likelihood of replication errors and the accumulation of oncogenic alterations. With persistent infection, HPV DNA frequently integrates into the host genome, often disrupting the E2 gene, a key negative regulator of E6 and E7 expression. Loss of E2 function leads to sustained oncoprotein overexpression and further genomic destabilization, thereby accelerating progression from low-grade lesions to high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and ultimately invasive carcinoma [28,29]. In addition, host genetic variation contributes to interindividual differences in disease progression, as polymorphisms in genes involved in oxidative stress responses, immune surveillance, and DNA repair modulate susceptibility to persistent HPV infection and malignant transformation [30].
Alongside these genetic disruptions, epigenetic alterations play a decisive role in HPV-driven carcinogenesis. This is compounded by chromosomal aberrations such as amplifications, deletions, and translocations that emerge in response to viral integration, further undermining genome integrity and enhancing malignant potential [29].
DNA methylation represents one of the earliest and most clinically informative epigenetic alterations in HPV-driven carcinogenesis and is discussed in detail in the following section. Beyond DNA methylation, HPV oncoproteins extensively remodel histone post-translational modifications (PTMs)—including acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitination—through direct and indirect interactions with chromatin-modifying enzymes [31,32,33,34]. Histone acetylation is particularly affected, as E6 interferes with p53 acetylation by binding to CBP/p300 [35,36], while E7 recruits histone deacetylases through the NuRD complex, leading to deregulation of E2F2 activity and enhanced HIF-1α–driven transcriptional responses under hypoxic conditions [37,38,39,40]. HPV oncoproteins also disrupt histone methylation patterns by altering Polycomb group protein function, resulting in the loss of repressive H3K27me3 marks at developmental loci, such as HOX genes, and their aberrant deposition at cell cycle–related genes. In parallel, dysregulation of activating marks such as H3K4me3 promotes angiogenesis through upregulation of HIF1A and VEGF signaling pathways [41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. These epigenetic changes intersect with abnormal histone phosphorylation signals, including persistent γ-H2AX formation induced by E7-mediated impairment of homologous recombination, which contributes to genomic instability and radioresistance [47,48,49,50,51].
Histone ubiquitination is also significantly affected in HPV-associated malignancies. HPV E6 exploits the E6AP/USP46 complex to promote degradation of key regulators such as p53, TIP60, and Set8, while E7 disrupts pRb function and RNF168-mediated DNA damage repair, alterations that are associated with adverse clinical outcomes [29,52,53,54,55,56,57].
Non-coding RNAs represent an additional critical regulatory layer in HPV-driven oncogenesis. The E6 and E7 oncoproteins modulate oncogenic microRNAs, such as miR-21, and suppress tumor-inhibitory miRNAs, including miR-34a, primarily through p53 degradation [58,59,60,61]. Moreover, long non-coding RNAs such as HOTAIR, NEAT1, and SNHG12—often upregulated through E6/E7 and c-Myc signaling—promote malignant progression by interacting with PRC2 or activating oncogenic WNT and PI3K pathways [62,63,64]. Circular RNAs further contribute to tumor biology; for example, HPV16 circE7 impairs antitumor immunity by reducing H3K27ac levels and weakening CD8⁺ T-cell responses, whereas oncogenic circRNAs such as circ_0067934, circCLK3, and circAGFG1 activate YAP, ERK, and FoxM1 signaling. In contrast, tumor-suppressive circRNAs, including circ-NOLC1 and hsa_circ_0043280, inhibit proliferation and metastasis [65,66,67,68,69].
These epigenetic alterations do not operate in isolation but instead converge to reinforce stable oncogenic transcriptional programs. DNA methylation, mediated by DNMT1 and DNMT3A/B and incompletely reversed due to impaired TET activity, acts synergistically with repressive histone modifications to silence tumor suppressor genes and regulatory microRNAs, establishing a self-reinforcing epigenetic circuitry characteristic of cervical cancer [16,46,70,71,72,73,74]. Collectively, these multilayered genetic and epigenetic alterations—driven and amplified by persistent HPV infection—form a highly coordinated oncogenic program that governs disease initiation, progression, and therapeutic resistance, while simultaneously providing a mechanistic foundation for the development of improved diagnostic biomarkers, prognostic tools, and targeted epigenetic therapies aimed at intercepting HPV-mediated malignant transformation.
Table 1. Key Viral and Host Genes Implicated in HPV-Induced Cervical Carcinogenesis.
Table 1. Key Viral and Host Genes Implicated in HPV-Induced Cervical Carcinogenesis.
Gene/Viral ProteinTypeMain Function/Role in CarcinogenesisReference
E6Viral oncoproteinPromotes degradation of p53, inhibiting apoptosis and allowing survival of DNA-damaged cells.[26,27]
E7Viral oncoproteinBinds and inactivates pRb, releasing E2F transcription factors that drive uncontrolled cell cycle progression.[27]
E2Viral regulatory geneRepresses E6/E7 expression; its disruption during viral integration leads to unchecked oncoprotein activity.[28,29]
TP53 (p53)Host tumor suppressorGoverns DNA repair and apoptosis; degraded by E6, leading to genomic instability.[27]
RB1 (pRb)Host tumor suppressorControls G1/S cell cycle checkpoint; inactivated by E7, releasing E2F and driving DNA synthesis.[27]
FAM19A4Host tumor suppressorFrequently hypermethylated in high-grade lesions and cervical cancer; marker for disease progression.[75,76,77,78]
CADM1Host tumor suppressorHypermethylated in CIN3 and invasive cancers; associated with loss of cell adhesion and tumor progression.[75,76,77,78]
MALHost tumor suppressorSilenced via promoter hypermethylation; contributes to loss of epithelial differentiation.[75,76,77,78]
miR124-2Host microRNAEpigenetically silenced in high-grade lesions; regulates gene networks controlling proliferation and apoptosis.[75,76,77,78]
Genes involved in oxidative stress, DNA repair, and immune responseHost defense genesPolymorphisms modulate susceptibility to persistent HPV infection and lesion progression.[30]
Chromosomal regions with deletions/amplifications/translocationsStructural alterationsReflect genomic instability associated with viral integration events.[29]

5. HPV Methylation and Its Role in Cervical Carcinogenesis

Among the various epigenetic alterations induced by human papillomavirus (HPV), DNA methylation represents one of the most decisive and diagnostically relevant layers of regulation. Methylation of HPV DNA, particularly at CpG sites within the L1 and L2 capsid genes and the long control region (LCR), plays a central role in modulating viral transcription, replication, and integration [79].
The viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 can upregulate host DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), promoting widespread methylation patterns that not only silence host tumor suppressor genes but also alter viral gene expression. For instance, methylation of regulatory sequences can repress the viral E2 gene, which normally inhibits E6 and E7, leading to sustained oncoprotein activity and enhanced cellular proliferation [80]. This interplay between viral methylation and oncoprotein-driven DNMT activity creates an epigenetic environment favorable to viral persistence, host genomic instability, and neoplastic progression.
In parallel, HPV infection induces extensive methylation changes within the host genome that directly contribute to the development of high-grade lesions and cervical cancer. Hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes—including CADM1, MAL, FAM19A4, and miR-124-2—is a hallmark of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive carcinoma, reflecting HPV-driven silencing of pathways involved in apoptosis, cell adhesion, and cell-cycle regulation [75,76]. Additional host genes, such as DPP6, RALYL, and GSX1, also display aberrant hypermethylation in HPV-positive high-grade lesions and invasive cancers, further disrupting regulatory networks governing cell-cycle checkpoints, cellular differentiation, and apoptotic control [80]. These methylation alterations accumulate progressively with lesion severity, functioning both as mechanistic drivers of carcinogenesis and as stable molecular signatures that reflect disease stage.
The degree of HPV DNA methylation correlates strongly with lesion severity, highlighting its value as both a mechanistic biomarker and a diagnostic tool. High methylation levels in the viral L1 and LCR regions are consistently associated with CIN2/3 and invasive cancer, distinguishing them from low-grade lesions or transient infections [23,79]. In particular, methylation of the L1 and L2 regions in high-risk HPV types such as HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, and HPV45 shows a strong positive association with advanced lesions like CIN3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), underscoring its biological relevance in HPV-driven carcinogenesis. These methylation signatures are closely linked to viral integration events, which further compromise host genomic integrity and accelerate malignant transformation [81]. Importantly, host gene methylation patterns are highly stable and readily detectable in cervical samples, making them promising biomarkers for early detection, prognosis, and risk stratification [82].
Several host tumor suppressor genes exhibit consistent and robust methylation changes in high-grade cervical lesions and invasive cervical cancer. PAX1 shows significantly higher promoter methylation levels in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and invasive cervical cancer (ICC) compared with normal cervical tissue (9–32% vs. 2–7%). Meta-analyses indicate that PAX1 methylation detects CIN2+ lesions with a pooled sensitivity of approximately 66% and specificity of 92%, potentially reducing unnecessary colposcopy referrals by up to 60% when applied as a triage tool, particularly in women with non-16/18 high-risk HPV infections. Most validation studies have been conducted in Asian populations, where PAX1 methylation has demonstrated higher specificity than HPV genotyping for identifying CIN3+ lesions, suggesting a potential role in reducing false-positive screening results [83,84,85].
Meta-analyses further show that CADM1 promoter methylation occurs significantly more frequently in cervical cancer tissues than in healthy controls, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 16.62, indicating a strong association with the malignant phenotype. Increased CADM1 methylation is also observed in precancerous lesions, including HSIL (OR 4.82) and LSIL (OR 2.30), supporting the notion that epigenetic silencing of this gene arises early during cervical carcinogenesis [83,85]. For MAL, pooled analyses reveal substantially higher methylation levels in cancerous tissues compared with normal controls (OR 31.06), consistent with a strong association with invasive disease. In contrast, MAL methylation does not differ significantly in LSIL (OR 1.32), while an association is observed in HSIL, albeit with considerable between-study heterogeneity (OR 5.23; I2 = 78%), highlighting variability in its performance across lesion grades [83,85]. POU4F3, a transcription factor located on chromosome 5q31–q33, also demonstrates progressive increases in methylation with lesion severity and widespread hypermethylation in both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The multicenter TRACE study showed that POU4F3 methylation improves detection of CIN2+ lesions in hrHPV-positive women, achieving higher sensitivity than cytology (70.1% vs. 42.7%) while maintaining comparable specificity. Overall, reported sensitivities and specificities of up to 88% and 89%, respectively, indicate strong diagnostic potential, although further validation across diverse populations is warranted [83,84]. Other promising single-gene markers include SOX1 and CCNA1, which often outperform HPV DNA testing in specificity for HSIL+ detection. ZNF582, located on chromosome 19q13.43, exhibits a near-universal methylation in squamous cell carcinoma and substantial hypermethylation in adenocarcinoma (29–66%). High methylation correlates strongly with CIN3+ risk (OR = 15.52). When combined with HPV16/18 testing, ZNF582 methylation achieves excellent sensitivity (85.4%) and specificity (81.1%), effectively lowering colposcopy referrals [84].

6. DNA Methylation-Based Cervical Diagnostics

6.1. DNA Methylation as a Biomarker for CIN and Cervical Cancer

HPV methylation analysis is increasingly recognized as a powerful adjunct in screening, triage, and management of cervical intraepithelial lesions. Methylation assays can reliably differentiate transient infections from high-risk lesions requiring intervention, demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity [23,80]. When combined with host-gene methylation markers and HPV genotyping, these assays enhance the detection of CIN3 and invasive cancer while reducing unnecessary colposcopies. Lesions with high viral or host methylation are more likely to progress, supporting personalized management strategies: low-methylation lesions may be safely monitored, whereas high-methylation lesions warrant timely treatment [86]. Together, viral and host methylation signatures constitute a robust molecular toolkit, improving diagnostic precision and enabling more efficient, individualized cervical cancer prevention strategies. Both single-gene and multi-gene methylation markers demonstrate substantial potential to complement HPV testing and cytology, although further large-scale, multicenter validation is required to establish standardized clinical protocols.
Multi-gene methylation panels generally provide greater diagnostic accuracy and operational efficiency than single markers, particularly for triage and reduction of unnecessary colposcopy referrals. For example, combined methylation of CADM1/MAL correlates with cervical lesion severity and is positively associated with the duration of persistent HPV infection, making this panel useful for monitoring lesion dynamics over time. The FAM19A4/miR124-2 panel is independent of HPV genotype and detects nearly all cervical carcinomas, including rare histological subtypes and hrHPV-negative cases, with a reported positivity rate of 98.3%. When applied to women with ASC-US or LSIL cytology, this assay reduces colposcopy referrals by approximately 60% while maintaining high sensitivity for CIN3+ lesions (70.2%). Moreover, negative test results reliably predict lesion regression, providing a high negative predictive value for disease progression and correlating with a lower long-term risk of cervical cancer compared with negative cytology. The combined PAX1/SOX1 methylation panel has demonstrated strong performance in distinguishing LSIL from HSIL, achieving reported sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95.7%, respectively, in Chinese cohorts. Its positive predictive value exceeds that of HPV testing alone, and integration with HPV genotyping further improves PPV to 81.8%. JAM3-based panels, particularly when combined with PAX1 or EPB41L3, also show enhanced diagnostic performance. For instance, the PAX1/JAM3 panel achieves an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.866 and reduces colposcopy referrals to 17.45%, while EPB41L3/JAM3 demonstrates 72.1% sensitivity and 91.5% specificity for CIN2+ detection. Additional multi-gene panels incorporating markers such as FMN2, EDNRB, ZNF671, TBXT, and MOS have shown the ability to detect HSIL and squamous cell carcinoma even in hrHPV-negative cases. Integrated approaches combining HPV16/18 genotyping with methylation-based triage strategies (e.g., PAX1/ZNF582) achieve balanced performance, with reported sensitivity and specificity of 78.9% and 73.6%, respectively, for CIN3+ detection, while minimizing unnecessary clinical interventions. Finally, the S5 classifier, which integrates methylation markers from the host gene EPB41L3 and late-region (L1/L2) viral genes from HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33, provides a comprehensive molecular signature with higher sensitivity and comparable specificity relative to HPV16/18 partial genotyping for CIN2+ detection, thereby enhancing the accuracy of cervical cancer screening and triage [83,84,87]. Numerous approaches have been developed to identify and characterize DNA methylation patterns, such as Southern blot, methylation-specific PCR, and methylated DNA immunoprecipitation. A widely used preparatory method for many of these approaches is sodium bisulfite treatment, which chemically converts unmethylated cytosines to uracil, while leaving methylated ones unchanged. This conversion enables downstream assays to discriminate between methylated and unmethylated cytosines with high specificity. One of the most widely used commercial kits for bisulfite conversion of DNA is the “EZ DNA Methylation Kit” (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA) [88,89,90,91,92], as well as EpiTect Bisulfite Kit (Qiagen) [93,94,95,96], CpGenome Turbo Bisulfite Modification Kit (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) [97,98,99,100], and Fast Bisulfite Conversion Kit (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) [98,101,102].
For CIN screening triage, the most widely recognized commercially available DNA methylation-based diagnostic assays are: GynTect® (Oncgnostics), based on methylation-specific real-time PCR for six gene promoters (ASTN1, DLX1, ITGA4, RXFP3, SOX17, ZNF671). Similarly, QIAsure Methylation Test (QIAGEN) analyses bisulfite-converted DNA from cervical or vaginal samples and targets methylation of FAM19A4 and hsa-miR-124-2 promoters in HPV-positive women to identify “advanced transforming” CIN lesions (Table 2). Both kits are CE-marked (approved for in vitro diagnostics, IVD) for triage of HPV-positive women [103]. Importantly, methylation-based triage offers advantages: it is objective, can be done on the same sample collected for HPV screening (including self-sample specimens), and may reduce unnecessary colposcopies or overtreatment by better discriminating low-risk from high-risk lesions [104]. Additionally, the “S5 DNA-methylation classifier (S5®)”, a research-use methylation assay developed by Queen Mary University of London, analyzes DNA methylation of the host gene EPB41L3 and the late regions (L1 and/or L2) of high-risk HPV types 16, 18, 31, and 33. The assay has been evaluated in multiple studies as a molecular triage tool for detecting high-grade cervical lesions [105,106,107,108,109,110].
Table 2. Overview of commercially available DNA Methylation Detection-Based kits for CIN.
Beyond gene-specific methylation, global DNA methylation analysis provides a comprehensive view of epigenetic alterations associated with early cervical carcinogenesis. While gene-specific methylation assays target particular genes to detect high-grade lesions, global methylation reflects genome-wide changes, including hypomethylation of repetitive elements and overall genomic instability, which are hallmarks of neoplastic transformation. Assessing global DNA methylation can reveal epigenetic dysregulation affecting multiple pathways, offering insight into early disease processes that may not be captured by single-gene assays. ELISA-based kits for global methylation are particularly useful for rapid screening and longitudinal monitoring, as they can identify women at higher risk of CIN progression by detecting broad changes in methylation patterns [129]. Accordingly, multiple commercial kits are available to facilitate this analysis, such as “Global DNA Methylation ELISA” (Cell Biolabs, San Diego, CA, USA) [130,131,132,133], “Methylated DNA Quantification Kit” (Abcam) [134,135,136,137], “5-mC DNA ELISA Kit” (Zymo research) [138,139,140,141], “MethylFlash Methylated DNA5-mC Quantification Kit” (Epigentik, Farmingdale, NY, USA) [142,143,144,145,146].
Collectively, these methylation-based assays represent an important advancement in molecular diagnostics, enabling more precise identification of women at risk for cervical cancer and improving the overall effectiveness of screening programs.

6.2. Self-Sampling for Cervical Screening

The applicability of DNA methylation analysis is further enhanced by self-sampling strategies, which allow women to collect their own cervical or vaginal specimens. Self-sampling has emerged as an effective strategy to increase participation in cervical cancer screening, particularly among underscreened women. Studies have shown that women are twice as likely to participate when self-sampling is offered compared with standard clinician-based screening [147]. Self-collection can be performed at home or in a clinic, using a variety of devices such as swabs, cervical brushes, tampons, or cervico-vaginal lavages, and the specimens are then sent to a laboratory for analysis. Swabs and brushes are small, easy to manipulate, and processable like clinician-collected samples, while tampons and lavages require more extensive processing but are generally acceptable to women. hrHPV types show similar affinity for vaginal and cervical epithelium, making self-collected samples representative of cervical HPV status [148].

6.3. Clinical Performance

PCR-based hrHPV testing on self-collected specimens demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions (CIN2+/CIN3+), comparable to clinician-collected samples [149,150,151]. While cytology cannot be reliably performed on self-collected samples, methylation marker analysis has shown good clinical performance for CIN3+ as a triage test for HPV-positive samples [152]. Overall, self-sampling reduces barriers related to shame, discomfort, and accessibility, decreases the number of healthcare visits, and effectively identifies women at increased risk, particularly among those who do not participate in routine screening programs [153].

6.4. Implementation and Acceptance

The implementation of self-sampling has been adopted in several countries and is widely accepted by women. Offering hrHPV self-sampling has been shown to increase screening coverage, particularly in rural and underscreened populations, and provides a practical strategy for reaching non-attending women, who often have a higher prevalence of high-risk HPV infections and an increased incidence of cervical cancer [147,153]. Self-sampling therefore represents not only a complementary approach to clinician-based screening but, in certain populations, a potentially preferable option for primary cervical cancer prevention. Table 3 summarizes the current landscape of commercially available self-sampling devices for cervical specimen collection. Among these, brush- and swab-based devices are the most widely used and clinically validated. The Evalyn® Brush (Rovers Medical Devices) has been extensively studied and is implemented in several European screening programs, while the Digene Cervical Sampler (Qiagen) and the Cervex-Brush® (Thermo Fisher Scientific) are commonly used for both clinician- and self-collected samples. Frequently used swab-based devices include HerSwab (Eve Medical) and FLOQSwabs® (Copan), which are user-friendly and compatible with mail-in self-sampling protocols. Lavage-based devices, such as the Delphi Screener (Delphi Bioscience), are primarily employed in research settings, whereas other emerging devices—including Qvintip (Aprovix), Just For Me (Preventive Oncology International), V-Veil UP2™ (V-Veil-Up Pharma), HygeiaTouch Self Sampling (HygeiaTouch), and CERVICHECK™ (Pragmatech Healthcare Solutions)—are currently less widely adopted. Overall, brush- and swab-based devices dominate both clinical and research applications due to their ease of use, reliable cellular yield, and compatibility with molecular testing, while alternative designs remain largely limited to niche or investigational use.
Table 3. Commercially Available Self-Sampling Devices for Cervical Specimen Collection.

7. Conclusions

Cervical cancer represents a paradigmatic model of virus-driven carcinogenesis in which viral, genetic, and epigenetic factors interact to influence susceptibility, disease initiation, and progression. Although persistent infection with high-risk HPV types is the primary causal event, host genetic predisposition—particularly polymorphisms in the HLA region and genes involved in immune regulation, DNA repair, and cellular homeostasis—modulates viral persistence and the likelihood of progression to neoplasia. Contemporary GWAS across diverse populations have identified both shared and population-specific susceptibility loci, reinforcing the multifactorial nature of cervical carcinogenesis and highlighting biological pathways beyond the classical HPV–host interaction.
At the molecular level, the HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins disrupt cellular homeostasis by inactivating key tumor suppressor pathways, promoting genomic instability, and impairing DNA damage responses. In parallel, these oncoproteins drive extensive epigenetic reprogramming through alterations in DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA networks. Together, these changes establish permissive transcriptional programs that facilitate the progression from low-grade lesions to CIN2/3 and invasive disease.
Among epigenetic mechanisms, DNA methylation has emerged as one of the most consistently associated molecular features of transforming HPV infections. Hypermethylation of host genes such as CADM1, MAL, FAM19A4, miR-124-2, PAX1, SOX1, and ZNF582, as well as methylation of viral genomic regions, correlates with lesion severity and reflects underlying biological processes of malignant transformation. These observations have stimulated the development of methylation-based assays for use as adjunctive triage tools following a positive HPV test. However, while multiple assays demonstrate promising diagnostic performance in research and selected clinical settings, variability in sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility across studies currently limits the ability to recommend any single biomarker or assay for routine clinical implementation.
Advances in self-sampling have clearly strengthened molecular screening strategies. Self-collected cervical or vaginal samples are well suited for hrHPV testing and compatible with downstream molecular analyses, offering performance comparable to clinician-collected samples while addressing barriers related to access, acceptability, and screening participation. At present, HPV testing, particularly when combined with self-sampling, remains the only fully validated molecular approach for population-level cervical cancer screening.
Overall, the integration of genetic insights, epigenetic profiling, and modern molecular technologies has substantially advanced our understanding of HPV-driven cervical carcinogenesis. Nevertheless, the translation of genetic and epigenetic biomarkers into clinical practice remains constrained by unresolved challenges. These include heterogeneity in biomarker performance across populations, limited reproducibility between studies, and a lack of formal comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where disease burden is highest. Large prospective studies, standardized assay protocols, and rigorous health-economic evaluations will be essential to determine whether methylation-based or other molecular biomarkers can move beyond the research setting and meaningfully complement established HPV-based screening strategies in global cervical cancer prevention efforts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: E.C., E.K., T.K., M.G.R. and M.G. Data interpretation and manuscript writing: E.L., T.L., K.-L.P. and Z.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the program SUB1.1: Clusters of Research Excellence (CREs), project code OPS TA 5180519.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

Ekaterina Charvalos was employed by Reprogenetica. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Medina-Rivero, A.S.; Ratkovich-Gonzalez, S.; Ruiz-Briseño, M.D.R.; Rosas-González, V.C. The Role of Cervicovaginal Microbiota and Probiotics in Modulating HPV Persistence and Preventing Cervical Cancer. ACS Infect. Dis. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, J.; Jin, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ji, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, X.; Duan, H.; Feng, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Global burden of cervical cancer: Current estimates, temporal trend and future projections based on the GLOBOCAN 2022. J. Natl. Cancer Cent. 2025, 5, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Crosbie, E.J.; Einstein, M.H.; Franceschi, S.; Kitchener, H.C. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 2013, 382, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Castle, P.E.; Rodríguez, A.C.; Burk, R.D.; Herrero, R.; Wacholder, S.; Alfaro, M.; Morales, J.; Guillen, D.; Sherman, M.E.; Solomon, D.; et al. Short term persistence of human papillomavirus and risk of cervical precancer and cancer: Population based cohort study. BMJ 2009, 339, b2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mello, V.; Sundstrom, R.K. Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Tressure Island, FL, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fowler, J.R.; Maani, E.V.; Dunton, C.J.; Gasalberti, D.P.; Jack, B.W. Cervical Cancer. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Tressure Island, FL, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hurjui, R.M.; Hurjui, I.A.; Buțureanu, T.A.; Popovici, D.; Avădănei, E.R.; Balan, R.A. HPV-Independent Cervical Cancer—A New Challenge of Modern Oncology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 10051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yim, E.K.; Park, J.S. The role of HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins in HPV-associated cervical carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. Treat. 2005, 37, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schabath, M.B.; Welsh, E.A.; Fulp, W.J.; Chen, L.; Teer, J.K.; Thompson, Z.J.; Engel, B.E.; Xie, M.; Berglund, A.E.; Creelan, B.C.; et al. Differential association of STK11 and TP53 with KRAS mutation-associated gene expression, proliferation and immune surveillance in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 2016, 35, 3209–3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Okunade, K.S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2020, 40, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zampaoglou, E.; Boureka, E.; Gounari, E.; Liasidi, P.-N.; Kalogiannidis, I.; Tsimtsiou, Z.; Haidich, A.-B.; Tsakiridis, I.; Dagklis, T. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Guidelines. Cancers 2025, 17, 2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wright, K.; Shkabari, B.; Booth, C.; Knopf, K.; Tregear, M.; Gyawali, B. Congruence of cancer screening recommendations between the USPSTF and the top ten US cancer centers: A cross sectional study. eClinicalMedicine 2025, 82, 103169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. New Guidelines Released for Self-Collected HPV Screening. 2024. Available online: https://www.asccp.org/new-guidelines-released-for-self-collected-hpv-screening/ (accessed on 2 December 2025).
  14. American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. New ASCCP Cervical Cancer Management Guidelines Now Include Dual-Stain Triage Testing. 2025. Available online: https://portal.asccp.org/Assets/3b07f8a7-d292-4836-b5d3-72ee9996a96d/638757404555370000/hpv-self-collection-guidelines-press-release-final-pdf (accessed on 2 December 2025).
  15. World Health Organization. New Evidence on Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment for Women Living with HIV. 2025. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/12-12-2023-new-evidence-on-cervical-cancer-screening-and-treatment-for-women-with-hiv (accessed on 10 December 2025).
  16. Sisodiya, S.; Singh, P.; Joshi, T.; Aftab, M.; Firdausi, N.; Khan, A.; Mishra, N.; Jamil Khan, N.; Tanwar, P.; Gupta, V.; et al. Human papillomavirus-mediated cervical cancer: Epigenetic interplay and clinical implications. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1633283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Magnusson, P.K.E.; Lichtenstein, P.; Gyllensten, U.B. Heritability of cervical tumours. Int. J. Cancer 2000, 88, 698–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rashkin, S.R.; Graff, R.E.; Kachuri, L.; Thai, K.K.; Alexeeff, S.E.; Blatchins, M.A.; Cavazos, T.B.; Corley, D.A.; Emami, N.C.; Hoffman, J.D.; et al. Pan-cancer study detects genetic risk variants and shared genetic basis in two large cohorts. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ramachandran, D.; Dörk, T. Genomic Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer. Cancers 2021, 13, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  20. Chen, D.; Juko-Pecirep, I.; Hammer, J.; Ivansson, E.; Enroth, S.; Gustavsson, I.; Feuk, L.; Magnusson, P.K.E.; McKay, J.D.; Wilander, E.; et al. Genome-wide association study of susceptibility loci for cervical cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2013, 105, 624–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shi, Y.; Li, L.; Hu, Z.; Li, S.; Wang, S.S.; Liu, J.J.; Wu, C.; He, L.; Zhou, J.; Li, Z.Z.Z.; et al. A genome-wide association study identifies two new cervical cancer susceptibility loci at 4q12 and 17q12. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 918–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Takeuchi, F.; Kukimoto, I.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Li, N.; Hu, Z.; Takahashi, A.; Inoue, S.; Yokoi, S.; Chen, J.; et al. Genome-wide association study of cervical cancer suggests a role for ARRDC3 gene in human papillomavirus infection. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2019, 28, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bowden, S.J.; Bodinier, B.; Kalliala, I.; Zuber, V.; Vuckovic, D.; Doulgeraki, T.; Whitaker, M.D.; Wielscher, M.; Cartwright, R.; Tsilidis, K.K.; et al. Genetic variation in cervical preinvasive and invasive disease: A genome-wide association study. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 548–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Koel, M.; Võsa, U.; Jõeloo, M.; Läll, K.; Gualdo, N.P.; Laivuori, H.; Lemmelä, S.; Daly, M.; Palta, P.; Mägi, R.; et al. GWAS meta-analyses clarify the genetics of cervical phenotypes and inform risk stratification for cervical cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2023, 32, 2103–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Masuda, T.; Low, S.K.; Akiyama, M.; Hirata, M.; Ueda, Y.; Matsuda, K.; Kimura, T.; Murakami, Y.; Kubo, M.; Kamatani, Y.; et al. GWAS of five gynecologic diseases and cross-trait analysis in Japanese. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2019, 28, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Malla, R.; Kamal, M.A. E6 and E7 Oncoproteins: Potential Targets of Cervical Cancer. Curr. Med. Chem. 2021, 28, 8163–8181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Beaudenon, S.; Huibregtse, J.M. HPV E6, E6AP and cervical cancer. BMC Biochem. 2008, 9, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, L.; Guo, X.; Yu, J. Detection of host cell methylation and HPV integration events in progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer Lett. 2020, 472, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, S.; Hong, X.; Wei, Z.; Xie, M.; Li, W.; Liu, G.; Guo, H.; Yang, J.; Wei, W.; Zhang, S. Ubiquitination of the HPV Oncoprotein E6 Is Critical for E6/E6AP-Mediated p53 Degradation. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Inácio, Â.; Aguiar, L.; Rodrigues, B.; Pires, P.; Ferreira, J.; Matos, A.; Mendonça, I.; Rosa, R.; Bicho, M.; Medeiros, R.; et al. Genetic Modulation of HPV Infection and Cervical Lesions: Role of Oxidative Stress-Related Genes. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gao, J.; Shi, W.; Wang, J.; Guan, C.; Dong, Q.; Sheng, J.; Zou, X.; Xu, Z.; Ge, Y.; Yang, C.; et al. Research progress and applications of epigenetic biomarkers in cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1308309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gao, S.; Xiao, H.; Luo, H.; Tang, X.; Zeng, Y. Histone acetylation: A key regulator of inflammatory responses. Life Sci. 2025, 380, 123936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Esteller, M.; Dawson, M.A.; Kadoch, C.; Rassool, F.V.; Jones, P.A.; Baylin, S.B. The Epigenetic Hallmarks of Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2024, 14, 1783–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhao, T.; Liu, B.; Zhang, M.; Li, S.; Zhao, C.; Cheng, L. Assessment of alterations in histone modification function and guidance for death risk prediction in cervical cancer patients. Front. Genet. 2022, 13, 1013571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhao, Z.; Shilatifard, A. Epigenetic modifications of histones in cancer. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Psilopatis, I.; Garmpis, N.; Garmpi, A.; Vrettou, K.; Sarantis, P.; Koustas, E.; Antoniou, E.A.; Dimitroulis, D.; Kouraklis, G.; Karamouzis, M.V.; et al. The Emerging Role of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors in Cervical Cancer Therapy. Cancers 2023, 15, 2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hebner, C.; Beglin, M.; Laimins, L.A. Human Papillomavirus E6 Proteins Mediate Resistance to Interferon-Induced Growth Arrest through Inhibition of p53 Acetylation. J. Virol. 2007, 81, 12740–12747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Soto, D.; Song, C.; McLaughlin-Drubin, M.E. Epigenetic Alterations in Human Papillomavirus-Associated Cancers. Viruses 2017, 9, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bodily, J.M.; Mehta, K.P.M.; Laimins, L.A. Human Papillomavirus E7 Enhances Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1-Mediated Transcription by Inhibiting Binding of Histone Deacetylases. Cancer Res. 2010, 71, 1187–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. He, H.; Lai, Y.; Hao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X.; Guo, C.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, H.; Wang, N.; et al. Selective p300 inhibitor C646 inhibited HPV E6-E7 genes, altered glucose metabolism and induced apoptosis in cervical cancer cells. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2017, 812, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Greer, E.L.; Shi, Y. Histone methylation: A dynamic mark in health, disease and inheritance. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hyland, P.L.; McDade, S.S.; McCloskey, R.; Dickson, G.J.; Arthur, K.; McCance, D.J.; Patel, D. Evidence for Alteration of EZH2, BMI1, and KDM6A and Epigenetic Reprogramming in Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E6/E7-Expressing Keratinocytes. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 10999–11006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, L.; Tian, S.; Zhao, M.; Yang, T.; Quan, S.; Yang, Q.; Song, L.; Yang, X. SUV39H1-DNMT3A-mediated epigenetic regulation of Tim-3 and galectin-9 in the cervical cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2020, 20, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Shi, Y.; Ni, Y.; Fei, J.; Jin, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, X.; Wu, N. Role and potential therapeutic value of histone methyltransferases in drug resistance mechanisms in lung cancer. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1376916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, L.; Jin, M.; Jeong, K.-Y. Histone H3K4 Methyltransferases as Targets for Drug-Resistant Cancers. Biology 2021, 10, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sinha, A.; Ghosh, A.; Ghosh, A.; Mathai, S.; Bhaumik, J.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Maitra, A.; Biswas, N.K.; Sengupta, S. MAL expression downregulation through suppressive H3K27me3 marks at the promoter in HPV16-related cervical cancers is prognostically relevant and manifested by the interplay of novel MAL antisense long noncoding RNA AC103563. 8, E7 oncoprotein and EZH2. Clin. Epigenet. 2024, 16, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, X.; Zhou, M.; Yu, J.; Yu, S.; Ruan, Z. Histone modifications in cervical cancer: Epigenetic mechanisms, functions and clinical implications. Oncol. Rep. 2025, 54, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cohen, I.; Poręba, E.; Kamieniarz, K.; Schneider, R. Histone Modifiers in Cancer. Genes Cancer 2011, 2, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. He, S.; Wang, A.; Wang, J.; Tang, Z.; Wang, X.; Wang, D.; Chen, J.; Liu, C.; Zhao, M.; Chen, H.; et al. Human papillomavirus E7 protein induces homologous recombination defects and PARPi sensitivity. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 150, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gong, P.; Guo, Z.; Wang, S.; Gao, S.; Cao, Q. Histone Phosphorylation in DNA Damage Response. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oladipo, K.H.; Parish, J. De-regulation of Aurora kinases by oncogenic HPV: Implications in cancer development and treatment. Tumour Virus Res. 2025, 19, 200314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yang, M.; Liu, Y.-D.; Wang, Y.-Y.; Liu, T.-B.; Ge, T.-T.; Lou, G. Ubiquitin-specific protease 22: A novel molecular biomarker in cervical cancer prognosis and therapeutics. Tumour Biol. J. Int. Soc. Oncodev. Biol. Med. 2014, 35, 929–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Đukić, A.; Lulić, L.; Thomas, M.; Skelin, J.; Bennett Saidu, N.E.; Grce, M.; Banks, L.; Tomaić, V. HPV Oncoproteins and the Ubiquitin Proteasome System: A Signature of Malignancy? Pathogens 2020, 9, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mattiroli, F.; Penengo, L. Histone Ubiquitination: An Integrative Signaling Platform in Genome Stability. Trends Genet. 2021, 37, 566–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wootton, L.M.; Morgan, E.L. Ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like proteins in HPV-driven carcinogenesis. Oncogene 2025, 44, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jansari, S.; Blandau, A.; Prokakis, E.; Grimm, D.; Naßl, A.M.; Küffer, S.; Möbius, W.; Dullin, C.; Ramos-Gomes, F.; Schüürhuis, L.; et al. RNF20/RNF40 supports the aggressive behavior in cervical cancer by regulating a peroxisome-based anti-ferroptotic mechanism. Cell Commun. Signal. 2025, 23, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, J.J.; Stermer, D.; Tanny, J.C. Decoding histone ubiquitylation. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 968398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lipps, H.J.; Postberg, J.; Jackson, D.A.; Silahtaroglu, A.; Stenvang, J. MicroRNAs, epigenetics and disease. Essays Biochem. 2010, 48, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yao, Q.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, X. The roles of microRNAs in epigenetic regulation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2019, 51, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singh, G.; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, S.K. miR-34a negatively regulates cell cycle factor Cdt2/DTL in HPV infected cervical cancer cells. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aguilar-Martínez, S.Y.; Campos-Viguri, G.E.; Medina-García, S.E.; García-Flores, R.J.; Deas, J.; Gómez-Cerón, C.; Pedroza-Torres, A.; Bautista-Rodríguez, E.; Fernández-Tilapa, G.; Rodríguez-Dorantes, M.; et al. MiR-21 Regulates Growth and Migration of Cervical Cancer Cells by RECK Signaling Pathway. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 4086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lai, S.; Guan, H.; Liu, J.; Huang, L.; Hu, X.; Chen, Y.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Zhou, J. Long noncoding RNA SNHG12 modulated by human papillomavirus 16 E6/E7 promotes cervical cancer progression via ERK/Slug pathway. J. Cell. Physiol. 2020, 235, 7911–7922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nazari, M.; Babakhanzadeh, E.; Mollazadeh, A.; Ahmadzade, M.; Soleimani, E.M.; Hajimaqsoudi, E. HOTAIR in cancer: Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic perspectives. Cancer Cell Int. 2024, 24, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Su, M.; Liang, Z.; Shan, S.; Gao, Y.; He, L.; Liu, X.; Wang, A.; Wang, H.; Cai, H. Long non-coding RNA NEAT1 promotes aerobic glycolysis and progression of cervical cancer through WNT/β-catenin/PDK1 axis. Cancer Med. 2024, 13, e7221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ma, Y.; Zheng, L.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, Y. A Comprehensive Overview of circRNAs: Emerging Biomarkers and Potential Therapeutics in Gynecological Cancers. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 709512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ge, J.; Meng, Y.; Guo, J.; Chen, P.; Wang, J.; Shi, L.; Wang, D.; Qu, H.; Wu, P.; Fan, C.; et al. Human papillomavirus-encoded circular RNA circE7 promotes immune evasion in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wu, M.; Han, Y.; Gong, X.; Wan, K.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, L.; Tang, G.; Fang, H.; Chen, B.; et al. Novel Insight of CircRNAs in Cervical Cancer: Potential Biomarkers and Therapeutic Target. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 759928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gabrielly, A.; Silva Barbosa, S.; Souza, M.; Lages, J.S.; Rita Gabriela, A.; Teixeira, E.B.; Silva Suely, S.; Augusto, A.; Alves, M.S.; Machado, A.; et al. What is the role of circRNAs in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer? A systematic literature review. Front. Genet. 2024, 15, 1287869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yali, D.; Kang, C.; Zheng, L.; Wang, J.; Liu, Z.; Bi, F.; Qiu, L.; Zhao, N. circ-NOLC1 inhibits the development of cervical cancer by regulating miR-330-5p-PALM signaling axis. Hereditas 2025, 162, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moore, L.D.; Le, T.; Fan, G. DNA Methylation and Its Basic Function. Neuropsychopharmacology 2012, 38, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jin, B.; Li, Y.; Robertson, K.D. DNA Methylation: Superior or Subordinate in the Epigenetic Hierarchy? Genes Cancer 2011, 2, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Beyer, S.; Zhu, J.; Mayr, D.; Kuhn, C.; Schulze, S.; Hofmann, S.; Dannecker, C.; Jeschke, U.; Kost, B. Histone H3 Acetyl K9 and Histone H3 Tri Methyl K4 as Prognostic Markers for Patients with Cervical Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, J.; Yang, C.; Wu, C.; Cui, W.; Wang, L. DNA Methyltransferases in Cancer: Biology, Paradox, Aberrations, and Targeted Therapy. Cancers 2020, 12, 2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Davletgildeeva, A.T.; Kuznetsov, N.A. The Role of DNMT Methyltransferases and TET Dioxygenases in the Maintenance of the DNA Methylation Level. Biomolecules 2024, 14, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Meršaková, S.; Kovářová, J.; Fiala, T.; Holubeková, V.; Krivulčík, T.; Sabol, M. DNA methylation of CADM1 and MAL genes as a triage test in cervical cancer screening. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 15, 3173–3180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vink, F.J.; Meijer, C.J.; Clifford, G.M.; Poljak, M.; Oštrbenk, A.; Petry, K.U.; Rothe, B.; Bonde, J.; Pedersen, H.; de Sanjosé, S.; et al. FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation in invasive cervical cancer: A retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 147, 1215–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Salta, S.; Cardoso, H.; Castelo-Branco, P. DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Epigenet. 2023, 15, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Molano, M.; Machalek, D.A.; Tan, G.; Garland, S.; Balgovind, P.; Haqshenas, G.; Munnull, G.; Phillips, S.; Badman, S.G.; Bolnga, J.; et al. Performance of CADM1, MAL and miR124-2 methylation as triage markers for early detection of cervical cancer in self-collected and clinician-collected samples: An exploratory observational study in Papua New Guinea. BMJ Open 2024, 14, e081282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Clarke, M.A.; Wentzensen, N.; Mirabello, L.; Ghosh, A.; Wacholder, S.; Harari, A.; Lorincz, A.; Schiffman, M.; Burk, R.D. Human papillomavirus DNA methylation as a potential biomarker for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2012, 21, 2125–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schreiberhuber, L.; Barrett, J.E.; Wang, J.; Redl, E.; Herzog, C.; Vavourakis, C.D.; Sundström, K.; Dillner, J.; Widschwendter, M. Cervical cancer screening using DNA methylation triage in a real-world population. Nat. Med. 2024, 30, 2251–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Park, K.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, J.; Jin, H.; Lee, K.E. Development of DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Cervical Cancer Associated with Human Papillomavirus Infection. J. Exp. Biomed. Sci. Biomed. Sci. Lett. 2025, 31, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xu, M.; Wang, W.; Lu, S.; Xiong, M.; Zhao, T.; Yu, Y.; Song, C.; Yang, J.; Zhang, N.; Cao, L.; et al. The advances in acetylation modification in senescence and aging-related diseases. Front. Physiol. 2025, 16, 1553646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, Y. The Association of CADM1, MAL and PAX1 Methylation with Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wang, Y.; Ma, X.; Zhang, T.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, G.; Wu, H. Research progress of DNA methylation in the screening of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions. Interdiscip. Med. 2025, 3, e20240043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Anisimova, M.; Jain, M.; Shcherbakova, L.; Aminova, L.; Bugerenko, A.; Novitskaya, N.; Samokhodskaya, L.; Kokarev, V.; Inokenteva, V.; Panina, O. Detection of CADM1, MAL, and PAX1 Methylation by ddPCR for Triage of HPV-Positive Cervical Lesions. Biomedicines 2025, 13, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dovnik, A.; Mario, P. The Role of Methylation of Host and/or Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNAin Management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 (CIN2) Lesions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 6479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Verlaat, W.; Van Leeuwen, R.W.; Novianti, P.W.; Schuuring, E.; Meijer, C.J.L.M.; Van Der Zee, A.G.J.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Heideman, D.A.M.; Steenbergen, R.D.M.; Wisman, G.B.A. Host-cell DNA methylation patterns during high-risk HPV-induced carcinogenesis reveal a heterogeneous nature of cervical pre-cancer. Epigenetics 2018, 13, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Boers, A.; Bosgraaf, R.P.; van Leeuwen, R.W.; Schuuring, E.; Heideman, D.a.M.; Massuger, L.F.a.G.; Verhoef, V.M.J.; Bulten, J.; Melchers, W.J.G.; van der Zee, A.G.J.; et al. DNA methylation analysis in self-sampled brush material as a triage test in hrHPV-positive women. Br. J. Cancer 2014, 111, 1095–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. De Strooper, L.M.; Verhoef, V.M.; Berkhof, J.; Hesselink, A.T.; De Bruin, H.M.; Van Kemenade, F.J.; Bosgraaf, R.P.; Bekkers, R.L.; Massuger, L.F.; Melchers, W.J.; et al. Validation of the FAM19A4/mir124-2 DNA methylation test for both lavage- and brush-based self-samples to detect cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 141, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Luttmer, R.; De Strooper, L.M.A.; Dijkstra, M.G.; Berkhof, J.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Steenbergen, R.D.M.; van Kemenade, F.J.; Rozendaal, L.; Helmerhorst, T.J.M.; Verheijen, R.H.M.; et al. FAM19A4 methylation analysis in self-samples compared with cervical scrapes for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women. Br. J. Cancer 2016, 115, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Overmeer, R.M.; Henken, F.E.; Bierkens, M.; Wilting, S.M.; Timmerman, I.; Meijer, C.J.; Snijders, P.J.; Steenbergen, R.D. Repression of MAL tumour suppressor activity by promoter methylation during cervical carcinogenesis. J. Pathol. 2009, 219, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Overmeer, R.; Henken, F.; Snijders, P.; Claassen-Kramer, D.; Berkhof, J.; Helmerhorst, T.; Heideman, D.; Wilting, S.; Murakami, Y.; Ito, A.; et al. Association between dense CADM1 promoter methylation and reduced protein expression in high-grade CIN and cervical SCC. J. Pathol. 2008, 215, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Holmes, E.E.; Jung, M.; Meller, S.; Leisse, A.; Sailer, V.; Zech, J.; Mengdehl, M.; Garbe, L.-A.; Uhl, B.; Kristiansen, G.; et al. Performance Evaluation of Kits for Bisulfite-Conversion of DNA from Tissues, Cell Lines, FFPE Tissues, Aspirates, Lavages, Effusions, Plasma, Serum, and Urine. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kresse, S.H.; Brandt-Winge, S.; Pharo, H.; Flatin, B.T.B.; Jeanmougin, M.; Vedeld, H.M.; Lind, G.E. Evaluation of commercial kits for isolation and bisulfite conversion of circulating cell-free tumor DNA from blood. Clin. Epigenet. 2023, 15, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Li, Y.; Tollefsbol, T.O. DNA methylation detection: Bisulfite genomic sequencing analysis. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 791, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Reuter, C.; Preece, M.; Banwait, R.; Boer, S.; Cuzick, J.; Lorincz, A.; Nedjai, B. Consistency of the S5 DNA methylation classifier in formalin-fixed biopsies versus corresponding exfoliated cells for the detection of pre-cancerous cervical lesions. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 2668–2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, Y.; Xu, H.; Zhu, M.; Liu, K.; Lin, B.; Luo, R.; Chen, C.; Li, M. Stress inhibits tryptophan hydroxylase expression in a rat model of depression. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 63247–63257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kint, S.; Spiegelaere, W.D.; Kesel, J.D.; Vandekerckhove, L.; Criekinge, W.V. Evaluation of bisulfite kits for DNA methylation profiling in terms of DNA fragmentation and DNA recovery using digital PCR. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Miyagi-Shiohira, C.; Nakashima, Y.; Kobayashi, N.; Saitoh, I.; Watanabe, M.; Noguchi, H. Characterization of induced tissue-specific stem cells from pancreas by a synthetic self-replicative RNA. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yang, Z.; Jiang, B.; Wang, Y.; Ni, H.; Zhang, J.; Xia, J.; Shi, M.; Hung, L.-M.; Ruan, J.; Mak, T.W.; et al. 2-HG Inhibits Necroptosis by Stimulating DNMT1-Dependent Hypermethylation of the RIP3 Promoter. Cell Rep. 2017, 19, 1846–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ledererova, A.; Dostalova, L.; Kozlova, V.; Peschelova, H.; Ladungova, A.; Culen, M.; Loja, T.; Verner, J.; Pospisilova, S.; Smida, M.; et al. Hypermethylation of CD19 promoter enables antigen-negative escape to CART-19 in vivo and in vitro. J. Immunother. Cancer 2021, 9, e002352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Yan, B.; Wang, D.; Vaisvila, R.; Sun, Z.; Ettwiller, L. Methyl-SNP-seq reveals dual readouts of methylome and variome at molecule resolution while enabling target enrichment. Genome Res. 2022, 32, 2079–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Taryma-Leśniak, O.; Sokolowska, K.E.; Wojdacz, T.K. Current status of development of methylation biomarkers for in vitro diagnostic IVD applications. Clin. Epigenet. 2020, 12, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Herzog, C.; Sundström, K.; Jones, A.; Evans, I.; Barrett, J.E.; Wang, J.; Redl, E.; Schreiberhuber, L.; Costas, L.; Paytubi, S.; et al. DNA methylation-based detection and prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and invasive cervical cancer with the WIDTM-qCIN test. Clin. Epigenet. 2022, 14, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Adcock, R.; Nedjai, B.; Lorincz, A.T.; Scibior-Bentkowska, D.; Banwait, R.; Torrez-Martinez, N.; Robertson, M.; Cuzick, J.; Wheeler, C.M. DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high-risk HPV positive women. Int. J. Cancer 2022, 151, 993–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cook, D.A.; Krajden, M.; Brentnall, A.R.; Gondara, L.; Chan, T.; Law, J.H.; Smith, L.W.; van Niekerk, D.J.; Ogilvie, G.S.; Coldman, A.J.; et al. Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 144, 2587–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gu, Y.-Y.; Zhou, G.-N.; Wang, Q.; Ding, J.-X.; Hua, K.-Q. Evaluation of a methylation classifier for predicting pre-cancer lesion among women with abnormal results between HPV16/18 and cytology. Clin. Epigenet. 2020, 12, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hernández-López, R.; Lorincz, A.T.; Torres-Ibarra, L.; Reuter, C.; Scibior-Bentkowska, D.; Warman, R.; Nedjai, B.; Mendiola-Pastrana, I.; León-Maldonado, L.; Rivera-Paredez, B.; et al. Methylation estimates the risk of precancer in HPV-infected women with discrepant results between cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Clin. Epigenet. 2019, 11, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lorincz, A.T.; Brentnall, A.R.; Scibior-Bentkowska, D.; Reuter, C.; Banwait, R.; Cadman, L.; Austin, J.; Cuzick, J.; Vasiljević, N. Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 138, 2745–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Louvanto, K.; Aro, K.; Nedjai, B.; Bützow, R.; Jakobsson, M.; Kalliala, I.; Dillner, J.; Nieminen, P.; Lorincz, A. Methylation in Predicting Progression of Untreated High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 2582–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bonde, J.; Floore, A.; Ejegod, D.; Vink, F.J.; Hesselink, A.; van de Ven, P.M.; Valenčak, A.O.; Pedersen, H.; Doorn, S.; Quint, W.G.; et al. Methylation markers FAM19A4 and miR124-2 as triage strategy for primary human papillomavirus screen positive women: A large European multicenter study. Int. J. Cancer 2021, 148, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. de Waard, J.; Bhattacharya, A.; de Boer, M.T.; van Hemel, B.M.; Esajas, M.D.; Vermeulen, K.M.; de Bock, G.H.; Schuuring, E.; Wisman, G.B.A. Methylation Analysis to Detect CIN3+ in High-Risk Human Papillomavirus-Positive Self-Samples From the Population-Based Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Mod. Pathol. 2024, 37, 100528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dippmann, C.; Schmitz, M.; Wunsch, K.; Schütze, S.; Beer, K.; Greinke, C.; Ikenberg, H.; Hoyer, H.; Runnebaum, I.B.; Hansel, A.; et al. Triage of hrHPV-positive women: Comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays. Clin. Epigenet. 2020, 12, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kremer, W.W.; Dick, S.; Heideman, D.A.M.; Steenbergen, R.D.M.; Bleeker, M.C.G.; Verhoeve, H.R.; van Baal, W.M.; van Trommel, N.; Kenter, G.G.; Meijer, C.J.L.M.; et al. Clinical Regression of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Is Associated With Absence of FAM19A4/miR124-2 DNA Methylation (CONCERVE Study). J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 3037–3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Hu, S.; Chen, S.; Zhao, S.; Dong, L.; Carvalho, A.L.; Muwonge, R.; Zhao, F.; Basu, P. Triage performance and predictive value of the human gene methylation panel among women positive on self-collected HPV test: Results from a prospective cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 2022, 151, 878–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dübbel, L.; Göken-Riebisch, A.; Knoll, K.; Hippe, J.; Marticke, C.; Schild-Suhren, M.; Malik, E. The DNA Methylation Marker ZNF671 Has Prognostic Value for Progressing Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Cancers 2025, 17, 3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Schmitz, M.; Wunsch, K.; Hoyer, H.; Scheungraber, C.; Runnebaum, I.B.; Hansel, A.; Dürst, M. Performance of a methylation specific real-time PCR assay as a triage test for HPV-positive women. Clin. Epigenet. 2017, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Vieira-Baptista, P.; Costa, M.; Hippe, J.; Sousa, C.; Schmitz, M.; Silva, A.-R.; Hansel, A.; Preti, M. Evaluation of Host Gene Methylation as a Triage Test for HPV-Positive Women—A Cohort Study. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2024, 28, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Buttà, M.; Serra, N.; Sucato, A.; Cabibi, D.; Campisi, G.; Panzarella, V.; Alfedi, G.; Pistoia, D.; Capra, G. The Role of Methylation as an Epigenetic Marker in HPV-Related Oral Lesions. J. Med. Virol. 2025, 97, e70459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Donà, M.G.; Giuliani, E.; Laquintana, V.; Covello, R.; Pellini, R.; Moretto, S.; Latini, A.; Benevolo, M.; Rollo, F. FAM19A4 and miR124-2 methylation status in human papillomavirus-driven and human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. Infect. Agents Cancer 2025, 20, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Muresu, N.; Puci, M.V.; Sotgiu, G.; Sechi, I.; Usai, M.; Cossu, A.; Martinelli, M.; Cocuzza, C.E.; Piana, A. Diagnostic Accuracy of DNA-Methylation in Detection of Cervical Dysplasia: Findings from a Population-Based Screening Program. Cancers 2024, 16, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pauciullo, S.; Colombo, D.; Zulian, V.; Sciamanna, R.; Coppola, A.; Scarabello, A.; Del Nonno, F.; Garbuglia, A.R. Association of Methylated DNA Markers with High-Risk HPV Infections in Oral Site and Precancer Anal Lesions in HIV-Positive MSM. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Palmieri, L.; Zamuner, F.T.; de Lima, D.G.; Gosala, K.; Winkler, E.; Prashar, Y.; Purcell-Wiltz, A.; García-Negrón, A.; Ramos-Lopez, A.; Romaguera, J.; et al. CervicalMethDx: A Precision DNA Methylation Test to Identify Risk of High-Grade Intraepithelial Lesions in Cervical Cancer Screening Algorithms. Cancer Prev. Res. 2025, 18, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Chan, K.K.L.; Liu, S.S.; Lau, L.S.K.; Ngu, S.F.; Chu, M.M.Y.; Tse, K.Y.; Cheung, A.N.Y.; Ngan, H.Y.S. PAX1/SOX1 DNA Methylation Versus Cytology and HPV16/18 Genotyping for the Triage of High-Risk HPV-Positive Women in Cervical Cancer Screening: Retrospective Analysis of Archival Samples. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2025, 132, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zhang, R.; Li, Y.; Han, Y.; Guo, C.; Guo, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, D.; Hu, X.; Li, J.; Zhao, X.; et al. PAX1/SOX1 gene methylation as a detection and triage method for triage of high risk HPV-Positive women in cervical cancer screening. Gynecol. Oncol. Rep. 2025, 60, 101794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kong, L.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, X.; You, Y.; Wu, H.; Wu, M.; Liu, P.; Li, L. DNA methylation for cervical cancer screening: A training set in China. Clin. Epigenet. 2020, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kong, L.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, X.; You, Y.; Wu, H.; Wu, M.; Liu, P.; Li, L. Cytological DNA methylation for cervical cancer screening: A validation set. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1181982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Fei, J.; Zhai, L.; Wang, J.; Zhu, X.; Liu, P.; Wang, L.; Ma, D.; Li, L.; Zhou, J. Evaluating PAX1/JAM3 methylation for triage in HPV 16/18-infected women. Clin. Epigenet. 2024, 16, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Liang, H.; Liu, Y.; Yin, S.; Jiang, M.; Dou, Q.; Wang, H.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Liu, P.; Wang, J.; et al. Assessment of PAX1 and JAM3 methylation triage efficacy across HPV genotypes and age groups in high-risk HPV-positive women in China. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1481626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kurdyukov, S.; Bullock, M. DNA Methylation Analysis: Choosing the Right Method. Biology 2016, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Jarmasz, J.S.; Stirton, H.; Davie, J.R.; Del Bigio, M.R. DNA methylation and histone post-translational modification stability in post-mortem brain tissue. Clin. Epigenet. 2019, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Mungala Lengo, A.; Guiraut, C.; Mohamed, I.; Lavoie, J.-C. Relationship between redox potential of glutathione and DNA methylation level in liver of newborn guinea pigs. Epigenetics 2020, 15, 1348–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Pennarossa, G.; Paffoni, A.; Ragni, G.; Gandolfi, F.; Brevini, T.A.L. Rho Signaling-Directed YAP/TAZ Regulation Encourages 3D Spheroid Colony Formation and Boosts Plasticity of Parthenogenetic Stem Cells. In Cell Biology and Translational Medicine, Volume 7: Stem Cells and Therapy: Emerging Approaches; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1237, pp. 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ismail, A.; Saliba, Y.; Fares, N. Early Development of Cardiac Fibrosis in Young Old-Father Offspring. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2022, 2022, 8770136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Meneses-San Juan, D.; Lamas, M.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, G.B. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Depressive-like Behaviors, Modifies Dendritic Plasticity, and Generates Global Epigenetic Changes in the Frontal Cortex and Hippocampus in a Rodent Model of Chronic Stress. Cells 2023, 12, 2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Qaria, M.A.; Xu, C.; Hu, R.; Alsubki, R.A.; Ali, M.Y.; Sivasamy, S.; Attia, K.A.; Zhu, D. Ectoine Globally Hypomethylates DNA in Skin Cells and Suppresses Cancer Proliferation. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Schmidt, S.; Luecken, M.D.; Trümbach, D.; Hembach, S.; Niedermeier, K.M.; Wenck, N.; Pflügler, K.; Stautner, C.; Böttcher, A.; Lickert, H.; et al. Primary cilia and SHH signaling impairments in human and mouse models of Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kumar, B.K.P.; Beaubiat, S.; Yadav, C.B.; Eshed, R.; Arazi, T.; Sherman, A.; Bouché, N. Genome wide inherited modifications of the tomato epigenome by trans-activated bacterial CG methyltransferase. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2024, 81, 222, Erratum in Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2024, 81, 389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-024-05387-w. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rahimi Kahmini, A.; Valera, I.C.; Crawford, R.Q.; Samarah, L.; Reis, G.; Elsheikh, S.; Kanashiro-Takeuchi, R.M.; Mohammadipoor, N.; Olateju, B.S.; Matthews, A.R.; et al. Aging reveals a sex-dependent susceptibility of sarcospan-deficient mice to cardiometabolic disease. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2024, 327, H1067–H1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Steadman, C.R.; Small, E.M.; Banerjee, S.; Gonzalez-Esquer, C.R.; Pacheco, S.; Twary, S.N. Best practices for methylome characterization in novel species: A case study in the microalgae Microchloropsis. Commun. Biol. 2025, 8, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Urtubia, A.; Piñeiro-Hermida, S.; Alfaro-Arnedo, E.; Beni-Ledesma, J.; Canalejo, M.; de Toro, M.; Pichel, J.G.; López, I.P. IGF1R deficiency mitigates acute lung injury by promoting anti-inflammatory transcriptional profiles. Respir. Res. 2025, 26, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Cakir, M.C.; Ozden, S. The role of global DNA methylation in citrinin induced toxicity: In vitro and in silico approach. Toxicol. Rep. 2025, 14, 102046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Qiu, H.; Xie, W.; Chen, T.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhuang, J.; Wen, S. Maternal Electronic Cigarette Exposure Induces Dysregulation of Autophagy via Oxidative Stress/DNA Methylation in Pulmonary Hypertension Offspring. Curr. Med. Sci. 2025, 45, 854–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Mohan, N.; Banerjee, M. Integrated Pharmacoepigenomic Analysis Uncovers the Impact of Antiseizure Medications on Developmental Pathways and the Protective Effect of Folic Acid. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 7981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Saha, S.; Debacq, C.; Audouard, C.; Jungas, T.; Dupré, P.; Mohamad-Ali, F.; Chapat, C.; Michaud, H.-A.; Cam, L.L.; Lacroix, M.; et al. Acute dietary methionine restriction triggers cell cycle arrest and reversible growth defects in the neocortex. iScience 2025, 28, 112705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Ulhe, A.; Raina, P.; Chaudhary, A.; Kaul-Ghanekar, R. Alpha-linolenic acid-mediated epigenetic reprogramming of cervical cancer cell lines. Epigenetics 2025, 20, 2451551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Yeh, P.T.; Kennedy, C.E.; Vuyst, H.; de Narasimhan, M. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob. Health 2019, 4, e001351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Aimagambetova, G.; Atageldiyeva, K.; Marat, A.; Suleimenova, A.; Issa, T.; Raman, S.; Huang, T.; Ashimkhanova, A.; Aron, S.; Dongo, A.; et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self-sampling devices for human Papillomavirus detection: A systematic review. Prev. Med. Rep. 2024, 38, 102590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Inturrisi, F.; Aitken, C.A.; Melchers, W.J.G.; van den Brule, A.J.C.; Molijn, A.; Hinrichs, J.W.J.; Niesters, H.G.M.; Siebers, A.G.; Schuurman, R.; Heideman, D.A.M.; et al. Clinical performance of high-risk HPV testing on self-samples versus clinician samples in routine primary HPV screening in the Netherlands: An observational study. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 11, 100235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Polman, N.J.; de Haan, Y.; Veldhuijzen, N.J.; Heideman, D.A.M.; de Vet, H.C.W.; Meijer, C.J.L.M.; Massuger, L.F.A.G.; van Kemenade, F.J.; Berkhof, J. Experience with HPV self-sampling and clinician-based sampling in women attending routine cervical screening in the Netherlands. Prev. Med. 2019, 125, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Virtanen, A.; Nieminen, P.; Luostarinen, T.; Anttila, A. Self-sample HPV Tests As an Intervention for Nonattendees of Cervical Cancer Screening in Finland: A Randomized Trial. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2011, 20, 1960–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Dick, S.; Heideman, D.A.M.; Berkhof, J.; Steenbergen, R.D.M.; Bleeker, M.C.G. Clinical indications for host-cell DNA methylation markers in cervical screening and management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A review. Tumour Virus Res. 2025, 19, 200308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Sanner, K.; Wikström, I.; Strand, A.; Lindell, M.; Wilander, E. Self-sampling of the vaginal fluid at home combined with high-risk HPV testing. Br. J. Cancer 2009, 101, 871–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Aiko, K.-Y.; Yoko, M.; Saito, O.M.; Ryoko, A.; Yasuyo, M.; Mikiko, A.-S.; Takeharu, Y.; Fumiki, H.; Etsuko, M. Accuracy of self-collected human papillomavirus samples from Japanese women with abnormal cervical cytology. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2017, 43, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Bosgraaf, R.P.; Verhoef, V.M.J.; Massuger, L.F.A.G.; Siebers, A.G.; Bulten, J.; De Kuyper-de Ridder, G.M.; Meijer, C.J.M.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Heideman, D.A.M.; IntHout, J.; et al. Comparative performance of novel self-sampling methods in detecting high-risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Connor, L.; Elasifer, H.; Sargent, A.; Bhatia, R.; Graham, C.; Cuschieri, K. Influence of Resuspension Volume on Dry Sampling Devices Taken for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Implications for Self-Sampling. BioTechniques 2023, 74, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. de Waard, J.; Bhattacharya, A.; de Boer, M.T.; van Hemel, B.M.; Esajas, M.D.; Vermeulen, K.M.; de Bock, G.H.; Schuuring, E.; Wisman, G.B.A. Identification of a methylation panel as an alternative triage to detect CIN3+ in hrHPV-positive self-samples from the population-based cervical cancer screening programme. Clin. Epigenet. 2023, 15, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ejegod, D.M.; Pedersen, H.; Alzua, G.P.; Pedersen, C.; Bonde, J. Time and temperature dependent analytical stability of dry-collected Evalyn HPV self-sampling brush for cervical cancer screening. Papillomavirus Res. 2018, 5, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Ertik, F.C.; Kampers, J.; Hülse, F.; Stolte, C.; Böhmer, G.; Hillemanns, P.; Jentschke, M. CoCoss-Trial: Concurrent Comparison of Self-Sampling Devices for HPV-Detection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Hanley, S.J.; Fujita, H.; Yokoyama, S.; Kunisawa, S.; Tamakoshi, A.; Dong, P.; Kobayashi, N.; Watari, H.; Kudo, M.; Sakuragi, N. HPV self-sampling in Japanese women: A feasibility study in a population with limited experience of tampon use. J. Med. Screen. 2016, 23, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Karjalainen, L.; Anttila, A.; Nieminen, P.; Luostarinen, T.; Virtanen, A. Self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: Comparison of a brush-based and a lavage-based cervicovaginal self-sampling device. BMC Cancer 2016, 16, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Lam, J.U.H.; Rebolj, M.; Møller Ejegod, D.; Pedersen, H.; Rygaard, C.; Lynge, E.; Thirstrup Thomsen, L.; Krüger Kjaer, S.; Bonde, J. Human papillomavirus self-sampling for screening nonattenders: Opt-in pilot implementation with electronic communication platforms. Int. J. Cancer 2017, 140, 2212–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Mathews, C.S.; Sargent, A.; Cuschieri, K.; Rebolj, M.; Brentnall, A.R.; Mackie, A.; Mills, C.; Martinelli, C.; Wright, A.-M.; Hunt, K.; et al. HPValidate—Human papillomavirus testing with DNA and mRNA assays on self-collected samples in cervical screening: Comparison of test characteristics on three self-sampling devices. Br. J. Cancer 2025, 133, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Phoolcharoen, N.; Kantathavorn, N.; Krisorakun, W.; Taepisitpong, C.; Krongthong, W.; Saeloo, S. Acceptability of Self-Sample Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Thai Women Visiting a Colposcopy Clinic. J. Community Health 2018, 43, 611–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Sechi, I.; Cocuzza, C.E.; Martinelli, M.; Muresu, N.; Castriciano, S.; Sotgiu, G.; Piana, A. Comparison of Different Self-Sampling Devices for Molecular Detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): A Pilot Study. Healthcare 2022, 10, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Tranberg, M.; Bech, B.H.; Blaakær, J.; Jensen, J.S.; Svanholm, H.; Andersen, B. Preventing cervical cancer using HPV self-sampling: Direct mailing of test-kits increases screening participation more than timely opt-in procedures-a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. van den Helder, R.; Steenbergen, R.D.M.; van Splunter, A.P.; Mom, C.H.; Tjiong, M.Y.; Martin, I.; Rosier-van Dunné, F.M.F.; van der Avoort, I.A.M.; Bleeker, M.C.G.; van Trommel, N.E. HPV and DNA Methylation Testing in Urine for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cervical Cancer Detection. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022, 28, 2061–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Anhang, R.; Nelson, J.A.; Telerant, R.; Chiasson, M.A.; Wright, T.C. Acceptability of Self-Collection of Specimens for HPV DNA Testing in an Urban Population. J. Women’s Health 2005, 14, 721–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Arrossi, S.; Thouyaret, L.; Herrero, R.; Campanera, A.; Magdaleno, A.; Cuberli, M.; Barletta, P.; Laudi, R.; Orellana, L. Effect of self-collection of HPV DNA offered by community health workers at home visits on uptake of screening for cervical cancer (the EMA study): A population-based cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Glob. Health 2015, 3, e85–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Guan, Y.; Castle, P.E.; Wang, S.; Li, B.; Feng, C.; Ci, P.; Li, X.; Gravitt, P.; Qiao, Y.-L. A cross-sectional study on the acceptability of self-collection for HPV testing among women in rural China. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2012, 88, 490–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Karwalajtys, T. Vaginal self sampling versus physician cervical sampling for HPV among younger and older women. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2006, 82, 337–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  172. Khanna, N.; Mishra, S.I.; Tian, G.; Tan, M.T.; Arnold, S.; Lee, C.; Ramachandran, S.; Bell, L.; Baquet, C.R.; Lorincz, A. Human papillomavirus detection in self-collected vaginal specimens and matched clinician-collected cervical specimens. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2007, 17, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Lazcano-Ponce, E.; Lorincz, A.T.; Cruz-Valdez, A.; Salmerón, J.; Uribe, P.; Velasco-Mondragón, E.; Nevarez, P.H.; Acosta, R.D.; Hernández-Avila, M. Self-collection of vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention (MARCH): A community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011, 378, 1868–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Murphy, J.; Mark, H.; Anderson, J.; Farley, J.; Allen, J. A Randomized Trial of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling as an Intervention to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women with HIV. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2016, 20, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Sellors, J.W.; Lorincz, A.T.; Mahony, J.B.; Mielzynska, I.; Lytwyn, A.; Roth, P.; Howard, M.; Chong, S.; Daya, D.; Chapman, W.; et al. Comparison of self-collected vaginal, vulvar and urine samples with physician-collected cervical samples for human papillomavirus testing to detect high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. CMAJ 2000, 163, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  176. Szarewski, A.; Cadman, L.; Mesher, D.; Austin, J.; Ashdown-Barr, L.; Edwards, R.; Lyons, D.; Walker, J.; Christison, J.; Frater, A.; et al. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening—A randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Cancer 2011, 104, 915–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Tisci, S.; Shen, Y.H.; Fife, D.; Huang, J.; Goycoolea, J.; Ma, C.P.; Belinson, J.; Huang, R.-D.; Qiao, Y.L. Patient Acceptance of Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus in Rural China. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2003, 7, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Bais, A.G.; van Kemenade, F.J.; Berkhof, J.; Verheijen, R.H.M.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Voorhorst, F.; Babović, M.; van Ballegooijen, M.; Helmerhorst, T.J.M.; Meijer, C.J.L.M. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: An effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs. Int. J. Cancer 2007, 120, 1505–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Dijkstra, M.G.; Heideman, D.A.M.; van Kemenade, F.J.; Hogewoning, K.J.A.; Hesselink, A.T.; Verkuijten, M.C.G.T.; van Baal, W.M.; Boer, G.M.N.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Meijer, C.J.L.M. Brush-based self-sampling in combination with GP5+/6+-PCR-based hrHPV testing: High concordance with physician-taken cervical scrapes for HPV genotyping and detection of high-grade CIN. J. Clin. Virol. 2012, 54, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Gustavsson, I.; Aarnio, R.; Berggrund, M.; Hedlund-Lindberg, J.; Strand, A.-S.; Sanner, K.; Wikström, I.; Enroth, S.; Olovsson, M.; Gyllensten, U. Randomised study shows that repeated self-sampling and HPV test has more than two-fold higher detection rate of women with CIN2+ histology than Pap smear cytology. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 118, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Gustavsson, I.; Sanner, K.; Lindell, M.; Strand, A.; Olovsson, M.; Wikström, I.; Wilander, E.; Gyllensten, U. Type-specific detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in self-sampled cervicovaginal cells applied to FTA elute cartridge. J. Clin. Virol. 2011, 51, 255–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Lenselink, C.H.; de Bie, R.P.; van Hamont, D.; Bakkers, J.M.J.E.; Quint, W.G.V.; Massuger, L.F.A.G.; Bekkers, R.L.M.; Melchers, W.J.G. Detection and Genotyping of Human Papillomavirus in Self-Obtained Cervicovaginal Samples by Using the FTA Cartridge: New Possibilities for Cervical Cancer Screening. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 2564–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Lenselink, C.H.; Melchers, W.J.G.; Quint, W.G.V.; Hoebers, A.M.J.; Hendriks, J.C.M.; Massuger, L.F.A.G.; Bekkers, R.L.M. Sexual Behaviour and HPV Infections in 18 to 29 Year Old Women in the Pre-Vaccine Era in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Mbatha, J.N.; Galappaththi-Arachchige, H.N.; Mtshali, A.; Taylor, M.; Ndhlovu, P.D.; Kjetland, E.F.; Baay, M.F.D.; Mkhize-Kwitshana, Z.L. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing among rural young women of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Smith, J.S.; Des Marais, A.C.; Deal, A.M.; Richman, A.R.; Perez-Heydrich, C.; Yen-Lieberman, B.; Barclay, L.; Belinson, J.; Rinas, A.; Brewer, N.T. Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection With Papanicolaou Test Referral for Infrequently Screened Women in the United States. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2018, 45, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Yoshida, T.; Nishijima, Y.; Hando, K.; Vilayvong, S.; Arounlangsy, P.; Fukuda, T. Primary Study on Providing a Basic System for Uterine Cervical Screening in a Developing Country: Analysis of Acceptability of Self-sampling in Lao PDR. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2013, 14, 3029–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Yoshida, T.; Sano, T.; Kanuma, T.; Inoue, H.; Itoh, T.; Yazaki, C.; Obara, M.; Fukuda, T. Usefulness of CINtec® PLUS p16INK4a/Ki-67 Double-Staining in Cytological Screening of Cervical Cancer. Acta Cytol. 2011, 55, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Castell, S.; Krause, G.; Schmitt, M.; Pawlita, M.; Deleré, Y.; Obi, N.; Flesch-Janys, D.; Kemmling, Y.; Kaufmann, A.M. Feasibility and acceptance of cervicovaginal self-sampling within the German National Cohort (Pretest 2). Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz 2014, 57, 1270–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Giorgi Rossi, P.; Marsili, L.M.; Camilloni, L.; Iossa, A.; Lattanzi, A.; Sani, C.; Di Pierro, C.; Grazzini, G.; Angeloni, C.; Capparucci, P.; et al. The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation to cervical cancer screening in Italy: A randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600). Br. J. Cancer 2011, 104, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Gök, M.; Heideman, D.A.M.; Kemenade FJvan Berkhof, J.; Rozendaal, L.; Spruyt, J.W.M.; Voorhorst, F.; Beliën, J.A.M.; Babović, M.; Snijders, P.J.F.; Meijer, C.J.L.M. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: Cohort study. BMJ 2010, 340, c1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Ivanus, U.; Jerman, T.; Fokter, A.R.; Takac, I.; Prevodnik, V.K.; Marcec, M.; Gajsek, U.S.; Pakiz, M.; Koren, J.; Celik, S.H.; et al. Randomised trial of HPV self-sampling among non-attenders in the Slovenian cervical screening programme ZORA: Comparing three different screening approaches. Radiol. Oncol. 2018, 52, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Andersson, S.; Belkić, K.; Mints, M.; Östensson, E. Is self-sampling to test for high-risk papillomavirus an acceptable option among women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Bokan, T.; Ivanus, U.; Jerman, T.; Takac, I.; Arko, D. Long term results of follow-up after HPV self-sampling with devices Qvintip and HerSwab in women non-attending cervical screening programme. Radiol. Oncol. 2021, 55, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Broberg, G.; Gyrd-Hansen, D.; Miao Jonasson, J.; Ryd, M.-L.; Holtenman, M.; Milsom, I.; Strander, B. Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: Offering a HPV self-test to long-term non-attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Cancer 2014, 134, 2223–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Cadman, L.; Reuter, C.; Jitlal, M.; Kleeman, M.; Austin, J.; Hollingworth, T.; Parberry, A.L.; Ashdown-Barr, L.; Patel, D.; Nedjai, B.; et al. A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing—Predictors 5.1. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2021, 30, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Kellen, E.; Benoy, I.; Vanden Broeck, D.; Martens, P.; Bogers, J.-P.; Haelens, A.; Van Limbergen, E. A randomized, controlled trial of two strategies of offering the home-based HPV self-sampling test to non-participants in the Flemish cervical cancer screening program. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 143, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Wikström, I.; Lindell, M.; Sanner, K.; Wilander, E. Self-sampling and HPV testing or ordinary Pap-smear in women not regularly attending screening: A randomised study. Br. J. Cancer 2011, 105, 337–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Depuydt, C.E.; Benoy, I.H.; Bailleul, E.J.; Vandepitte, J.; Vereecken, A.J.; Bogers, J.J. Improved endocervical sampling and HPV viral load detection by Cervex-Brush® Combi. Cytopathology 2006, 17, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Dierking, S.L.; Morton, J.M.; Clapper, J.A.; Gonda, M.G.; Pinilla, J.C.; Levesque, C.L. Changes in vaginal gene expression and anogenital distance during gilt reproductive development. Anim. Reprod. 2025, 22, e20240056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Kuramoto, H.; Banno, M.; Hori, M.; Miyagawa, J.; Iida, M.; Kawaguchi, M. Optimal Sampling Devices for Liquid-Based Procedure in Screening for Cervical Cancer: Comparison between Cotton Stick/Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush. Acta Cytol. 2013, 57, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Simonsen, M.; Fregnani, J.H.T.G.; Resende, J.C.P.; Antoniazzi, M.; Longatto-Filho, A.; Scapulatempo-Neto, C. Comparison of the Cervex-Brush® Combi and the Cytobrush+Ayres Spatula Combination for Cervical Sampling in Liquid-Based Cytology. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. So, Y.L.; He, M.Y.; Hui, S.K.; Yu, E.L. Clinical trial comparing the use of Orcellex® Brush versus Cervex-Brush® on vaginal vault smear cytology adequacy rate in patients treated with radiotherapy for cervical cancer. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2024, 36, e43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Vanderpool, R.C.; Jones, M.G.; Stradtman, L.R.; Smith, J.S.; Crosby, R.A. Self-collecting a cervico-vaginal specimen for cervical cancer screening: An exploratory study of acceptability among medically underserved women in rural Appalachia. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 132, S21–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Whitaker, C.J.; Stamp, E.C.; Young, W.; Greenwood, L.A. Comparison of the efficacy of the cervex brush and the extended-tip wooden spatula with conventional cytology: A longitudinal study. Cytojournal 2009, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Zou, Y.; Tuo, X.; Wu, L.; Liu, Y.; Feng, X.; Zhao, L.; Han, L.; Wang, L.; Wang, Y.; Hou, H.; et al. Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi. Front. Med. 2020, 7, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. El-Zein, M.; Bouten, S.; Louvanto, K.; Gilbert, L.; Gotlieb, W.; Hemmings, R.; Behr, M.A.; Franco, E.L. Validation of a new HPV self-sampling device for cervical cancer screening: The Cervical and Self-Sample In Screening (CASSIS) study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 149, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Gottschlich, A.; Rivera-Andrade, A.; Grajeda, E.; Alvarez, C.; Mendoza Montano, C.; Meza, R. Acceptability of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Indigenous Community in Guatemala. J. Glob. Oncol. 2017, 3, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Osei, E.A. Innovations in healthcare delivery: Human papilloma virus self sampling diagnostics and participatory innovations for CCS. Cancer Med. 2023, 12, 15544–15551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Cadman, L.; Wilkes, S.; Mansour, D.; Austin, J.; Ashdown-Barr, L.; Edwards, R.; Kleeman, M.; Szarewski, A. A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening. J. Med. Screen. 2015, 22, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Harper, D.M.; Noll, W.W.; Belloni, D.R.; Cole, B.F. Randomized clinical trial of PCR–determined human papillomavirus detection methods: Self-sampling versus clinician-directed–Biologic concordance and women’s preferences. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 186, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Moses, E.; Pedersen, H.N.; Mitchell, S.M.; Sekikubo, M.; Mwesigwa, D.; Singer, J.; Biryabarema, C.; Byamugisha, J.K.; Money, D.M.; Ogilvie, G.S. Uptake of community-based, self-collected HPV testing vs. visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening in Kampala, Uganda: Preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2015, 20, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Racey, C.S.; Gesink, D.C.; Burchell, A.N.; Trivers, S.; Wong, T.; Rebbapragada, A. Randomized Intervention of Self-Collected Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing in Under-Screened Rural Women: Uptake of Screening and Acceptability. J. Women’s Health 2016, 25, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Zehbe, I.; Moeller, H.; Severini, A.; Weaver, B.; Escott, N.; Bell, C.; Crawford, S.; Bannon, D.; Paavola, N. Feasibility of self-sampling and human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in First Nation women from Northwest Ontario, Canada: A pilot study. BMJ Open 2011, 1, e000030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Feltri, G.; Valenti, G.; Isidoro, E.; Kaur, J.; Treleani, M.; Bartelloni, A.; Mauro, C.; Spiga, F.; Ticich, G.; Di Napoli, M.; et al. Evaluation of self-sampling-based cervical cancer screening strategy using HPV Selfy CE-IVD test coupled with home-collection kit: A clinical study in Italy. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2023, 28, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Martinelli, M.; Latsuzbaia, A.; Bonde, J.; Pedersen, H.; Iacobone, A.D.; Bottari, F.; Piana, A.F.; Pietri, R.; Cocuzza, C.E.; Arbyn, M.; et al. Performance of BD Onclarity HPV assay on FLOQSwabs vaginal self-samples. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e02872-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Modibbo, F.; Iregbu, K.C.; Okuma, J.; Leeman, A.; Kasius, A.; de Koning, M.; Quint, W.; Adebamowo, C. Randomized trial evaluating self-sampling for HPV DNA based tests for cervical cancer screening in Nigeria. Infect. Agents Cancer 2017, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Adegboyega, A.; Desmennu, A.T.; Dignan, M. Qualitative assessment of attitudes toward cervical cancer (CC) screening and HPV self-sampling among African American (AA) and Sub Saharan African Immigrant (SAI) women. Ethn. Health 2022, 27, 1769–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Levinson, K.L.; Abuelo, C.; Salmeron, J.; Chyung, E.; Zou, J.; Belinson, S.E.; Wang, G.; Ortiz, C.S.; Vallejos, C.S.; Belinson, J.L. The Peru Cervical Cancer Prevention Study (PERCAPS): The technology to make screening accessible. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 129, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Ma’som, M.; Bhoo-Pathy, N.; Nasir, N.H.; Bellinson, J.; Subramaniam, S.; Ma, Y.; Yap, S.-H.; Goh, P.-P.; Gravitt, P.; Woo, Y.L. Attitudes and factors affecting acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping as an alternative to Pap testing among multiethnic Malaysian women. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Scarinci, I.C.; Li, Y.; Tucker, L.; Campos, N.G.; Kim, J.J.; Peral, S.; Castle, P.E. Given a choice between self-sampling at home for HPV testing and standard of care screening at the clinic, what do African American women choose? Findings from a group randomized controlled trial. Prev. Med. 2021, 142, 106358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Sewali, B.; Okuyemi, K.S.; Askhir, A.; Belinson, J.; Vogel, R.I.; Joseph, A.; Ghebre, R.G. Cervical cancer screening with clinic-based Pap test versus home HPV test among Somali immigrant women in Minnesota: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Cancer Med. 2015, 4, 620–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Crane, L.; Jennings, A.; Fitzpatrick, M.B.; Mukherjee, M.; Pitchford, C.; Nacht, A.; Mack, N.; Krueger, K.; Favreau, J.; Conway, K.; et al. Experiences and Preferences Reported with an At-Home Self-Collection Device Compared with In-Clinic Speculum-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States. Women’s Health Rep. 2025, 6, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Fitzpatrick, M.B.; Behrens, C.M.; Hibler, K.; Parsons, C.; Kaplan, C.; Orso, R.; Parker, L.; Memmel, L.; Collins, A.; McNicholas, C.; et al. Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2025, 8, e2511081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Gomes, M.; Provaggi, E.; Pembe, A.B.; Olaitan, A.; Gentry-Maharaj, A. Advancing Cervical Cancer Prevention Equity: Innovations in Self-Sampling and Digital Health Technologies Across Healthcare Settings. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Hwang, Y.; McNicholas, C.; VonderHaar, E.; Ruiz, J.; Fitzpatrick, M.; Kuroki, L.; Jennings, A.; Sutton, E.; Memmel, L.; Collins, A.; et al. Cervical cancer at-home self-collected screening: Clinical validation and usability of a unique device and telehealth system. Ann. Fam. Med. 2025, 23, 7443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Kaplan, C.; Crane, L.; Collins, A.; Parker, R.L.; Orso, R.; McNicholas, C.; Sutton, E.; Memmel, L.; Conageski, C.; Hwang, Y.; et al. At-home self-collection device offers an effective and preferred method to engage high BMI women in cervical cancer screening: Method comparison study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2025, 312, 2043–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Chalvardjian, A.; De Marchi, W.G.; Bell, V.; Nishikawa, R. Improved endocervical sampling with the Cytobrush. CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1991, 144, 313–317. [Google Scholar]
  228. Chang, C.-C.; Huang, R.-L.; Liao, Y.-P.; Su, P.-H.; Hsu, Y.-W.; Wang, H.-C.; Tien, C.-Y.; Yu, M.-H.; Lin, Y.-W.; Lai, H.-C. Concordance analysis of methylation biomarkers detection in self-collected and physician-collected samples in cervical neoplasm. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Muwonga Tukisadila, J.; Avala Ntsigouaye, J.; Tonen-Wolyec, S.; Mboumba Bouassa, R.-S.; Muwonga, J.; Belec, L. Successful Retrieval of Human Papillomavirus DNA in Veil-Based Collected Female Genital Secretions After Long-Term Storage in Universal Transport Medium. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Nodjikouambaye, Z.A.; Compain, F.; Sadjoli, D.; Mboumba Bouassa, R.-S.; Péré, H.; Veyer, D.; Robin, L.; Adawaye, C.; Tonen-Wolyec, S.; Moussa, A.M.; et al. Accuracy of Curable Sexually Transmitted Infections and Genital Mycoplasmas Screening by Multiplex Real-Time PCR Using a Self-Collected Veil among Adult Women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 2019, 8639510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Nodjikouambaye, Z.A.; Sadjoli, D.; Bouassa, R.S.M.; Péré, H.; Veyer, D.; Adawaye, C.; Matta, M.; Robin, L.; Tonen-Wolyec, S.; Tcheguena, M.M.; et al. P824 Accuracy of cervical cancer screening using a self-collected vial for HPV DNA testing among adult women in sub-saharan africa. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2019, 95, A346–A347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Chou, H.-H.; Yang, C.-Y.; Chao, A.; Lin, H.; Lu, C.-H.; Ou, Y.-C.; Hsu, S.-T.; Shih, Y.-H.; Huang, H.-J.; Lin, C.-T.; et al. Consistency in human papillomavirus type detection between self-collected vaginal specimens and physician-sampled cervical specimens. J. Med. Virol. 2024, 96, e29426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Lestak, K.; Mahgoub, S.; Odibo, J.E.; Pathiraja, P.; Quaranta, M. 2022-RA-1095-ESGO Conservative Management of CIN-2: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2022, 32, A42–A43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Yang, C.-Y.; Chang, T.-C.; Chou, H.-H.; Chao, A.; Hsu, S.-T.; Shih, Y.-H.; Huang, H.-J.; Lin, C.-T.; Chen, M.-Y.; Sun, L.; et al. Evaluation of a novel vaginal cells self-sampling device for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: A clinical trial assessing reliability and acceptability. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2024, 9, e10653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Joshi, S.; Kumar, B.K.; Ramshankar, V.; Maitra, N.; Palit, S.P.; Ravindran, S.; Shyam, T.S. Performance of HPV Self-Sample Collected by a Novel Kit in Comparison with Clinician Collected Sample for Cervical Cancer Screening. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2024, 25, 4211–4216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.