4.5 Review

The importance of detailed epigenomic profiling of different cell types within organs

Journal

EPIGENOMICS
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages 817-829

Publisher

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/epi-2016-0005

Keywords

cell-specific epigenomes; ChIP-seq; DNA methylation; environmental epigenetics; epigenomics; histone modification; lung; organ

Funding

  1. Hastings and Whittier Foundations
  2. Department of Defense [W81XWH1410174]
  3. NIH [R01 HL114094, P30 H101258, R01HL112638, 4 R37HL062569, 1R01HL114959]
  4. Norris comprehensive Cancer Center core from the National Cancer Institute [P30CA0189]
  5. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) [NIH T32ES013678]
  6. USC Provost's Postdoctoral Scholar Research Grant
  7. ACS/Canary postdoctoral fellowship [R01 HL114094, PFTED-10-207-01-SIED]
  8. Department of Surgery
  9. Canary and Thomas G. Labrecque Foundations
  10. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) [W81XWH1410174] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The human body consists of hundreds of kinds of cells specified from a single genome overlaid with cell type-specific epigenetic information. Comprehensively profiling the body's distinct epigenetic landscapes will allow researchers to verify cell types used in regenerative medicine and to determine the epigenetic effects of disease, environmental exposures and genetic variation. Key marks/factors that should be investigated include regions of nucleosome-free DNA accessible to regulatory factors, histone marks defining active enhancers and promoters, DNA methylation levels, regulatory RNAs, and factors controlling the three-dimensional conformation of the genome. Here we use the lung to illustrate the importance of investigating an organ's purified cell epigenomes, and outline the challenges and promise of realizing a comprehensive catalog of primary cell epigenomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available