4.8 Article

Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences

期刊

NATURE
卷 462, 期 7271, 页码 315-322

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature08514

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mary K. Chapman Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01 ES017166, U01 1U01ES017166-01]
  3. Australian Research Council [CE0561495, DP0771156]
  4. Morgridge Institute for Research, Madison, Wisconsin
  5. Australian Research Council [DP0771156] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA cytosine methylation is a central epigenetic modification that has essential roles in cellular processes including genome regulation, development and disease. Here we present the first genome-wide, single-base-resolution maps of methylated cytosines in a mammalian genome, from both human embryonic stem cells and fetal fibroblasts, along with comparative analysis of messenger RNA and small RNA components of the transcriptome, several histone modifications, and sites of DNA-protein interaction for several key regulatory factors. Widespread differences were identified in the composition and patterning of cytosine methylation between the two genomes. Nearly one-quarter of all methylation identified in embryonic stem cells was in a non-CG context, suggesting that embryonic stem cells may use different methylation mechanisms to affect gene regulation. Methylation in non-CG contexts showed enrichment in gene bodies and depletion in protein binding sites and enhancers. Non-CG methylation disappeared upon induced differentiation of the embryonic stem cells, and was restored in induced pluripotent stem cells. We identified hundreds of differentially methylated regions proximal to genes involved in pluripotency and differentiation, and widespread reduced methylation levels in fibroblasts associated with lower transcriptional activity. These reference epigenomes provide a foundation for future studies exploring this key epigenetic modification in human disease and development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据