4.8 Article

DNA methylation determines nucleosome occupancy in the 5′-CpG islands of tumor suppressor genes

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 32, 期 47, 页码 5421-5428

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/onc.2013.162

关键词

DNA methylation; tumor suppressor gene; nucleosome; CpG island; DNA methyltransferase

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN) [SAF2011-22803]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant EPINORC
  3. Cellex Foundation
  4. Health and Science Departments of the Catalan Government (Generalitat de Catalunya)
  5. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias Grant [PI08-1345]
  6. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Promoter CpG island hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes is an epigenetic hallmark of human cancer commonly associated with nucleosome occupancy and the transcriptional silencing of the neighboring gene. Nucleosomes can determine the underlying DNA methylation status. Herein, we show that the opposite is also true: DNA methylation can determine nucleosome positioning. Using a cancer model and digital nucleosome positioning techniques, we demonstrate that the induction of DNA hypomethylation events by genetic (DNMT1/DNMT3B deficient cells) or drug (a DNA demethylating agent) approaches is associated with the eviction of nucleosomes from previously hypermethylated CpG islands of tumor suppressor genes. Most importantly, the establishment of a stable cell line that restores DNMT1/DNMT3B deficiency shows that nucleosomes reoccupy their positions in de novo methylated CpG islands. Finally, we extend these results to the genomic level, combining a DNA methylation microarray and the nucleosome positioning technique. Using this global approach, we observe the dependency of nucleosome occupancy upon the DNA methylation status. Thus, our results suggest that there is a close association between hypermethylated CpG islands and the presence of nucleosomes, such that each of these epigenetic mechanisms can determine the recruitment of the other.

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