4.8 Article

Nondestructive, base-resolution sequencing of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine using a DNA deaminase

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 36, 期 11, 页码 1083-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4204

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [R21-HG009545]
  2. Penn Epigenetics Institute
  3. NSF
  4. NIH [T32-GM07229, F30-CA196097]
  5. [R00-HG007982]
  6. [DP2-HL142044]
  7. [R01-GM118501]
  8. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [F30CA196097] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [DP2HL142044] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  10. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R00HG007982, R21HG009545] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  11. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM118501, T32GM007229] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here we present APOBEC-coupled epigenetic sequencing (ACE-seq), a bisulfite-free method for localizing 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) at single-base resolution with low DNA input. The method builds on the observation that A ID/APOBEC family DNA deaminase enzymes can potently discriminate between cytosine modification states and exploits the non-destructive nature of enzymatic, rather than chemical, deamination. ACE-seq yielded high-confidence 5hmC profiles with at least 1,000-fold less DNA input than conventional methods. Applying ACE-seq to generate a base-resolution map of 5hmC in tissue-derived cortical excitatory neurons, we found that 5hmC was almost entirely confined to CG dinucleotides. The whole-genome map permitted cytosine, 5-methylcytosine (5mC) and 5hmC to be parsed and revealed genomic features that diverged from global patterns, including enhancers and imprinting control regions with high and low 5hmC/5mC ratios, respectively. Enzymatic deamination overcomes many challenges posed by bisulfite-based methods, thus expanding the scope of epigenome profiling to include scarce samples and opening new lines of inquiry regarding the role of cytosine modifications in genome biology.

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