4.5 Article

Global, integrated analysis of methylomes and transcriptomes from laser capture microdissected bronchial and alveolar cells in human lung

期刊

EPIGENETICS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 264-274

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15592294.2018.1441650

关键词

alveolar cell; bronchial cell; laser capture microdissection; whole-genome bisulfite sequencing; RNA sequencing

资金

  1. HHS \ National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01-CA180126-01]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16J10309] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene regulatory analysis of highly diverse human tissues in vivo is essentially constrained by the challenge of performing genome-wide, integrated epigenetic and transcriptomic analysis in small selected groups of specific cell types. Here we performed genome-wide bisulfite sequencing and RNA-seq from the same small groups of bronchial and alveolar cells isolated by laser capture microdissection from flash-frozen lung tissue of 12 donors and their peripheral blood T cells. Methylation and transcriptome patterns differed between alveolar and bronchial cells, while each of these epithelia showed more differences from mesodermally-derived T cells. Differentially methylated regions (DMRs) between alveolar and bronchial cells tended to locate at regulatory regions affecting promoters of 4,350 genes. A large number of pathways enriched for these DMRs including GTPase signal transduction, cell death, and skeletal muscle. Similar patterns of transcriptome differences were observed: 4,108 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) enriched in GTPase signal transduction, inflammation, cilium assembly, and others. Prioritizing using DMR-DEG regulatory network, we highlighted genes, e.g., ETS1, PPARG, and RXRG, at prominent alveolar vs. bronchial cell discriminant nodes. Our results show that multi-omic analysis of small, highly specific cells is feasible and yields unique physiologic loci distinguishing human lung cell types in situ.

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

4.5
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