4.8 Article

Genome-wide and Caste-Specific DNA Methylomes of the Ants Camponotus floridanus and Harpegnathos saltator

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 19, 页码 1755-1764

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.042

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helen Hay Whitney Foundation
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute [2009005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ant societies comprise individuals belonging to different castes characterized by specialized morphologies and behaviors. Because ant embryos can follow different developmental trajectories, epigenetic mechanisms must play a role in caste determination. Ants have a full set of DNA methyltransferases and their genomes contain methylcytosine. To determine the relationship between DNA methylation and phenotypic plasticity in ants, we obtained and compared the genome-wide methylonnes of different castes and developmental stages of Camponotus floridanus and Harpegnathos saltator. Results: In the ant genomes, methylcytosines are found both in symmetric CG dinucleotides (CpG) and non-CpG contexts and are strongly enriched at exons of active genes. Changes in exonic DNA methylation correlate with alternative splicing events such as exon skipping and alternative splice site selection. Several genes exhibit caste-specific and developmental changes in DNA methylation that are conserved between the two species, including genes involved in reproduction, telomere maintenance, and noncoding RNA metabolism. Several loci are methylated and expressed monoallelically, and in some cases, the choice of methylated allele depends on the caste. Conclusions: These first ant methylomes and their intra- and interspecies comparison reveal an exonic methylation pattern that points to a connection between DNA methylation and splicing. The presence of monoallelic DNA methylation and the methylation of non-CpG sites in all samples suggest roles in genome regulation in these social insects, including the intriguing possibility of parental or caste-specific genomic imprinting.

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