1
|
Agius DR, Kapazoglou A, Avramidou E, Baranek M, Carneros E, Caro E, Castiglione S, Cicatelli A, Radanovic A, Ebejer JP, Gackowski D, Guarino F, Gulyás A, Hidvégi N, Hoenicka H, Inácio V, Johannes F, Karalija E, Lieberman-Lazarovich M, Martinelli F, Maury S, Mladenov V, Morais-Cecílio L, Pecinka A, Tani E, Testillano PS, Todorov D, Valledor L, Vassileva V. Exploring the crop epigenome: a comparison of DNA methylation profiling techniques. FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE 2023; 14:1181039. [PMID: 37389288 PMCID: PMC10306282 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1181039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2023] [Accepted: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
Epigenetic modifications play a vital role in the preservation of genome integrity and in the regulation of gene expression. DNA methylation, one of the key mechanisms of epigenetic control, impacts growth, development, stress response and adaptability of all organisms, including plants. The detection of DNA methylation marks is crucial for understanding the mechanisms underlying these processes and for developing strategies to improve productivity and stress resistance of crop plants. There are different methods for detecting plant DNA methylation, such as bisulfite sequencing, methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism, genome-wide DNA methylation analysis, methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing, reduced representation bisulfite sequencing, MS and immuno-based techniques. These profiling approaches vary in many aspects, including DNA input, resolution, genomic region coverage, and bioinformatics analysis. Selecting an appropriate methylation screening approach requires an understanding of all these techniques. This review provides an overview of DNA methylation profiling methods in crop plants, along with comparisons of the efficacy of these techniques between model and crop plants. The strengths and limitations of each methodological approach are outlined, and the importance of considering both technical and biological factors are highlighted. Additionally, methods for modulating DNA methylation in model and crop species are presented. Overall, this review will assist scientists in making informed decisions when selecting an appropriate DNA methylation profiling method.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dolores Rita Agius
- Centre of Molecular Medicine and Biobanking, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
- Biology Department, Ġ.F.Abela Junior College, Msida, Malta
| | - Aliki Kapazoglou
- Department of Vitis, Institute of Olive Tree, Subtropical Crops and Viticulture (IOSV), Hellenic Agricultural Organization-DIMITRA (ELGO-DIMITRA), Athens, Greece
| | - Evangelia Avramidou
- Laboratory of Forest Genetics and Biotechnology, Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems, Hellenic Agricultural Organization-DIMITRA (ELGO-DIMITRA), Athens, Greece
| | - Miroslav Baranek
- Mendeleum-Insitute of Genetics, Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, Lednice, Czechia
| | - Elena Carneros
- Center for Biological Research (CIB) of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Elena Caro
- Centro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain
| | - Stefano Castiglione
- Department of Chemistry and Biology ‘A. Zambelli’, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
| | - Angela Cicatelli
- Department of Chemistry and Biology ‘A. Zambelli’, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
| | - Aleksandra Radanovic
- Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, National Institute of Republic of Serbia, Novi Sad, Serbia
| | - Jean-Paul Ebejer
- Centre of Molecular Medicine and Biobanking, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
| | - Daniel Gackowski
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Bydgoszcz, Poland
| | - Francesco Guarino
- Department of Chemistry and Biology ‘A. Zambelli’, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
| | - Andrea Gulyás
- Centre for Agricultural Genomics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Hungary
| | - Norbert Hidvégi
- Centre for Agricultural Genomics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Hungary
| | - Hans Hoenicka
- Genomic Research Department, Thünen Institute of Forest Genetics, Grosshansdorf, Germany
| | - Vera Inácio
- BioISI – BioSystems & Integrative Sciences Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Frank Johannes
- Plant Epigenomics, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Freising, Germany
| | - Erna Karalija
- Faculty of Science, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
| | - Michal Lieberman-Lazarovich
- Department of Vegetables and Field Crops, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Institute of Plant Sciences, Rishon LeZion, Israel
| | | | - Stéphane Maury
- Laboratoire de Biologie des Ligneux et des Grandes Cultures EA1207 USC1328, INRAE, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France
| | - Velimir Mladenov
- Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
| | - Leonor Morais-Cecílio
- Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF), Institute of Agronomy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Ales Pecinka
- Centre of Plant Structural and Functional Genomics, Institute of Experimental Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Olomouc, Czechia
| | - Eleni Tani
- Laboratory of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Pilar S. Testillano
- Center for Biological Research (CIB) of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Dimitar Todorov
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Institute of Plant Physiology and Genetics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Luis Valledor
- Plant Physiology, Department of Organisms and Systems Biology and University Institute of Biotechnology of Asturias, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
| | - Valya Vassileva
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Institute of Plant Physiology and Genetics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Systematic and benchmarking studies of pipelines for mammal WGBS data in the novel NGS platform. BMC Bioinformatics 2023; 24:33. [PMID: 36721080 PMCID: PMC9890740 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-023-05163-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS), possesses the aptitude to dissect methylation status at the nucleotide-level resolution of 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) on a genome-wide scale. It is a powerful technique for epigenome in various cell types, and tissues. As a recently established next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform, GenoLab M is a promising alternative platform. However, its comprehensive evaluation for WGBS has not been reported. We sequenced two bisulfite-converted mammal DNA in this research using our GenoLab M and NovaSeq 6000, respectively. Then, we systematically compared those data via four widely used WGBS tools (BSMAP, Bismark, BatMeth2, BS-Seeker2) and a new bisulfite-seq tool (BSBolt). We interrogated their computational time, genome depth and coverage, and evaluated their percentage of methylated Cs. RESULT Here, benchmarking a combination of pre- and post-processing methods, we found that trimming improved the performance of mapping efficiency in eight datasets. The data from two platforms uncovered ~ 80% of CpG sites genome-wide in the human cell line. Those data sequenced by GenoLab M achieved a far lower proportion of duplicates (~ 5.5%). Among pipelines, BSMAP provided an intriguing representation of 5-mC distribution at CpG sites with 5-mC levels > ~ 78% in datasets from human cell lines, especially in the GenoLab M. BSMAP performed more advantages in running time, uniquely mapped reads percentages, genomic coverage, and quantitative accuracy. Finally, compared with the previous methylation pattern of human cell line and mouse tissue, we confirmed that the data from GenoLab M performed similar consistency and accuracy in methylation levels of CpG sites with that from NovaSeq 6000. CONCLUSION Together we confirmed that GenoLab M was a qualified NGS platform for WGBS with high performance. Our results showed that BSMAP was the suitable pipeline that allowed for WGBS studies on the GenoLab M platform.
Collapse
|
3
|
Li XH, Lu MY, Niu JL, Zhu DY, Liu B. cfDNA Methylation Profiles and T-Cell Differentiation in Women with Endometrial Polyps. Cells 2022; 11:cells11243989. [PMID: 36552753 PMCID: PMC9777338 DOI: 10.3390/cells11243989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Revised: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 12/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
DNA methylation is a part of the regulatory mechanisms of gene expression, including chromatin remodeling and the activity of microRNAs, which are involved in the regulation of T-cell differentiation and function. However, the role of cfDNA methylation in T-cell differentiation is entirely unknown. In patients with endometrial polyps (EPs), we have found an imbalance of T-cell differentiation and an aberrant cfDNA methylation profile, respectively. In this study, we investigated the relationship between cfDNA methylation profiles and T-cell differentiation in 14 people with EPs and 27 healthy controls. We found that several differentially methylated genes (DMGs) were associated with T-cell differentiation in people with EPs (ITGA2-Naïve CD4, r = -0.560, p = 0.037; CST9-EMRA CD4, r = -0.626, p = 0.017; and ZIM2-CM CD8, r = 0.576, p = 0.031), but not in healthy controls (all p > 0.05). When we combined the patients' characteristics, we found a significant association between ITGA2 methylation and polyp diameter (r = 0.562, p = 0.036), but this effect was lost when adjusting the level of Naïve CD4 T-cells (r = 0.038, p = 0.903). Moreover, the circulating sex hormone levels were associated with T-cell differentiation (estradiol-Naïve CD4, r = -0.589, p = 0.027), and the cfDNA methylation profile (testosterone-ZIM2, r = -0.656, p = 0.011). In conclusion, this study has established a link between cfDNA methylation profiles and T-cell differentiation among people with EPs, which may contribute to the etiology of EPs. Further functional studies are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-Hong Li
- Department of Reproductive Health, Shenzhen Baoan Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518102, China
| | - Mei-Yin Lu
- Department of Biobank, Shenzhen Baoan Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518102, China
| | - Jia-Li Niu
- Department of Biobank, Shenzhen Baoan Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518102, China
| | - Dong-Yan Zhu
- Department of Biobank, Shenzhen Baoan Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518102, China
| | - Bin Liu
- Department of Biobank, Shenzhen Baoan Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518102, China
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +86-158-1732-7996
| |
Collapse
|