Literature DB >> 20818161

Comparison of methyl-DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) and methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) protein capture for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveal CpG sequence coverage bias.

Shalima S Nair1, Marcel W Coolen, Clare Stirzaker, Jenny Z Song, Aaron L Statham, Dario Strbenac, Mark D Robinson, Susan J Clark.   

Abstract

DNA methylation primarily occurs at CpG dinucleotides in mammals and is a common epigenetic mark that plays a critical role in the regulation of gene expression. Profiling DNA methylation patterns across the genome is vital to understand DNA methylation changes that occur during development and in disease phenotype. In this study, we compared two commonly used approaches to enrich for methylated DNA regions of the genome, namely methyl-DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) that is based on enrichment with antibodies specific for 5'-methylcytosine (5MeC), and capture of methylated DNA using a methyl-CpG binding domain-based (MBD) protein to discover differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in cancer. The enriched methylated DNA fractions were interrogated on Affymetrix promoter tiling arrays and differentially methylated regions were identified. A detailed validation study of 42 regions was performed using Sequenom MassCLEAVE technique. This detailed analysis revealed that both enrichment techniques are sensitive for detecting DMRs and preferentially identified different CpG rich regions of the prostate cancer genome, with MeDIP commonly enriching for methylated regions with a low CpG density, while MBD capture favors regions of higher CpG density and identifies the greatest proportion of CpG islands. This is the first detailed validation report comparing different methylated DNA enrichment techniques for identifying regions of differential DNA methylation. Our study highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of the methods used for DNA genome-wide methylation analyses so that accurate interpretation of the biology is not overlooked.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20818161     DOI: 10.4161/epi.6.1.13313

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epigenetics        ISSN: 1559-2294            Impact factor:   4.528


  92 in total

1.  Clinical and public health research using methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP): a comparison of commercially available kits to examine differential DNA methylation across the genome.

Authors:  Priscilla Brebi-Mieville; Carmen Ili-Gangas; Pamela Leal-Rojas; Maartje G Noordhuis; Ethan Soudry; Jimena Perez; Juan Carlos Roa; David Sidransky; Rafael Guerrero-Preston
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 4.528

2.  Associations with early-life socio-economic position in adult DNA methylation.

Authors:  Nada Borghol; Matthew Suderman; Wendy McArdle; Ariane Racine; Michael Hallett; Marcus Pembrey; Clyde Hertzman; Chris Power; Moshe Szyf
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 3.  DNA methylation and its role in the pathogenesis of diabetes.

Authors:  Amita Bansal; Sara E Pinney
Journal:  Pediatr Diabetes       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.866

4.  A methylome-wide study of aging using massively parallel sequencing of the methyl-CpG-enriched genomic fraction from blood in over 700 subjects.

Authors:  Joseph L McClay; Karolina A Aberg; Shaunna L Clark; Srilaxmi Nerella; Gaurav Kumar; Lin Y Xie; Alexandra D Hudson; Aki Harada; Christina M Hultman; Patrik K E Magnusson; Patrick F Sullivan; Edwin J C G Van Den Oord
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 6.150

5.  Genome-wide analysis distinguishes hyperglycemia regulated epigenetic signatures of primary vascular cells.

Authors:  Luciano Pirola; Aneta Balcerczyk; Richard W Tothill; Izhak Haviv; Antony Kaspi; Sebastian Lunke; Mark Ziemann; Tom Karagiannis; Stephen Tonna; Adam Kowalczyk; Bryan Beresford-Smith; Geoff Macintyre; Ma Kelong; Zhang Hongyu; Jingde Zhu; Assam El-Osta
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  MBRidge: an accurate and cost-effective method for profiling DNA methylome at single-base resolution.

Authors:  Wanshi Cai; Fengbiao Mao; Huajing Teng; Tao Cai; Fangqing Zhao; Jinyu Wu; Zhong Sheng Sun
Journal:  J Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 6.216

Review 7.  Deciphering the epigenetic code: an overview of DNA methylation analysis methods.

Authors:  Muhammad Umer; Zdenko Herceg
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 8.401

8.  A reassessment of DNA-immunoprecipitation-based genomic profiling.

Authors:  Antonio Lentini; Cathrine Lagerwall; Svante Vikingsson; Heidi K Mjoseng; Karolos Douvlataniotis; Hartmut Vogt; Henrik Green; Richard R Meehan; Mikael Benson; Colm E Nestor
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 28.547

9.  MBD-seq as a cost-effective approach for methylome-wide association studies: demonstration in 1500 case--control samples.

Authors:  Karolina A Aberg; Joseph L McClay; Srilaxmi Nerella; Lin Y Xie; Shaunna L Clark; Alexandra D Hudson; Jozsef Bukszár; Daniel Adkins; Christina M Hultman; Patrick F Sullivan; Patrik K E Magnusson; Edwin J C G van den Oord
Journal:  Epigenomics       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.778

10.  Tet-mediated covalent labelling of 5-methylcytosine for its genome-wide detection and sequencing.

Authors:  Liang Zhang; Keith E Szulwach; Gary C Hon; Chun-Xiao Song; Beomseok Park; Miao Yu; Xingyu Lu; Qing Dai; Xiao Wang; Craig R Street; Huiping Tan; Jung-Hyun Min; Bing Ren; Peng Jin; Chuan He
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.