| Literature DB >> 21884617 |
Felix Schreiner1, Osman El-Maarri, Bettina Gohlke, Sonja Stutte, Nicole Nuesgen, Manuel Mattheisen, Rolf Fimmers, Peter Bartmann, Johannes Oldenburg, Joachim Woelfle.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Catechol-O-Methyltransferase (COMT) plays a key role in dopamine and estrogen metabolism. Recently, COMT haplotypes rather than the single polymorphism Val158Met have been reported to underlie differences in protein expression by modulating mRNA secondary structure. So far, studies investigating the epigenetic variability of the S-COMT (soluble COMT) promoter region mainly focused on phenotypical aspects, and results have been controversial.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21884617 PMCID: PMC3270002 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-12-115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genet ISSN: 1471-2350 Impact factor: 2.103
Figure 1Genomic sequence flanking the S-COMT promoter region (atg in italics). Primer sequences for the PCR amplification of bisulfite-converted DNA are Ampl Fwd: 5' TAGGAGGAGTATAGAGTATTG 3' and Ampl Rev: 5' TATCACCCATAAACAAATTATA 3'; Ext1 and Ext2 bordering CG1 and CG2 indicate the complementary extension primer sequences used in the SNuPE analysis.
Figure 2A SNuPE IP RP HPLC example showing the discrimination of extension primer only vs. extended primer oligonucleotides (T with higher molecular weight than C). Methylation levels can be calculated by comparison of the relative heights of Ext.+C (formerly methylated cytosine) and Ext.+T (formerly unmethylated cytosine). Differences in length and composition of the two extension primers allowed discrimination of two separate extension primer sets (Ext.1 and Ext.2) within one SNuPE run.
Figure 3Intra-individual correlation between saliva and blood DNA methylation levels at the S-COMT promoter (mean methylation = (CG1 + CG2)/2)).
Figure 4Intra-twinpair correlation between both twins for blood- (A) and saliva-derived DNA (B). Note that in (B) one pair of outliers was not included in the analysis.
S-COMT methylation [% ± SD] with respect to COMT genotype in Blood DNA (twin cohort)
| Variant | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67.1 ± 3.1 | 62.1 ± 3.9 | 51.4 ± 3.0 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| 54.2 ± 5.8 | 62.0 ± 4.1 | 67.1 ± 3.1 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| 67.1 ± 3.1 | 62.0 ± 4.1 | 54.2 ± 5.8 | < 0.01 | |||||||
Note that similar or equal methylation values across genotype groups for different SNPs result from a high (in the twin cohort almost complete) linkage disequilibrium between rs6269, rs4633, and rs4680. Please note that shown p-values were calculated using one-way ANOVAs, which do not take the interrelatedness of the observations into account.
S-COMT methylation [% ± SD] with respect to COMT genotypes in Saliva DNA (twin cohort)
| Variant | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43.4 ± 18.0 | 40.5 ± 7.8 | 31.9 ± 11.9 | < 0.05 * | |||||||
| 33.2 ± 10.1 | 41.0 ± 7.8 | 43.4 ± 18.0 | < 0.05 * | |||||||
| 43.4 ± 18.0 | 41.0 ± 7.8 | 33.2 ± 10.1 | < 0.05 * | |||||||
* rs6269: AG vs. GG p < 0.05; rs4633: CC vs. CT p < 0.05; rs4680: AG vs. GG p < 0.05. Please note that shown p-values were calculated using t-tests, which does not take the interrelatedness of the observations into account.
S-COMT methylation [% ± SD] with respect to COMT genotype in Blood DNA (blood donors)
| Variant | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | CG1 | CG2b | mean | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60.1 ± 3.7 | 55.7 ± 5.1 | 51.4 ± 5.3 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| 60.3 ± 3.7 | 54.7 ± 4.5 | 49.1 ± 5.4 | < 0.01 | |||||||
Note that due to the high linkage disequilibrium between rs6269, rs4633, and rs4680, in the replication cohort we assessed only rs6269 and rs4680, which are sufficient to differentiate between the 3 common activity haplotypes.
Figure 5Mean S-COMT methylation levels with respect to the presumed COMT haplotype carrier status (A = twin cohort, B = adult controls). In both cohorts, no individuals homozygous for the HPS haplotype were found. All other haplotype combinations were ranked within an imaginary scale corresponding to the proposed phenotypical differences (high > average > low pain sensitive, according to [Nackley et al., 2006]).
Auxiological and epigenetic differences between donors and recipients (mean ± SEM)
| Donors | Recipients | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| -1.45 ± 0.2 | -0.64 ± 0.2 | < 0.01 | |
| -1.6 ± 0.3 | -0.5 ± 0.2 | < 0.01 | |
| -0.8 ± 0.2 | -0.3 ± 0.2 | < 0.01 | |
| -0.7 ± 0.2 | -0.1 ± 0.2 | < 0.01 | |
| 50.4 ± 1.4 | 51.6 ± 1.2 | n.s. | |
| 36.5 ± 2.1 | 35.0 ± 2.2 | n.s. | |
Genotype and gestational age at laser treatment (mean ± SD)
| Wks | wks | wks | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 0.01 | ||||
| < 0.01 | ||||
| < 0.01 | ||||
COMT genotype and gestational age at birth (mean ± SD)
| Wks | wks | Wks | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.082 * | ||||
| 0.089 * | ||||
| 0.089 * | ||||
* Kruskal-Wallis test significance levels are displayed in the table;
Mann-Whitney-U-test: rs6269: AA vs AG p = 0.034; rs4633: CC vs. TT p = 0.049; rs4680: AA vs. GG p = 0.049.