| Literature DB >> 23451113 |
Ramon M Rodriguez1, Beatriz Suarez-Alvarez, Rubén Salvanés, Manuel Muro, Pablo Martínez-Camblor, Enrique Colado, Miguel Alcoceba Sánchez, Marcos González Díaz, Agustin F Fernandez, Mario F Fraga, Carlos Lopez-Larrea.
Abstract
Epigenetic deregulation is considered a common hallmark of cancer. Nevertheless, recent publications have demonstrated its association with a large array of human diseases. Here, we explore the DNA methylation dynamics in blood samples during hematopoietic cell transplant and how they are affected by pathophysiological events during transplant evolution. We analyzed global DNA methylation in a cohort of 47 patients with allogenic transplant up to 12 months post-transplant. Recipients stably maintained the donor's global methylation levels after transplant. Nonetheless, global methylation is affected by chimerism status. Methylation analysis of promoters revealed that methylation in more than 200 genes is altered 1 month post-transplant when compared with non-pathological methylation levels in the donor. This number decreased by 6 months post-transplant. Finally, we analyzed methylation in IFN-γ, FASL, IL-10, and PRF1 and found association with the severity of the acute graft-versus-host disease. Our results provide strong evidence that methylation changes in blood are linked to underlying physiological events and demonstrate that DNA methylation analysis is a viable strategy for the study of transplantation and for development of biomarkers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23451113 PMCID: PMC3579934 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056931
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient characteristics.
| TOTALN = 47 | Non-aGVHD (grade 0)N = 17 | aGVHD(grade I)N = 10 | aGVHD(grade II–V)N = 20 | p-value | ||
|
| Median | 33 | 26 | 35 | 32 | 0.966 |
| Range | (0–63) | (4–58) | (0–52) | (0–62) | ||
|
| Median | 30 | 30 | 33 | 21 | 0.788 |
| Range | (1–61) | (1–59) | (7–56) | (6–61) | ||
|
| Malignant | 89% (n = 42) | 88% (n = 15) | 100% (n = 10) | 85% (n = 17) | 0.646 |
| Other | 11% (n = 5) | 12% (n = 2) | 0% (n = 0) | 15% (n = 3) | ||
|
| Related | 66% (n = 31) | 76% (n = 13) | 80% (n = 8) | 50% (n = 10) | 0.160 |
| Unrelated | 34% (n = 16) | 24% (n = 4) | 20% (n = 2) | 50% (n = 10) | ||
|
| Matched | 95% (n = 45) | 100% (n = 17) | 100% (n = 10) | 90% (n = 18) | 0.05 |
| Mismatched | 5% (n = 2) | 0% (n = 0) | 0% (n = 0) | 10% (n = 2) | ||
|
| Moderate intensity | 25% (n = 12) | 35% (n = 6) | 40% (n = 4) | 10% (n = 2) | 0.170 |
| High intensity | 75% (n = 35) | 65% (n = 11) | 60% (n = 6) | 90% (n = 18) | ||
|
| Peripheral Blood | 81% (n = 38) | 65% (n = 11) | 90% (n = 9) | 90% (n = 18) | 0.022 |
| Bone Marrow | 15% (n = 7) | 35% (n = 6) | 0% (n = 0) | 5% (n = 1) | ||
| Umbilical Cord | 4% (n = 2) | 0% (n = 0) | 10% (n = 1) | 5% (n = 1) | ||
|
| Complete | 79% (n = 37) | 53% (n = 9) | 100% (n = 10) | 90% (n = 18) | 0.06 |
| Mixed | 21% (n = 10) | 47% (n = 8) | 0% (n = 0) | 10% (n = 2) |
Figure 1Analysis of global DNA methylation levels post-HCT.
(A) Diagram of the experimental design. The differences of the global methylation levels between donors, pre-HCT recipients and post-HCT recipients were assessed by a pyrosequencing based methylation assay of repetitive DNA elements (LINE1 and NBL2) in whole blood. (B) NBL2 ΔMet values between donors, pre-HCT recipients, and 1 month post-HCT recipients. (C) NBL2 ΔMet mean values between donors and recipients up to 12 months post-transplant. The dotted line marks the ΔMet mean value between donors and 1 month post-HCT recipients (ΔMet = 5.8450). During the follow up of the transplant, the mean values barely deviated from the initial post-HCT ΔMet. (D) LINE1 ΔMet values between donors, pre-HCT recipients and 1 month post-HCT recipients. (E) LINE1 ΔMet mean values between donors and recipients up to 12 months post-transplant. The dotted line marked the ΔMet mean value between donors and 1 month post-HCT recipients (ΔMet = 5.383).
Figure 2Changes in NBL2 methylation levels are associated to HCT outcomes.
(A) NBL2 ΔMet between donors and 1 month post-transplant recipient with complete and mixed chimerism. (B) ROC curve for patients with complete and mixed chimerism (AUC = 0.911). (C) NBL2 ΔMet between donors and 1 month post-transplant recipients according to severity of aGVHD. (D) ROC curve for patients with severe aGVHD versus non-aGVHD and moderate aGVHD (AUC = 0.678).
Figure 3Promoter DNA methylation profiling using bead arrays and differential methylation analysis after HCT.
Scatter plots showing DNA methylation in donors versus post-transplant recipients 1 month and 6 months post-HCT. Red dots represent CpG sites with methylation values altered more than 20% relative to donor values.
Figure 4Association of Locus-specific DNA methylation to aGVHD.
(A) IFNγ methylation up to 12 months post-transplant is shown in the left panel. The black line marked the mean value in the cohort and the dotted line marked the mean value 1 month post-HCT. In the central panel are represented IFNγ methylation values according to severity of aGVHD 1 month post-HCT. IFNγ ROC curve for patients with severe aGVHD versus non-aGVHD and moderate aGVHD (AUC = 0.782) is shown in the right panel. (B) FASL methylation up to 12 months post-transplant and methylation values according to severity of aGVHD 1 month post-HCT. FASL ROC curve for patients with severe aGVHD versus non-aGVHD and moderate aGVHD (AUC = 0.769) is shown in the right panel. (C) IL-10 methylation up to 12 months post-transplant and methylation values according to severity of aGVHD 1 month post-HCT. IL-10 ROC curve for patient with and without aGVHD (AUC = 0.764) is shown in the right panel. (D) PRF1 methylation up to 12 months post-transplant and methylation values according to severity of aGVHD 1 month post-HCT.