| Literature DB >> 24936189 |
Laetitia Perfus-Barbeoch1, Philippe Castagnone-Sereno1, Michael Reichelt2, Sara Fneich3, David Roquis3, Loris Pratx1, Céline Cosseau3, Christoph Grunau3, Pierre Abad1.
Abstract
Root-knot nematodes of the genus Meloidogyne are biotrophic plant parasites that exhibit different life cycles and reproduction modes, ranging from classical amphimixis to obligatory mitotic parthenogenesis (apomixis), depending on the species. Meloidogyne incognita, an apomictic species, exhibits a worldwide distribution and a wide host range affecting more than 3000 plant species. Furthermore, evidences suggest that apomixis does not prevent M. incognita from adapting to its environment in contrast to what is expected from mitotic parthenogenesis that should theoretically produce clonal progenies. This raises questions about mechanisms of genome plasticity leading to genetic variation and adaptive evolution in apomictic animals. We reasoned that epigenetic mechanisms might in part be responsible for the generation of phenotypic variants that provide potential for rapid adaptation. We established therefore a pipeline to investigate the principal carriers of epigenetic information, DNA methylation and post-translational histone modifications. Even if M. incognita possesses the epigenetic machinery i.e., chromatin modifying enzymes, 5-methyl-cytosine and 5-hydroxy-methyl-cytosine content is absent or very weak. In contrast, we demonstrated that the canonical histone modifications are present and chromatin shows typical nucleosome structure. This work is the first characterization of carriers of epigenetic information in M. incognita and constitutes a preamble to further investigate if M. incognita development and its adaptation to plant hosts are under epigenetic control. Our pipeline should allow performing similar types of studies in any non-model organism.Entities:
Keywords: DNA-methylation; Meloidogyne incognita; chromatin; epigenetics; histone modification
Year: 2014 PMID: 24936189 PMCID: PMC4047830 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
.
| DNMT-1 | EFV58204.1 | Minc01117 | |
| DNMT-2 | EFV60295.1 | ||
| AY766101.1 | |||
| DNMT-3 | EFV54759.1 | ||
| Cel-MBD-2 | C27A12.10 | Minc14299 Minc14778 | |
| Cbr-MBD-2 | CBP11474 | ||
| Ppa-MBD-2 | AY766102.1 | ||
Figure 1Frequency distribution of CpG observed/expected ratio (CpGo/e) in four different species. (A) C. elegans and (B) D. melanogaster, and on (C) A. melifera and (D) M. incognita. CpGo/e ratio was measured as a proxy to estimate the CpG methylation in transcripts from EST data. X axis: CpGo/e ratio, Y-axis density (frequency distribution) of ESTs. The figure displays a histogram of Bg GUA CpGo/e ratios with a fitted mixture distribution. The gray shaded bars represent 95% confidence intervals for the two mean values.
Figure 2Western blot detection of (A) unmodified histone H3, (B) modified histone H3: dimethylated H3 at lysine 4 (H3K4Me2) and acetylated H3 at lysine 9 (H3K9Ac) and (C) modified histone H4: trimethylated H4 at lysine 20 (H4K20Me3) in .
Figure 3(A) Pictures showing nucleus (in black; Hoechst staining) of M. incognita eggs observed under microscope (40X, Nikon T1-SM) before (Control) and after grinding (Supernatant and Centrifugation sediments). The experiment started with intact eggs (Control) that were grinded for 5 min in Dounce homogenizer to release nuclei. After centrifugation, only nuclei were observed in centrifugation sediments whereas nuclei and fragments remained in supernatant. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B) Electrophoresis gel of M. incognita eggs DNA after 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 min MNase (15 U) treatment showing a very characteristic pattern, similar to a ladder, for nucleosome. Marker 1 and 2 exhibit regularly spaced bands ranging from 200 to 10,000 bp and 100 to 1000 bp, respectively.
Amplicon sequences and primer sequences designed for qPCR.
| CGTGCAGCGGTTGAGAAGGATACTGTCCAAGTTGTTGCTGTCAATGACCCGTTCATTGATCTTGACTATATGGTTTGGGGGAGACTTTCTATTAATAACTCCAATAACTTTTAGGTCTATATGTTTAACTATGATTCCACCCACGGACGC | |||
| Mi_ChIP_GAPDH_F | CGTGCAGCGGTTGAGAAGGA | 20 | 150 |
| Mi_ChIP_GAPDH_R | GCGTCCGTGGGTGGAATCAT | 20 | |
| AAGATGGATGAAGAGGTAGCCGCCCTTGTTGTGGATAATGGCAGTGGAATGTGCAAGGTTAGTTAAAAATGCCCTTTTTTCGATTTAAAGTTCTGTTGTTTTTTAAAGGCTGGATTTGCGGGTGATGATGCTCCTCGTGCCGTTTTTCCA | |||
| Mi_ChIP_Actin_F | AAGATGGATGAAGAGGTAGCCGCCC | 25 | 150 |
| Mi_ChIP_Actin_R | TGGAAAAACGGCACGAGGAGCA | 22 | |
Figure 4qPCR on . The amount of target DNA recovered in the immune-precipitated fraction was quantified by calculating the percent input recovery (% IR) normalized with the percent input recovery obtained with the housekeeping gene as previously described by Cosseau et al. (2009).