| Literature DB >> 25424739 |
Elmar W Tobi1, Jelle J Goeman2, Ramin Monajemi2, Hongcang Gu3, Hein Putter2, Yanju Zhang1, Roderick C Slieker1, Arthur P Stok1, Peter E Thijssen4, Fabian Müller5, Erik W van Zwet2, Christoph Bock6, Alexander Meissner7, L H Lumey8, P Eline Slagboom1, Bastiaan T Heijmans1.
Abstract
Periconceptional diet may persistently influence DNA methylation levels with phenotypic consequences. However, a comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of prenatal malnutrition-associated differentially methylated regions (P-DMRs) is lacking in humans. Here we report on a genome-scale analysis of differential DNA methylation in whole blood after periconceptional exposure to famine during the Dutch Hunger Winter. We show that P-DMRs preferentially occur at regulatory regions, are characterized by intermediate levels of DNA methylation and map to genes enriched for differential expression during early development. Validation and further exploratory analysis of six P-DMRs highlight the critical role of gestational timing. Interestingly, differential methylation of the P-DMRs extends along pathways related to growth and metabolism. P-DMRs located in INSR and CPT1A have enhancer activity in vitro and differential methylation is associated with birth weight and serum LDL cholesterol. Epigenetic modulation of pathways by prenatal malnutrition may promote an adverse metabolic phenotype in later life.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25424739 PMCID: PMC4246417 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1The methylation level of genes in the RRBS data set.
The methylation level across a gene. A lowess has been fit across all data for all entrez genes. The width of the gene elements represents the relative amount of data for the elements in the total data set.
Genomic annotation-centred analysis of differential methylation after early gestational famine exposure.
| Non-CGI, ‘bona fide’ promoters | 2,024/7,014 (28.9%) | 9.1 × 10−4 | 0.026 |
| Enhancers | 6,207/59,466 (10.4%) | 1.9 × 10−3 | 0.026 |
| DNaseI/FAIRE-seq regions | 79,728/590,252 (13.5%) | 4.4 × 10−3 | 0.036 |
| Middle exons | 1,570/17,848 (8.8%) | 5.8 × 10−3 | 0.036 |
| Developmental enhancers type I | 922/5,118 (18.0%) | 6.5 × 10−3 | 0.036 |
| ‘bona fide’ CGI shores | 27,688/88,871 (31.2%) | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Non-coding RNA | 59/718 (8.2%) | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Conserved regions | 1,386/165,937 (0.8%) | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| CGI shores | 67,811/319,509 (21.2%) | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| 3′UTR | 2,909/21,004 (13.8%) | 0.035 | 0.085 |
| Non genic CGI | 41,023/129,049 (31.8%) | 0.036 | 0.085 |
| ‘Bonafide’ CGI border | 22,777/88,074 (25.9%) | 0.036 | 0.085 |
| Developmental enhancer type II | 320/2,287 (14.0%) | 0.078 | 0.15 |
| CGI | 113,673/343,925 (33.1%) | 0.078 | 0.15 |
| Introns | 61,816/201,640 (30.7%) | 0.080 | 0.15 |
| hESC bivalent chromatin domains | 1,741/1,797 (96.9%) | 0.16 | 0.28 |
| Bonafide CGI | 35,271/44,439 (79.4%) | 0.20 | 0.32 |
| Cell-type specific gene promoters | 2,106/2,372 (88.8%) | 0.21 | 0.32 |
| First exons | 13,507/51,497 (26.2%) | 0.25 | 0.36 |
| Promoters | 16,904/23,689 (71.4%) | 0.26 | 0.36 |
| HSC bivalent chromatin domains | 2,779/2,910 (95.5%) | 0.28 | 0.36 |
| Imprinted promoters | 42/46 (91.3%) | 0.29 | 0.36 |
| ‘Bona fide’ CGI promoter | 14,880/16,674 (89.2%) | 0.32 | 0.37 |
| CTCF insulators from CD4+ cells | 4,396/28,661 (15.3%) | 0.32 | 0.37 |
| Imprinted DMRs | 6/14 (42.9%) | 0.33 | 0.37 |
| Putative metastable epialles | 29/38 (76.3%) | 0.43 | 0.47 |
| Variably methylated regions | 56/227 (24.7%) | 0.55 | 0.57 |
| Promoters cancer genes | 795/888 (89.5%) | 0.63 | 0.63 |
DMR, differentially methylated region; hESC, human embryonic stem cell; RRBS, reduced representation bisulfite sequencing; UTR, untranslated region.
The coverage of the genomic annotations is in line with the enrichment of RRBS for GC-rich regions, but also indicates a good coverage across annotations, including those relatively GC poor. P values were obtained with GlobalTest.
*More details on the genomic annotations can be found in the Methods.
†Promoters without CGIs but with a relatively open chromatin state22.
‡Enhancers characterized by H3K4me1, non-overlapping with promoters23.
§Regions with an open chromatin state as defined by DNaseI and FAIRE-seq signals (UCSC track ENCODE).
||Enhancers active during first stages of blastocyst development24.
¶Shores of the so-called bona fide CGI, CGI island with an ubiquitously open chromatin structure; oe>0.6, GC%>50% and length >700 bp22.
#Body of various type of non-coding RNAs.
**Conserved regions outside promoters, CGIs, exons and UTR.
††CGI>10 kb from gene.
Figure 2The average within-pair difference for the 181 regions associated with prenatal famine exposure after correction for multiple testing.
A histogram for the average within pair difference (%) between the exposed and unexposed siblings. A positive number reflects relative higher DNA methylation levels in the exposed.
Figure 3The correspondence between RRBS and EpiTYPER measurements of DNA methylation at P-DMRs.
Individual regions with a Pearson correlation >0.7 are denoted in color and plotted separately along the main figure. The correlation of the other regions can be found in Supplementary Table 3.
Technical validation of RRBS associations with EpiTYPER.
| OC & Enh | 21.3 | 4.2 | 1.0 × 10−7 | 1.1 × 10−3 | 3.2 | 2.5 × 10−3 | |
| OC & Enh | 12.4 | 4.0 | 1.3 × 10−7 | 1.1 × 10−3 | 2.2 | 6.3 × 10−3 | |
| OC | 43.3 | 8.1 | 3.9 × 10−6 | 0.010 | 2.0 | 0.031 | |
| OC & Exon | 86.3 | −2.3 | 3.2 × 10−5 | 0.030 | −0.9 | 0.09 | |
| OC | 67.0 | 4.5 | 4.0 × 10−5 | 0.031 | 2.0 | 0.05 | |
| OC | 67.1 | −7.9 | 6.1 × 10−5 | 0.042 | −3.1 | 0.014 | |
Enh, enhancer; OC, open chromatin; RRBS, reduced representation bisulfite sequencing.
*Type of genomic annotations: OC, Enh and Exon.
†P value resulting from a linear mixed model.
Figure 4Results across the famine period.
(a) A lowess curve depicting the average within-pair difference (y axis) stratified by the estimate of the start of pregnancy (LMP; x axis). Each coloured line represents an individual P-DMR. (b) the blue bars depict the official daily rations (kcal per day) per week, the black line represents a lowess curve depicting the average 24 h temperature (source KNMI; DeBilt weather station). The daily requirement of (non-pregnant) women of 2,000 kcal per day is denoted in red.
P-DMRs are specific for pre-April pregnancies.
| 4.3 | 2.2 × l0−7 | 3.8 | 0.010 | 4.4 | 0.027 | l.6 | 0.39 | |
| 4.2 | 4.5 × l0−6 | 3.6 | l.4 × l0−3 | 3.6 | 0.034 | 0.l | 0.9l | |
| 9.0 | 7.4 × 10−7 | 2.5 | 0.l6 | 3.8 | 0.0l6 | 0.5 | 0.77 | |
| −3.7 | l.l × lO−7 | −2.3 | 3.5 × l0−3 | −l.9 | 0.l3 | 0.8 | 0.2l | |
| 4.9 | 1.1 × 10−5 | 4.4 | 0.04l | 3.8 | 0.02l | −l.l | 0.49 | |
| −8.6 | l.6 × l0−5 | −5.5 | 7.8 × l0−3 | −6.0 | 7.5 × l0−3 | l.0 | 0.57 | |
P-DMR, prenatal malnutrition-associated differentially methylated region.
*Outcome of the generalized mixed effects model for a famine association for the pairs with one sibling conceived from November 1944 to March 1945 (18 pairs, 36 individuals) in the RRBS data.
†Outcome of the linear mixed effects model for a famine association for the EpiTYPER measurements on the same pairs as measured by RRBS and with a sibling conceived between November 1944 and March 1945.
‡Outcome of the linear mixed effects model for a famine association for the EpiTYPER measurements for pairs not measured by RRBS but with one sibling conceived between November 1944 and March 1945 (also 18 pairs, 36 individuals).
§Outcome of the linear mixed effects model for a famine association for the EpiTYPER measurements for all pairs with one sibling conceived in April or May 1945 (24 pairs, 48 individuals, of which six pairs were also included in the RRBS discovery measurement).
Figure 5Revigo analysis of the significant pathways.
A sunburst graph of the non-redundant clustered FDR significant GO terms associated with prenatal famine exposure. The size of the circular boxes are proportional to the level of statistical evidence. In bold are the dominant terms of the clusters, which are denoted in different colours.
Figure 6The INSR and CPT1A P-DMRs.
(a) Scatterplot between birth weight (x axis) and the average DNA methylation of the INSR P-DMR (y axis) in the 60 prenatally exposed individuals. (b) Scatterplot between LDL (x axis) and the average DNA methylation of the CPT1A P-DMR (y axis) in all 120 siblings. (c) Genomic annotation of INSR DMR. The P-DMR overlaps an enhancer in the HSMM and NHLF cell lines and an DNaseI hypersensitivy cluster in over 30 cell lines. (d) Genomic annotation of CPT1A DMR. The P-DMR overlaps an enhancer in the blood derived GM12878 and embryonic stem cell line H1 and a DNaseI hypersensitive cluster in over 30 cell lines. Furthermore, the BAF155 transcription factor binds in this region.
Figure 7The difference in reporter gene expression for the INSR and CPTIA P-DMRs.
The P-DMRs were inserted in front of an EF1 promoter in the CpGL CpG-free vector. The Luciferase activity was normalized against Renilla activity. Next, the normalized fold change was calculated relative to activity of the CpGL-EF1 vector, so the same vector but devoid of an enhancer. The blue bars denote the unmethylated vector set against the CpGL-EF1 vector and the yellow bars the same vector, but now methylated, against the CpGL-EF1 vector. Error bars denote the s.e. Each experiment was performed three times in duplicate. (a) The CpGL-INSR/EF1 vector has a greater than threefold higher activity than the CpGL-EF1 vector. DNA methylation of the INSR P-DMR does not result in a significant difference in activity as compared with the unmethylated CpGL-INSR/EF1 vector. (b) The CpGL-CPT1A/EF1 vector has a greater than threefold higher activity than the CpGL-EF1 vector. DNA methylation of the CPT1A P-DMR results in a significantly lower activity of the vector as compared with the unmethylated CpGL-CPT1A/EF1 vector.