| Literature DB >> 29028809 |
Xue Zhang1,2, Jocelyn M Biagini Myers3,4, Veda K Yadagiri2,3, Ashley Ulm2,3, Xiaoting Chen5, Matthew T Weirauch4,5,6, Gurjit K Khurana Hershey3,4, Hong Ji2,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment response to systemic corticosteroid in asthmatic children is heterogeneous and may be mediated by epigenetic mechanism(s). We aim to identify DNA methylation (DNAm) changes responsive to steroid, and DNAm biomarkers that distinguish treatment response.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29028809 PMCID: PMC5640236 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Analysis flowchart.
Demographics and clinical features of good and poor responders.
| Good responders (N = 15) | Poor responders (N = 18) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 8.0 (6.0–14.0) | 6.5 (5.0–11.0) | 0.31 |
| Male Sex | 10 (67%) | 12 (67%) | 1.00 |
| Race | |||
| White | 2 (13%) | 4 (22%) | 0.86 |
| Black | 12 (80%) | 12 (67%) | |
| Biracial | 1 (7%) | 2 (11%) | |
| Exposed to nasal steroid | 4 (27%) | 3 (17%) | 0.67 |
| Respiratory symptom score | 2.0 (1.1) | 2.5 (1.1) | 0.19 |
| ACT Score | 14.6 (3.5) | 17.3 (3.7) | 0.047 |
Note: age was shown as median (IQR) and tested using Wilcoxon rank sum test; respiratory symptom and asthma control scores were shown as mean (SD) and tested using t tests; the rest of the variables were shown as n (%) and tested using Fisher’s exact tests.
Fig 2Promoter methylation of OTX2 showed differential changes in response to steroid treatment between good and poor responders.
The association of DNAm at 4 CpG sites located within the promoter region of OTX2 with time (T0 vs. T1) and responder status were tested using mixed models with age, sex and race being adjusted. Data shown were least square means with standard errors of the methylation% at T0 and T1 for good and poor responders respectively. P values were for the responder-specific T1-T0 changes.
Fig 3DNAm at 32 non-SNP CpG sites separate two responder groups.
A. Hierarchical clustering of participants based on DNAm (Ward’s minimum variance method, JMP). Yellow line represents the complete separation between good (top panel) and poor responders (bottom panel). B. Overrepresented network from IPA analysis. CpG sites located close to genes circled in red were selected for verification.
CpG sites whose DNAm levels at T1 are associated with treatment response.
| Gene | site | Target ID | T1 | T0 | T1 + T0 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| poor | good | p-value | poor | good | p-value | poor | good | p-value | |||
| DNHD1 | CG1 | cg10208301 | 92.7±4.2 | 83.3±4.8 | 0.13 | 93.7±3.4 | 83.9±3.9 | 0.06 | 93.1±2.3 | 84.0±2.7 | |
| CG2 | 84.0±3.8 | 76.1±4.1 | 0.17 | 85.8±2.8 | 80.1±3.3 | 0.20 | 85.3±2.1 | 79.6±2.3 | 0.08 | ||
| CG3 | 90.5±5.3 | 81.0±6.1 | 0.22 | 89.5±3.6 | 87.7±4.1 | 0.73 | 89.0±2.8 | 87.0±3.2 | 0.64 | ||
| LDHC | CG1 | 81.0±3.8 | 72.1±4.3 | 0.11 | 87.7±2.1 | 78.6±2.4 | 85.5±1.8 | 77.3±2.1 | |||
| CG2 | 74.9±4.3 | 61.8±4.9 | 79.3±3.8 | 70.2±4.3 | 0.11 | 77.3±2.6 | 67.5±2.9 | ||||
| CG3 | cg14332815 | 67.6±4.2 | 53.8±4.8 | 67.5±4.7 | 57.6±5.4 | 0.16 | 67.4±2.6 | 55.8±3.0 | |||
| PRRC1 | CG1 | 37.8±3.8 | 32.0±4.3 | 0.30 | 32.8±4.5 | 41.0±5.1 | 0.21 | 35.0±3.0 | 36.2±3.4 | 0.76 | |
| CG2 | cg02762363 | 26.0±2.2 | 19.7±2.5 | 28.4±5.1 | 22.2±5.7 | 0.40 | 27.1±2.4 | 20.4±2.7 | 0.06 | ||
| CG3 | cg04431054 | 32.7±2.5 | 24.5±2.8 | 38.8±4.8 | 27.4±5.5 | 0.11 | 34.5±2.6 | 24.9±2.9 | |||
Note: DNAm were compared between good and poor responders using mixed models with age, sex and race being adjusted. Data shown were least square means and standard errors.
Fig 4Relationships between LDHC expression, DNAm and treatment response.
A. Correlations between LDHC expression and DNAm at each of the three CpG sites. Paired methylation% and expression values were plotted for each sample as dots; the regression lines showed negative correlation between expression and DNAm. B. Differential LDHC expression between good and poor responders. The expression data were plotted as dots; the least square mean of each group was shown as solid triangle along with 95% confidence limits.
Associations between DNAm, genotypes at meSNPs, and treatment response.
| rsID | cg | Genotype (n) | beta at T1 (SD) | %Poor responders | Genetic association (p value) | Chr | location | MA (%) | MA (%) | Putative function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs12282251 | cg16827215 | CC (20) | 0.76 (0.06) | 75% | 0.003 | 11 | 11292635 | T (0.20) | T (0.18) | 3’ UTR |
| CT (13) | 0.43 (0.03) | 23% | ||||||||
| rs34756202 | cg01882774 | CC (17) | 0.83 (0.03) | 35% | 0.11 | 14 | 94491763 | T (0.30) | T (0.26) | Intron/upstream |
| CT (12) | 0.50 (0.10) | 83% | ||||||||
| TT (4) | 0.07 (0.03) | 50% | ||||||||
| rs7933565 | cg19680693 | GG (12) | 0.83 (0.04) | 42% | 0.10 | 11 | 94111808 | A (0.45) | A (0.53) | 3’ UTR |
| GA (12) | 0.52 (0.07) | 50% | ||||||||
| AA (9) | 0.11 (0.05) | 78% | ||||||||
| rs66630638 | cg08891829 | GG (22) | 0.93 (0.01) | 36% | 0.002 | 4 | 56231728 | A (0.16) | A (0.14) | intron |
| AG (10) | 0.52 (0.05) | 90% | ||||||||
| AA (1) | 0.04 (-) | 100% | ||||||||
| rs73006518 | cg22843488 | CC (22) | 0.90 (0.02) | 41% | 0.015 | 3 | 151017685 | T (0.19) | T (0.06) | intron |
| CT (9) | 0.67 (0.10) | 78% | ||||||||
| TT (2) | 0.13 (0.02) | 100% | ||||||||
| rs76828276 | cg05187322 | CC (24) | 0.90 (0.02) | 42% | 0.010 | 17 | 78152328 | T (0.12) | T (0.07) | 5’ UTR |
| CT (9) | 0.49 (0.04) | 89% |
Note: Minor allele and frequencies from current ED study and UCSC (hg19) were listed. For the genetic association tests, additive models were used. No effects of age, sex or race on the responder status were detected.
Fig 5Relationships between DNAm, genotype at meSNPs and treatment response.
A-B. Relationship between rs12282251, cg16827215 and treatment response. Red and blue dots represented the CC and CT genotypes, respectively. C. Good agreement of DNAm at cg16827215 between T0 and T1. D. DNAm at cg05740244 between good and poor responders. All participants have the same genotype (GG). E. Good agreement of DNAm at cg05740244 between T0 and T1. Identity lines were drawn in C and E.