| Literature DB >> 32586035 |
Anna Grzywacz1, Wojciech Barczak2, Jolanta Chmielowiec3, Krzysztof Chmielowiec3, Aleksandra Suchanecka1, Grzegorz Trybek4, Jolanta Masiak5, Paweł Jagielski6, Katarzyna Grocholewicz7, Blazej Rubiś8.
Abstract
The susceptibility to cannabis dependency results from the influence of numerous factors such as social, genetic, as well as epigenetic factors. Many studies have attempted to discover a molecular basis for this disease. However, our study aimed at evaluating the connection between altered methylation of the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) promoter CpG sites and cannabis dependency. In the cases of some DNA sequences, including the DAT1 gene region, their methylation status in blood cells may reflect a systemic modulation in the whole organism. Consequently, we isolated the DNA from the peripheral blood cells from a group of 201 cannabis-dependent patients and 285 controls who were healthy volunteers and who were matched for age and sex. The DNA was subjected to bisulfite conversion and sequencing. Our analysis revealed no statistical differences in the general methylation status of the DAT1 gene promoter CpG island between the patients and controls. Yet, the analysis of individual CpG sites where methylation occurred indicated significant differences. These sites are known to be bound by transcription factors (e.g., SP1, p53, PAX5, or GR), which, apart from other functions, were shown to play a role in the development of the nervous system. Therefore, DAT1 gene promoter methylation studies may provide important insight into the mechanism of cannabis dependency.Entities:
Keywords: CpG sites; DAT1; cannabis; dependency; dopamine transporter gene; epigenetics
Year: 2020 PMID: 32586035 PMCID: PMC7348832 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci10060400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1An assessment of a methylation status of individual CpG sites in the DAT1 promoter. (A) The representative result of the positive (top) and negative (bottom) methylation statuses; (B) the sequence of the analyzed DAT1 promoter. Numbers were assigned to individual sites in the studied region starting from 5′. The methylation status of individual CpG sites was detected with a cut-off level at 20% of the G/A + G ratio using 4Peaks software (Mek & Tosj, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
The methylation status of 33 DAT1 CpG sites in cannabis-dependent and control subjects.
| CpG Site | Studied Group | Methylation Status (%) | χ2(p) | OR | 95% CI | Spearman’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 2 | dependent N (201) | 78% | 1.992 (0.158) | 0.739 | (0.485, 1.125) | −0.064 (0.159) |
| control N (285) | 72% | |||||
| 3 | dependent N (201) | 86% | 4.986 (0.026) | 1.921 | (1.075, 3.431) | 0.101 (0.026) |
| control N (285) | 92% | |||||
| 4 | dependent N (201) | 25% | 0.003 (0.952) | 1.013 | (0.669, 1.533) | 0.003 (0.952) |
| control N (285) | 26% | |||||
| 5 | dependent N (201) | 26% | 5.357 (0.021) | 1.597 | (1.072, 2.377) | 0.105 (0.021) |
| control N (285) | 36% | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 7 | dependent N (201) | 15% | 0.289 (0.591) | 0.869 | (0.522, 1.448) | −0.024 (0.592) |
| control N (285) | 14% | |||||
| 8 | dependent N (201) | 3% | 1.499 (0.221) | 1.812 | (0.691, 4.754) | 0.056 (0.222) |
| control N (285) | 5% | |||||
| 9 | dependent N (201) | 36% | 0.217 (0.641) | 1.093 | (0.751, 1.590) | 0.021 (0.642) |
| control N (285) | 38% | |||||
| 10 | dependent N (201) | 37% | 0.00001 (0.998) | 1.000 | (0.689, 1.453) | 0.0001 (0.998) |
| control N (285) | 37% | |||||
| 11 | dependent N (201) | 3% | 2.360 (0.124) | 1.979 | (0.816, 4.802) | 0.069 (0.125) |
| control N (285) | 7% | |||||
| 12 | dependent N (201) | 30% | 0.105 (0.746) | 1.067 | (0.721, 1.580) | 0.015 (0.746) |
| control N (285) | 31% | |||||
| 13 | dependent N (201) | 2% | 8.037 (0.005) | 3.769 | (1.417, 10.022) | 0.128 (0.005) |
| control N (285) | 9% | |||||
| 14 | dependent N (201) | 85% | 0.046 (0.832) | 0.947 | (0.577, 1.556) | −0.010 (0.831) |
| control N (285) | 84% | |||||
| 15 | dependent N (201) | 83% | 0.019 (0.891) | 0.967 | (0.602, 1.554) | −0.006 (0.891) |
| control N (285) | 82% | |||||
| 16 | dependent N (201) | 67% | 2.594 (0.107) | 0.733 | (0.502, 1.070) | −0.073 (0.108) |
| control N (285) | 60% | |||||
| 17 | dependent N (201) | 28% | 0.266 (0.606) | 1.110 | (0.746, 1.651) | 0.023 (0.607) |
| control N (285) | 31% | |||||
| 18 | dependent N (201) | 7% | 0.002 (0.969) | 0.986 | (0.495, 1.964) | −0.002 (0.969) |
| control N (285) | 7% | |||||
| 19 | dependent N (201) | 92% | 7.920 (0.005) | 3.435 | (1.386, 8.511) | 0.128 (0.005) |
| control N (285) | 98% | |||||
| 20 | dependent N (201) | 45% | 2.558 (0.110) | 0.741 | (0.513, 1.070) | −0.072 (0.110) |
| control N (285) | 38% | |||||
| 21 | dependent N (201) | 72% | 2.441 (0.118) | 0.732 | (0.495, 1.083) | −0.071 (0.119) |
| control N (285) | 65% | |||||
| 22 | dependent N (201) | 87% | 10.045 (0.002) | 2.876 | (1.461, 5.659) | 0.144 (0.001) |
| control N (285) | 95% | |||||
| 23 | dependent N (201) | 19% | 0.080 (0.777) | 0.935 | (0.587, 1.489) | −0.013 (0.777) |
| control N (285) | 18% | |||||
| 24 | dependent N (201) | 70% | 0.284 (0.594) | 0.899 | (0.609, 1.328) | −0.024 (0.595) |
| control N (285) | 67% | |||||
| 25 | dependent N (201) | 25% | 5.761 (0.016) | 1.632 | (1.092, 2.440) | 0.109 (0.016) |
| control N (285) | 35% | |||||
| 26 | dependent N (201) | 37% | 2.549 (0.110) | 1.350 | (0.933, 1.953) | 0.072 (0.111) |
| control N (285) | 45% | |||||
| 27 | dependent N (201) | 17% | 0.143 (0.705) | 1.096 | (0.681, 1.764) | 0.017 (0.706) |
| control N (285) | 18% | |||||
| 28 | dependent N (201) | 73% | 6.067 (0.014) | 0.611 | (0.412, 0.906) | −0.112 (0.014) |
| control N (285) | 62% | |||||
| 29 | dependent N (201) | 25% | 1.888 (0.169) | 0.738 | (0.479, 1.139) | −0.062 (0.170) |
| control N (285) | 20% | |||||
| 30 | dependent N (201) | 10% | 0.074 (0.786) | 1.084 | (0.605, 1.941) | 0.012 (0.786) |
| control N (285) | 11% | |||||
| 31 | dependent N (201) | 5% | 0.290 (0.590) | 1.234 | (0.574, 2.653) | 0.024 (0.591) |
| control N (285) | 7% | |||||
| 32 | dependent N (201) | 68% | 0.004 (0.951) | 1.012 | (0.686, 1.492) | 0.003 (0.951) |
| control N (285) | 68% | |||||
| 33 | dependent N (201) | 73% | 2.599 (0.107) | 1.413 | (0.927, 2.152) | 0.073 (0.107) |
| control N (285) | 79% |
The chi-squared test χ2(p); (OR) odds ratio; (CI) Confidence Interval; R(p) Spearman correlation (−95%, +95%). To positions 1 and 6, the Bonferroni correction was applied to get the Bonferroni critical value (p = 0.0015).
Potential transcription factors capable of binding analyzed CpG sites. The ability of transcription factors to bind individual regions was assessed with different similarity rates, i.e., 100% (a), 95% (b), or 85% (c).
| Matrix Similarity Rate | CpG Position | Transcription Factor |
|---|---|---|
| ( | 3 | PAX5 |
| 33 | PAX5 | |
| ( | 1 | GCF |
| 3 | PAX5 | |
| 11 | RXR-alpha | |
| 19 | c-Ets-2 | |
| 20 | c-Ets-2 | |
| 22 | PAX5, p53, Sp1 | |
| 25 | AP-2alphaA | |
| 28 | NFI/CTF | |
| 33 | PAX5 | |
| ( | 1 | GCF, E2F1 |
| 3 | PAX5, p53 | |
| 5 | AhR | |
| 6 | GR alpha | |
| 11 | TFII-I, STAT4, RXR-alpha | |
| 13 | PAX5, p53 | |
| 19 | GR alpha, c-Ets-2, E2F1, GCF | |
| 20 | c-Ets-2, E2F1, GCF | |
| 22 | PAX5, p53, E2F1, Sp1 | |
| 25 | GR alpha, AP-2alphaA, NF-AT2 | |
| 26 | PAX5, p53 | |
| 28 | ENKTF1, EBF, E2F1, NFI/CTF | |
| 33 | PAX5, p53, E2F1 |