Literature DB >> 32640317

Methods for analysis of specific DNA methylation status.

María J Pajares1, Cora Palanca-Ballester2, Raquel Urtasun3, Ester Alemany-Cosme2, Agustin Lahoz4, Juan Sandoval5.   

Abstract

Methylation of CpG dinucleotides plays a crucial role in the regulation of gene expression and therefore in the development of different pathologies. Aberrant methylation has been associated to the majority of the diseases, including cancer, neurodegenerative, cardiovascular and autoimmune disorders. Analysis of DNA methylation patterns is crucial to understand the underlying molecular mechanism of these diseases. Moreover, DNA methylation patterns could be used as biomarker for clinical management, such as diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response. Nowadays, a variety of high throughput methods for DNA methylation have been developed to analyze the methylation status of a high number of CpGs at once or even the whole genome. However, identification of specific methylation patterns at specific loci is essential for validation and also as a tool for diagnosis. In this review, we describe the most commonly used approaches to evaluate specific DNA methylation. There are three main groups of techniques that allow the identification of specific regions that are differentially methylated: bisulfite conversion-based methods, restriction enzyme-based approaches, and affinity enrichment-based assays. In the first group, specific restriction enzymes recognize and cleave unmethylated DNA, leaving methylated sequences intact. Bisulfite conversion methods are the most popular approach to distinguish methylated and unmethylated DNA. Unmethylated cytosines are deaminated to uracil by sodium bisulfite treatment, while the methyl cytosines remain unconverted. In the last group, proteins with methylation binding domains or antibodies against methyl cytosines are used to recognize methylated DNA. In this review, we provide the theoretical basis and the framework of each technique as well as the analysis of their strength and the weaknesses.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bisulfite conversion; CpG islands; DNA methylation; Digital PCR; Epigenetics; Locus specific analyses; Target region

Year:  2020        PMID: 32640317     DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2020.06.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods        ISSN: 1046-2023            Impact factor:   3.608


  6 in total

1.  Deciphering a TB-related DNA methylation biomarker and constructing a TB diagnostic classifier.

Authors:  Mengyuan Lyu; Jian Zhou; Lin Jiao; Yili Wang; Yanbing Zhou; Hongli Lai; Wei Xu; Binwu Ying
Journal:  Mol Ther Nucleic Acids       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 8.886

Review 2.  Aberrant DNA Methylation Mediates the Transgenerational Risk of Metabolic and Chronic Disease Due to Maternal Obesity and Overnutrition.

Authors:  Yan Li; Carol A Pollock; Sonia Saad
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 3.  Phenotypic Plasticity: What Has DNA Methylation Got to Do with It?

Authors:  Elizabeth J Duncan; Christopher B Cunningham; Peter K Dearden
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.769

4.  mRNA expression and epigenetic-based role of chromodomain helicase DNA-binding 5 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Zahra Heidari; Azam Asemi-Rad; Bita Moudi; Hamidreza Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 1.573

5.  Density Control over MBD2 Receptor-Coated Surfaces Provides Superselective Binding of Hypermethylated DNA.

Authors:  Ruben W Kolkman; Sandra Michel-Souzy; Dorothee Wasserberg; Loes I Segerink; Jurriaan Huskens
Journal:  ACS Appl Mater Interfaces       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 10.383

6.  Association of zinc level with DNA methylation and its consequences: A systematic review.

Authors:  Ziauddin Azimi; Mohamad Rodi Isa; Jesmine Khan; Seok Mui Wang; Zaliha Ismail
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-09-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.