Epigenomic Analysis of Multilineage Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells.

Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Cell (Impact Factor: 33.12). 05/2013; 153. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Epigenetic mechanisms have been proposed to play crucial roles in mammalian development, but their precise functions are only partially understood. To investigate epigenetic regulation of embryonic development, we differentiated human embryonic stem cells into mesendoderm, neural progenitor cells, trophoblast-like cells, and mesenchymal stem cells and systematically characterized DNA methylation, chromatin modifications, and the transcriptome in each lineage. We found that promoters that are active in early developmental stages tend to be CG rich and mainly engage H3K27me3 upon silencing in nonexpressing lineages. By contrast, promoters for genes expressed preferentially at later stages are often CG poor and primarily employ DNA methylation upon repression. Interestingly, the early developmental regulatory genes are often located in large genomic domains that are generally devoid of DNA methylation in most lineages, which we termed DNA methylation valleys (DMVs). Our results suggest that distinct epigenetic mechanisms regulate early and late stages of ES cell differentiation.

Download full-text


Available from: David Hawkins, Jul 25, 2015
  • Source
    • "Mean Wiggler values were calculated in 10-bp bins (Gerstein et al. 2012). To normalize variations between biological replicates , we modified a previously described method to perform Z-score transformation by subtracting the mean Wiggler value across the genome and dividing by the standard deviation of the genome-wide Wiggler subtraction value (Xie et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The holistic role of DNA methylation in the organization of the cancer epigenome is not well understood. Here we perform a comprehensive, high-resolution analysis of chromatin structure to compare the landscapes of HCT116 colon cancer cells and a DNA methylation-deficient derivative. The NOMe-seq accessibility assay unexpectedly revealed symmetrical and transcription-independent nucleosomal phasing across active, poised, and inactive genomic elements. DNA methylation abolished this phasing primarily at enhancers and CpG island (CGI) promoters, with little effect on insulators and non-CGI promoters. Abolishment of DNA methylation led to the context-specific reestablishment of the poised and active states of normal colon cells, which were marked in methylation-deficient cells by distinct H3K27 modifications and the presence of either well-phased nucleosomes or nucleosome-depleted regions, respectively. At higher-order genomic scales, we found that long, H3K9me3-marked domains had lower accessibility, consistent with a more compact chromatin structure. Taken together, our results demonstrate the nuanced and context-dependent role of DNA methylation in the functional, multiscale organization of cancer epigenomes. © 2015 Lay et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
    Genome Research 03/2015; 25(4). DOI:10.1101/gr.183368.114 · 13.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This increased repetitive element expression may result from aberrant epigenetic repression and could contribute to increased genome instability (Figure 1E). Anomalous repetitive element expression has been associated with embryonic stem cells (ESCs) (Xie et al., 2013) but not aging. Examination of the genes near the dysregulated LTR elements, LINEs, and SINEs revealed 194, 127, and 72 genes, respectively. "
  • Source
    • "Transcriptomics studies have been instrumental for characterizing the development of model organisms, the human brain, or various stem cells (Kang et al. 2011; Mariani et al. 2012; xie et al. 2013; yang et al. 2013). Most available data refer to fixed time points, but some studies already showed the highly dynamic behavior of such systems (Theunissen et al. 2012; Zimmer et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The superordinate principles governing the transcriptome response of differentiating cells exposed to drugs are still unclear. Often, it is assumed that toxicogenomics data reflect the immediate mode of action (MoA) of drugs. Alternatively, transcriptome changes could describe altered differentiation states as indirect consequence of drug exposure. We used here the developmental toxicants valproate and trichostatin A to address this question. Neurally differentiating human embryonic stem cells were treated for 6 days. Histone acetylation (primary MoA) increased quickly and returned to baseline after 48 h. Histone H3 lysine methylation at the promoter of the neurodevelopmental regulators PAX6 or OTX2 was increasingly altered over time. Methylation changes remained persistent and correlated with neurodevelopmental defects and with effects on PAX6 gene expression, also when the drug was washed out after 3–4 days. We hypothesized that drug exposures altering only acetylation would lead to reversible transcriptome changes (indicating MoA), and challenges that altered methylation would lead to irreversible developmental disturbances. Data from pulse-chase experiments corroborated this assumption. Short drug treatment triggered reversible transcriptome changes; longer exposure disrupted neurodevelopment. The disturbed differentiation was reflected by an altered transcriptome pattern, and the observed changes were similar when the drug was washed out during the last 48 h. We conclude that transcriptome data after prolonged chemical stress of differentiating cells mainly reflect the altered developmental stage of the model system and not the drug MoA. We suggest that brief exposures, followed by immediate analysis, are more suitable for information on immediate drug responses and the toxicity MoA. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-014-1279-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    Archive für Toxikologie 06/2014; 88(7). DOI:10.1007/s00204-014-1279-6 · 5.08 Impact Factor
Show more