Functional DNA methylation differences between tissues, cell types, and across individuals discovered using the M&M algorithm

  1. Ting Wang1,18
  1. 1Department of Genetics, Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108, USA;
  2. 2Key Laboratory for Applied Statistics of MOE and School of Mathematics and Statistics, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin Province, 130024, China;
  3. 3School of Applied Sciences, Harbin University of Science and Technology, Harbin, 150080, China;
  4. 4Department of Mathematics and Division of Biostatistics, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri 63130, USA;
  5. 5Brain Tumor Research Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA;
  6. 6Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA;
  7. 7Department of Pathology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA;
  8. 8Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Division of Rheumatology, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA;
  9. 9Genome Center, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA;
  10. 10Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA;
  11. 11Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Molecular Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA;
  12. 12Departments of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital Boston, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA;
  13. 13Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA;
  14. 14BC Cancer Agency, Canada’s Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4S6, Canada;
  15. 15Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Canada
    1. 16 These authors contributed equally to this work.

    • 17Present address: Department of Urology, General Hospital of the People's Liberation Army (PLAGH), Haidian District, 100853 Beijing, China.

    Abstract

    DNA methylation plays key roles in diverse biological processes such as X chromosome inactivation, transposable element repression, genomic imprinting, and tissue-specific gene expression. Sequencing-based DNA methylation profiling provides an unprecedented opportunity to map and compare complete DNA methylomes. This includes one of the most widely applied technologies for measuring DNA methylation: methylated DNA immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (MeDIP-seq), coupled with a complementary method, methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme sequencing (MRE-seq). A computational approach that integrates data from these two different but complementary assays and predicts methylation differences between samples has been unavailable. Here, we present a novel integrative statistical framework M&M (for integration of MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq) that dynamically scales, normalizes, and combines MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq data to detect differentially methylated regions. Using sample-matched whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) as a gold standard, we demonstrate superior accuracy and reproducibility of M&M compared to existing analytical methods for MeDIP-seq data alone. M&M leverages the complementary nature of MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq data to allow rapid comparative analysis between whole methylomes at a fraction of the cost of WGBS. Comprehensive analysis of nineteen human DNA methylomes with M&M reveals distinct DNA methylation patterns among different tissue types, cell types, and individuals, potentially underscoring divergent epigenetic regulation at different scales of phenotypic diversity. We find that differential DNA methylation at enhancer elements, with concurrent changes in histone modifications and transcription factor binding, is common at the cell, tissue, and individual levels, whereas promoter methylation is more prominent in reinforcing fundamental tissue identities.

    Footnotes

    • 18 Corresponding authors

      E-mail bxzhang{at}nenu.edu.cn

      E-mail jcostello{at}cc.ucsf.edu

      E-mail twang{at}genetics.wustl.edu

    • [Supplemental material is available for this article.]

    • Article published online before print. Article, supplemental material, and publication date are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.156539.113.

      Freely available online through the Genome Research Open Access option.

    • Received February 18, 2013.
    • Accepted June 13, 2013.

    This article, published in Genome Research, is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

    Related Article

    | Table of Contents
    OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE

    Preprint Server