Comparative analysis of Illumina Mouse Methylation BeadChip and reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing for routine DNA methylation analysis.
DNA methylation
bioinformatics
colorectal
epigenetics
epigenome
gastroenterology
genomics
methylome
microarray
murine models
Journal
Cell reports methods
ISSN: 2667-2375
Titre abrégé: Cell Rep Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227360606676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 11 2022
21 11 2022
Historique:
received:
25
03
2022
revised:
14
07
2022
accepted:
07
10
2022
entrez:
1
12
2022
pubmed:
2
12
2022
medline:
2
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Researching the murine epigenome in disease models has been hampered by the lack of appropriate and cost-effective DNA methylation arrays. Here we perform a comprehensive, comparative analysis between the Mouse Methylation BeadChip (MMB) and reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) in two murine models of colorectal carcinogenesis. We evaluate the coverage, variability, and ability to identify differential DNA methylation of RRBS and MMB. We show that MMB is an effective tool for profiling the murine methylome that performs comparably with RRBS, identifying similar differentially methylated pathways. Although choice of technology is experiment dependent and will be predicated on the underlying biology being probed, these analyses provide insights into the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36452869
doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2022.100323
pii: S2667-2375(22)00213-2
pmc: PMC9701610
doi:
Substances chimiques
hydrogen sulfite
OJ9787WBLU
Sulfites
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
100323Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Illumina Inc. contributed to reagent expenses but was not involved in conducting the study, analyzing data, or deciding to publish.
Références
Hum Mol Genet. 2013 Oct 15;22(R1):R7-R15
pubmed: 23918660
Genome Biol. 2015 Jan 24;16:14
pubmed: 25616342
Sci Transl Med. 2012 Oct 17;4(156):156ra140
pubmed: 23076357
Cancer Cell. 2010 May 18;17(5):510-22
pubmed: 20399149
Epigenetics. 2015;10(2):167-77
pubmed: 25587870
Aging (Albany NY). 2015 Dec;7(12):1198-211
pubmed: 26684672
Genome Biol. 2012 Oct 03;13(10):R87
pubmed: 23034086
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Nov 1;6(11):1237-1246
pubmed: 34347013
Genome Biol. 2012 Aug 13;13(8):418
pubmed: 22889292
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Aug;6(8):597-610
pubmed: 16136652
Cell Stem Cell. 2012 May 4;10(5):620-34
pubmed: 22560082
Epigenetics. 2018;13(1):40-48
pubmed: 29235923
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Feb 18;44(3):e20
pubmed: 26384415
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 15;30(10):1363-9
pubmed: 24478339
Innovation (Camb). 2021 Jul 01;2(3):100141
pubmed: 34557778
Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Dec;31(12):2025-37
pubmed: 19117641
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
Genome Biol. 2015 May 13;16:96
pubmed: 25968125
Genome Biol. 2016 Oct 7;17(1):208
pubmed: 27717381
Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):271-82
pubmed: 21659424
Cell Genom. 2022 Jul 13;2(7):
pubmed: 35873672
Nat Protoc. 2011 Apr;6(4):468-81
pubmed: 21412275
Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;8(2):269-290
pubmed: 30954552
Transl Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 07;4:e339
pubmed: 24399042
Gut. 2022 Jun;71(6):1127-1140
pubmed: 34230216
Nature. 2009 Nov 19;462(7271):315-22
pubmed: 19829295
J Immunol. 2013 Feb 1;190(3):1297-303
pubmed: 23277489
Clin Epigenetics. 2019 Jun 14;11(1):90
pubmed: 31200767
Mol Cell. 2010 May 28;38(4):576-89
pubmed: 20513432
Bioinformatics. 2011 Jun 1;27(11):1571-2
pubmed: 21493656
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;507:149-63
pubmed: 18987813
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):841-2
pubmed: 20110278
Nat Genet. 2006 Jul;38(7):787-93
pubmed: 16804544
Genome Biol. 2019 Mar 14;20(1):55
pubmed: 30871603