Characterizing DNA Methylation and Hydroxymethylation in Cord Blood and Identifying Sex-Specific Differences using the Illumina EPIC Array.

Epigenetics reports Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1080/28361512.2024.2427955
Rebekah L Petroff, Dana C Dolinoy, Vasantha Padmanabhan, Jaclyn M Goodrich
{"title":"Characterizing DNA Methylation and Hydroxymethylation in Cord Blood and Identifying Sex-Specific Differences using the Illumina EPIC Array.","authors":"Rebekah L Petroff, Dana C Dolinoy, Vasantha Padmanabhan, Jaclyn M Goodrich","doi":"10.1080/28361512.2024.2427955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>DNA methylation, an epigenetic mark, has become a common outcome in epidemiological studies with the aid of affordable and reliable technologies. Yet the most widespread technique used to assess methylation, bisulfite conversion, does not allow for the differentiation of regular DNA methylation (5-mC) and other cytosine modifications, like that of hydroxymethylation (5-hmC). As both 5-mC and 5-hmC have distinct biological roles, sometimes with opposing effects, it is crucial to understand the difference between these marks. To characterize 5-mC and 5-hmC in cord blood and expand on previously published results in smaller cohorts, 73 samples from infants in the Michigan Mother Infant Pairs cohort were paired bisulfite and oxidative bisulfite converted. 5-mC and 5-hmC were assessed on the Illumina Infinium EPIC array, using maximum likelihood methods, and sex-specific differences of these marks were analyzed. 5-mC and 5-hmC were both broadly distributed across the genome, and 5-hmC was prevalent, with proportions of 0.01-0.55. Sex-specific analysis revealed total methylation was different on 17,000 sites (q<0.05), but only different at 1,866 and 5 sites of 5-mC and 5-hmC specifically. These results add additional support to the literature and demonstrate the importance of differentiating between 5-mC and 5-hmC in epidemiological studies going forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":520309,"journal":{"name":"Epigenetics reports","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600988/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epigenetics reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28361512.2024.2427955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

DNA methylation, an epigenetic mark, has become a common outcome in epidemiological studies with the aid of affordable and reliable technologies. Yet the most widespread technique used to assess methylation, bisulfite conversion, does not allow for the differentiation of regular DNA methylation (5-mC) and other cytosine modifications, like that of hydroxymethylation (5-hmC). As both 5-mC and 5-hmC have distinct biological roles, sometimes with opposing effects, it is crucial to understand the difference between these marks. To characterize 5-mC and 5-hmC in cord blood and expand on previously published results in smaller cohorts, 73 samples from infants in the Michigan Mother Infant Pairs cohort were paired bisulfite and oxidative bisulfite converted. 5-mC and 5-hmC were assessed on the Illumina Infinium EPIC array, using maximum likelihood methods, and sex-specific differences of these marks were analyzed. 5-mC and 5-hmC were both broadly distributed across the genome, and 5-hmC was prevalent, with proportions of 0.01-0.55. Sex-specific analysis revealed total methylation was different on 17,000 sites (q<0.05), but only different at 1,866 and 5 sites of 5-mC and 5-hmC specifically. These results add additional support to the literature and demonstrate the importance of differentiating between 5-mC and 5-hmC in epidemiological studies going forward.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信