PLoS ONE

PLoS One. 11(10): e0163184

High-Throughput Analysis of Global DNA Methylation Using Methyl-Sensitive Digestion

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5826-1401Hiromi Shiratori¹*, Carmen Feinweber¹, Claudia Knothe², Jörn Lötsch¹², Dominique Thomas², Gerd Geisslinger¹², Michael J. Parnham¹, Eduard Resch¹

Sriharsa Pradhan, Editor

1. Project Group Translational Medicine and Pharmacology TMP, Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology IME, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

2. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe - University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Inc, UNITED STATES

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Conceptualization: HS ER MJP GG.

Data curation: HS.

Formal analysis: HS CK JL.

Funding acquisition: GG JL MJP HS.

Investigation: HS CF CK DT.

Methodology: HS CF ER CK.

Project administration: HS.

Resources: ER CK JL DT GG.

Supervision: JL GG.

Validation: HS CF.

Visualization: HS.

Writing – original draft: HS.

Writing – review & editing: ER MJP.

* E-mail: hiromi.shiratori@ime.fraunhofer.de

© 2016 Shiratori et al

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163184

Published online: 17 October 2016

Abstract

DNA methylation is a major regulatory process of gene transcription, and aberrant DNA methylation is associated with various diseases including cancer. Many compounds have been reported to modify DNA methylation states. Despite increasing interest in the clinical application of drugs with epigenetic effects, and the use of diagnostic markers for genome-wide hypomethylation in cancer, large-scale screening systems to measure the effects of drugs on DNA methylation are limited. In this study, we improved the previously established fluorescence polarization-based global DNA methylation assay so that it is more suitable for application to human genomic DNA. Our methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization (MSFP) assay was highly repeatable (inter-assay coefficient of variation = 1.5%) and accurate (r² = 0.99). According to signal linearity, only 50–80 ng human genomic DNA per reaction was necessary for the 384-well format. MSFP is a simple, rapid approach as all biochemical reactions and final detection can be performed in one well in a 384-well plate without purification steps in less than 3.5 hours. Furthermore, we demonstrated a significant correlation between MSFP and the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay, a widely used global DNA methylation assay. MSFP can be applied for the pre-screening of compounds that influence global DNA methylation states and also for the diagnosis of certain types of cancer.

Introduction

DNA cytosine methylation at position 5 in the pyrimidine ring (5mC) is predominantly observed in the context of CpG dinucleotides in human [1]. It is a hallmark of transcriptional gene silencing and heterochromatin formation in conjunction with chromatin remodelling factors [2–5]. It also plays crucial roles in key physiological processes, including differentiation and chromosome stability [6–8]. Aberrant DNA methylation patterns and global DNA hypomethylation are associated with various diseases, including developmental disorders and cancer [1, 9–13].

Compounds such as 5-azacytidine and bisphenol A can deregulate gene expression and cause genomic instability by interfering with DNA methylation states [1, 14–16]. Therefore, drugs with epigenetic effects have received intensive interest for clinical application [11, 17, 18]. Some natural and chemically synthesized pharmaceutical compounds, however, have demonstrated unexpected epigenetic effects [15]. These recent studies highlight the importance of measuring genome-wide CpG methylation, but the high-throughput capacity of most methods for the detection of global DNA methylation, for instance LINE-1 pyrosequencing, is limited to the 96-well format (Table 1). Classical 5mC quantification assays using liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, gel electrophoresis, and capillary electrophoresis are considered as gold standards, but they are unsuitable for the simultaneous analysis of multiple samples [19–22]. Whole genome bisulfite sequencing, a bisulfite conversion of genomic DNA combined with next-generation sequencing, is a powerful technology to investigate genome-wide DNA methylation profiles with single-base resolution [23, 24], though the method is costly and requires substantial bioinformatics [25]. Despite the advent of novel approaches based on next-generation sequencing, methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes that differentiate between methylated and unmethylated CpG dinucleotides are still widely used for the quantitative analysis of genome-wide methylation [26–28]. Restriction enzyme-based approaches have been developed mainly for the 96-well format, although these are time consuming and expensive and therefore unsuitable for large-scale screening applications (Table 1).

See full table Table 1. Comparison of high-throughput global DNA methylation assays.

Fluorescence polarization (FP) can be used to quantify molecular interactions, enzyme activity, and nucleic acid hybridization [39–41], and has more recently been extended to investigate global DNA methylation [29]. FP is ideal for high-throughput screening, as reflected in its reproducibility, small sample volumes, rapid and easy handling without purification steps, and the availability of 384-well assay formats [40, 42]. The principle of FP is the inverse correlation between the polarization degree of a fluorophore and its molecular rotation. When a small fluorescent-labelled molecule is excited with linearly-polarized light, the emitted light is largely depolarized due to the rapid molecular rotation of the fluorophore during its fluorescent lifetime, whereas when the small molecule is bound to a larger target it is stabilized and rotates slowly, so that the emitted light remains polarized.

In this study, we have improved the previously established FP-based global DNA methylation assay [29] making it more suitable for applications involving human genomic DNA. We also confirmed the significant correlation between the results achieved using this approach and the gold standard LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay which is widely used for the analysis of global DNA methylation.

Results

We established a methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization (MSFP) assay based on the previously described method [29] by incorporating the unique modifications summarized in Fig 1. The restriction endonucleases MspI and HpaII are isoschizomers that recognize the palindromic target sequence CCGG, but HpaII is unable to cleave the site when the inner CG dyad is fully- or hemi- methylated [43, 44], making the MspI-HpaII pair a valuable tool for methylation analysis. In order to increase the signal output, another methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme (HpyCH4IV, target sequence ACGT) was introduced in addition to HpaII for application to human genomic DNA (Step 1). All the restriction enzymes we used generate a CpG overhang at the 5'-terminus on both complementary strands, serving as templates during the sequential terminal extension step with TAMRA-dCTP, a fluorescent labelled cytosine (Step 2). The incorporation of TAMRA-dCTP into the digested DNA can be quantified using a fluorescence polarization (FP) assay without any additional purification and enrichment procedures. In principle, FP detects the binding of small fluorescent molecules to larger objects because fluorescent labelled molecules excited by polarized light emit light with a degree of polarization that is inversely proportional to the rate of molecular rotation [40]. Unbound TAMRA-dCTP, therefore, produces low background FP, whereas the same molecule incorporated into DNA yields a stronger FP signal. The FP signal of samples digested with MspI (FPM) provides the internal reference for the amount of DNA, whereas the signal from samples digested with HpaII or the combination HH (FPH and FPHH, respectively) indicate the content of methylated cytosine (5mC). Accordingly, the quantity of 5mC in a sample can be calculated by normalizing the FPH and FPHH values (5mC indicators) respectively, to the FPM value.

Fig 1View larger versionFig 1. The workflow of the methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization (MSFP) assay.Lambda (λ) and human genomic DNA are restricted by MspI (white) or by HpaII each alone or by a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (grey) (Step 1). Subsequently, digested DNA with CpG overhangs at the 5' termini are terminally extended with fluorescence-labelled TAMRA-dCTP (C*, *C) (Step 2). TAMRA-dCTP incorporated into DNA is quantified by fluorescence polarization directly on the plate without additional purification procedures.

Verification of the MSFP assay

The MSFP assay was verified using lambda (λ) DNA, which is 48,502 bp in length and and is not methylated at CpG sites (manufacturer’s information). Fully-methylated λ DNA can be obtained by incubation with M.SssI, a CpG methyltransferase that adds a methyl group to cytosine residues in the CpG motif. The testing of λ DNA with a defined global DNA methylation content allowed us to determine the specificity and sensitivity of the system. First, complete in-vitro methylation of λ DNA was confirmed by HpaII digestion and gel electrophoresis (Fig 2A). As expected, we observed similar digestion patterns when unmethylated λ DNA was treated with MspI and HpaII. In contrast, fully-methylated (5mC) λ DNA was not digested by HpaII yielding a single band identical to that in the undigested control lane, confirming that all MspI/HpaII recognition sites of 5mC λ DNA were fully-methylated. Furthermore, we confirmed the complete in vitro methylation of λ DNA using LC-MS/MS analysis (S1 Fig, S1 Table and S1 Protocol). Next, standard curves were generated to determine the correlation between the quantity of DNA and the FP signal, thus, defining the linear range of the MSFP assay (Fig 2B). The quantity of digested DNA was positively correlated with FP signal strength, but the FP signal representing the undigested DNA remained at the baseline level regardless of the amount of DNA. This indicated that the FP signal is specific for TAMRA-dCTP incorporated into DNA and that the quantity of DNA does not interfere with the assay. Notably, we found that the strength of the FP signal increased linearly at low DNA concentrations but reached saturation when the amount of DNA exceeded 20 ng. We then prepared λ DNA with different levels of 5mC by mixing unmethylated and 5mC λ DNA, and the extent of DNA methylation was measured using the MSFP assay. Standard curves were included in all experiments to ensure that all FP values fell within the linear range. All MspI-digested samples yielded an FP signal of ~150, indicating that each analyte contained a similar amount of DNA (Fig 2C). In contrast, the HpaII-digested samples yielded a signal that declined in line with the increasing 5mC content. In agreement with the gel electrophoresis experiments, the FP signal from HpaII-digested 100% methylated λ DNA remained at the baseline level (Fig 2C). Finally, the assay was used to analyse samples with a known 5mC content according to Formula 1 (Fig 2D). The median global DNA methylation level determined by FP was 0%, 26.6%, 53%, 75.2% and 102.9% for the theoretical 5mC levels 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, respectively.

Fig 2View larger versionFig 2. Measurement of global DNA methylation using the MSFP assay.(A) In-vitro methylation of λ DNA was confirmed by HpaII digestion. Unmethylated and fully-methylated (5mC) λ DNA were digested by either MspI or HpaII and the digestion pattern was visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis. UD: undigested. (B) The standard curves represent unmethylated λ DNA, showing medians and ranges of 3–7 independent experiments, each performed in technical duplicates or triplicates. The amounts of digested DNA applied per well are indicated on the x-axis. (C) The MSFP measurement of λ DNA with different DNA methylation levels. Unmethylated and 5mC λ DNA were mixed to obtain 10 ng of DNA with various DNA methylation levels (0, 25, 50, 75, 100%) followed by the MSFP assay. The data show medians and ranges of three independent experiments, each performed in technical triplicates. (D) The accuracy of the DNA methylation level (%) determined by the MSFP. The DNA methylation content (5mC) of each analyte from Fig 2C was calculated according to the formula in the Materials and Methods section. The data represent medians and ranges of three independent experiments, each performed in technical triplicates.

Application to human genomic DNA

Unlike λ DNA, human genomic DNA is predominantly methylated at CpG sites. MspI was able to digest human genomic DNA, whereas HpaII was ineffective and a single large fragment remained, matching the undigested control (Fig 3A). The efficacy of DNA digestion was dramatically improved by the application of HpyCH4IV in addition to HpaII (HH). The results of the MSFP assay agreed with the gel electrophoresis data (Fig 3B). As expected, undigested DNA did not yield an FP signal over a broad concentration range. However, in MspI-digested samples, the FP signal increased in a linear manner and achieved saturation at high DNA concentrations (> 400 ng). The standard curves for HpaII and HH were flatter than the MspI curve which did not reach the signal plateau over the range of concentrations we tested. Within the linear signal range, the MspI standard produced an FP signal four-fold higher than the HpaII standard and ~30% higher than the HH standard. The signal-to-noise ratio of the assay was higher for the HH digest than the HpaII digest when applied to 50–80 ng of human genomic DNA per reaction. The inter-assay coefficient of variation for two independent experiments performed in technical triplicates was 1.5%.

Fig 3View larger versionFig 3. Application of the MSFP assay to human genomic DNA.(A) Digestion pattern of THP-1 genomic DNA digested with MspI, HpaII, or a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (HH). The digested DNA was separated by agarose gel electrophoresis. UD; undigested. (B) Standard curves for THP-1 DNA in the MSFP assay. Data represent medians and ranges of three independent experiments performed in technical duplicates or triplicates. The amounts of digested DNA applied per well are indicated on the x-axis.

Comparison of the MSFP and LINE-1 pyrosequencing assays applied to human genomic DNA

The MSFP assay was next used to determine global DNA methylation in an experimental setting and the results were compared with LINE-1 pyrosequencing data obtained from the same samples. LINE-1 is an interspersed retrotransposon with more than 500,000 copies in the human genome [45]. LINE-1 methylation is widely used as a surrogate marker for the global DNA methylation level [34, 45, 46].

In order to obtain DNA controls with a broad methylation range, unmethylated and fully-methylated human genomic DNA controls were prepared using the Repli-g Mini kit (Qiagen) and M.SssI methyltransferase according to Tost and Gut [47]. However, the MSFP assay was unable to detect any signal from the unmethylated genomic DNA control and its gradual dilutions with the fully-methylated genomic DNA control (S2 Fig). Therefore, human genomic DNA samples with different levels of 5mC were generated by treating THP-1 cells with two concentrations of the DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitors, 5-azacytidine (Aza) or decitabine (DAC).

DNA hypomethylation induced by Aza and DAC was detected by LINE-1 pyrosequencing and we observed a significant difference between untreated and corresponding drug-treated groups supported by the Kruskal-Wallis test (Fig 4A). LINE-1 methylation decreased in Aza-treated cells in a concentration-dependent manner, whereas for DAC the 1 μM and 3 μM treatments reduced the methylation to the same extent (45–50%). Global DNA methylation in the Aza and DAC treated THP-1 cells was then analysed using the MSFP assay (Fig 4B). In agreement with the LINE-1 assay, the MSFP assay generated FP values that correlated with the Aza concentration, and significantly higher FP signals were detected in both treated groups at higher concentrations of the test compounds. The significant differences in DNA methylation states between untreated and drug-treated groups were again demonstrated by the Kruskal-Wallis test. The MSFP and LINE-1 results were then compared using Spearman’s rank correlation test (Fig 4C). The Spearman’s rho (ρ) value was –0.80 (95% CI –0.93 to –0.53; p < 0.0001) and the coefficient of determination (ρ²) was 0.64 indicating a good correlation between the results obtained with the MSFP and the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assays. Hence, we demonstrated that our MSFP results correlated well with those of the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay, an established and widely used method for global DNA methylation analysis.

Fig 4View larger versionFig 4. Comparison of the MSFP and LINE-1 assays.(A) Detection of DNA hypomethylation induced by Aza and DAC using the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay. Three independent experiments were carried out and each data value (circle, triangle) and its median (bar) are shown in a Box-Whisker-Plot. (B) The MSFP assay data present different DNA methylation states as the ratio of the FPHH values to the FPM values. In contrast to the LINE-1 data, a decrease in global DNA methylation (here due to Aza or DAC), results in a higher FPHH value and therefore, in a higher FPHH/FPM ratio. The DNA samples used for the MSFP assay were identical to those used for the LINE-1 assay. The data represent three independent experiments with technical triplicates and each data value (circle, triangle) and its median (bar) presented as a Box-Whisker-Plot. The statistical differences between untreated and treated groups (Aza or DAC) were determined using a Kruskall-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01) for both assays. (C) Correlation between the MSFP and LINE-1 assays. Global DNA methylation level in THP-1 cells treated with DNMT inhibitors (n = 18) was determined using the MSFP and LINE-1 assays, and the reciprocal correlation between the methods determined by two-tailed Spearman’s rank correlation test (ρ = –0.80).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to establish a simple and cost-effective approach to the measurement of global DNA methylation, suitable for small as well as large-scale experimental setups, e.g. cell culture-based compound screens. We confirmed the efficacy of the previously established global DNA methylation assay using λ DNA within a broad 5mC range and further improved the assay for human genomic DNA applications by (i) introducing the second methyl-sensitive restriction enzyme HpyCH4IV, already described in the CpGlobal method [19] in addition to HpaII, and (ii) including standard curves to ensure the distribution of FP values of analytes within the linear signal range.

In the context of human genomic DNA, we observed that the slope of the MspI standard curve was notably steeper than that of the HpaII-standard curve, so the input amount of DNA must be limited to a very narrow window, within which FP signals of MspI digests are not saturated but those of HpaII digests are strong enough to generate a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio. It should be noted that both fully- as well as hemi- methylated palindromic CpG sites (dyads) are resistant to HpaII digestion [44, 48], therefore, these are not distinguishable by this assay. Recent analyses revealed variable ranges for CpG-hemimethylation from 1 to 25% (and even higher amounts in methylation mutants) which were dependent on the species, the cell lines and the genetic loci that were analysed [49–52].

The slope of the curve for the HH standard was steep and thus, closer to the MspI standard than the HpaII standard, so it should be possible to obtain FP values with a good signal-to-noise ratio within a linear range using a small amount of DNA. Compared to the original method, which uses various amount of human genomic DNA per reaction (50–500 ng), our assay requires only 50–80 ng [29]. This amount of input DNA is less than that used in most high-throughput global DNA methylation approaches listed in Table 1, making our modification highly sensitive. Even though DNA digestion with the MspI-HpaII pair, which cover 8.04% of human CpG sites, is widely used for epigenetic studies [53], other potential methylation sites beyond its target sequence are overlooked. The combination of restriction enzymes enables researchers to investigate more CpG sites throughout the genome because other studies have successfully improved genome-wide coverage of 5mC by using alternative enzymes or novel enzyme pairs [54, 55].

Unexpectedly, the MSFP assay was unable to detect any signal from samples containing the unmethylated human genomic DNA control generated by the Repli-g kit, although these samples were efficiently digested by both MspI and HH and were applicable in the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay (S2A and S2C Fig). Accordingly, we presume that components supplied by the kit interfere with the subsequent terminal extension step and/or the subsequent fluorescence detection. However, the MSFP assay was able to detect DNA hypomethylation induced by DNMT inhibitors in good agreement with the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay and the results of these assays showed significant correlation. There is no direct evidence to show that MSFP assay results agree with other gold standard assays such as high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), but methyl-sensitive digestion methods have been widely applied in genome-wide methylation studies. A significant correlation between LINE-1 pyrosequencing and HPLC assays has been reported, whereas LUMA, another restriction enzyme-based assay, failed to show a correlation with the HPLC method [31]. A recent study revealed that LUMA and LINE-1 assays yield discordant results, with a significant tissue-specific measurement bias [56]. Currently, MSFP may be useful for the primary screening of compounds that influence global DNA methylation states and these outcomes need to be validated by additional orthogonal assay.

The choice of appropriate high-throughput screening methods depends on several factors (Table 1). Polarization assays are homogeneous, i.e. they do not require the separation of free and bound ligand [57]. MSFP, therefore, allows all reactions, from DNA digestion and terminal extension to the last measurement, to be carried out in a single well on a 384-well plate in less than 3.5 h. The MSFP assay is also advantageous because it features an internal control, i.e. MspI digestion of the DNA in parallel, which prevents the misinterpretation of FP values derived from HpaII or HH digestions that determine the 5mC content of the analytes. Furthermore, MSFP can measure 5mC levels at restriction sites regardless of the species. Finally, we confirmed that FP is highly reproducible and can be automated. MSFP could therefore, be adapted to automated liquid handling platforms, starting with cell culture in 96-well plates followed by direct DNA extraction in a 96-well format, digestion and finally the TAMRA-dCTP incorporation assay.

The most abundant retrotransposon sequences in the human genome are LINE-1 and Alu elements, short interspersed elements that account for ~11% of total genomic DNA [58, 59]. Both elements are widely used as surrogate markers for global DNA methylation. These methods require small amounts of DNA because 5mC residues in the amplified elements are sequenced, although these assays need to be modified to analyse DNA from different organisms. In addition, both LINE-1 and Alu assays require the enrichment of amplicons if pyrosequencing is the downstream method. In addition to MSFP, the LUMA and CpGlobal methods detect 5mC within MspI-HpaII restriction sites. In these approaches, enzymatically digested DNA is terminally extended with dCTPs labelled using fluorophores or biotin, respectively. LUMA directly measures the incorporation of dCTP into restricted DNA loci by pyrosequencing, whereas CpGlobal requires additional rounds of purification, due to the binding of biotin-labelled DNA to the plate and incubation with HRP-conjugated neutravidin for the subsequent luminescence measurement. Compared to these restriction enzyme-based assays, the MSFP requires less DNA and the fluorescence signal can be directly measured on a standard plate reader equipped with polarizing filters. Commercially available ELISA kits can measure the overall level of 5mC in the genome regardless of DNA origin, although these kits are expensive and involve multiple incubation and washing steps that are not suitable for large-scale screening. Importantly, the MSFP is compatible with the 384-well format, whereas all the other approaches are currently restricted to 96-well format instruments.

Finally, the MSFP has potential for use in the diagnosis of the presence or progression of cancer. Global DNA hypomethylation is a hallmark of several tumour types and global DNA methylation states could be used as a biomarker for some malignancies [19, 60–62].

Conclusions

Our MSFP assay is rapid, simple, sensitive and capable of measuring multiple samples in a single run. Therefore, it offers considerable advantages for a variety of potential applications, including large-scale screening of compounds or reagents that modify DNA methylation states in a global manner and diagnostic use for certain type of malignancies. A significant correlation between the MSFP and the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay has been demonstrated, although further studies are required to confirm agreement of results obtained by MSFP and the other gold standard assays such as HPLC.

Materials and Methods

DNA hypomethylating compounds

We prepared 10 mM stock solutions of 5-azacytidine (Aza, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and decitabine (DAC, Sigma-Aldrich) in nuclease-free distilled water and stored them at –20°C. Both chemicals inhibit DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) by acting as cytidine analogues [63, 64]. The appropriate concentrations of drugs were freshly prepared in cell culture medium for each treatment.

In vitro methylation of lambda DNA

Fully methylated bacteriophage lambda (λ) DNA was acquired by incubating 1 μg of λ DNA in a 20-μl reaction containing 1 U of M.SssI methylase, 1X NEBuffer 2, and freshly-prepared 160 μM S-adenosylmethionine at 37°C for 1 h, followed by heat inactivation of the enzyme at 65°C for 20 min (Fig 2). All reagents were purchased from New England BioLabs, Ipswich, United States.

Cell culture and genomic DNA preparation

Human monocytic cell line, THP-1, was purchased from Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany). The cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium-GlutaMAXTM supplemented with 10% (v/v) heat inactivated fetal calf serum and a 1% mixture of penicillin and streptomycin in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO₂ at 37°C. All reagents mentioned above were purchased from Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Oberhausen, Germany). Periodically, the cells were controlled for mycoplasma contamination using the MycoAlert™ PLUS Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza, Basel, Switzerland). In order to obtain genomic DNA with a broad methylation range, the cells were seeded at a concentration of 0.1 x 10⁶ cells per well in 96-well cell culture plates and were treated with either Aza or DAC (each at two concentrations: 1 and 3 μM) for 72 h. Genomic DNA was extracted using the Agencourt DNAdvance Genomic DNA Isolation Kit (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Figs 3 and 4). The use of intact DNA is important to achieve accurate FP and LINE-1 readouts. DNA quality was confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis.

Methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization assay

For the standards, up to 5 μg of DNA was digested using 5 U of MspI, 5 U of HpaII, or a combination of 5 U each of HpaII and HpyCH4IV, in a 100-μl reaction containing 1xCutSmart® Buffer at 37°C for 2 h (Figs 2B and 3B). All enzymes mentioned above were purchased from the New England BioLabs. We also digested λ DNA (10 ng) and genomic DNA (50–80 ng) samples with MspI (0.5 U) or HpaII (0.5 U), or a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (each 0.5 U) in a 10-μl reaction at 37°C for 2 h (Figs 2C, 2D and 4B, and S2B and S2C Fig). Terminal extension of the digested DNA was achieved by incubation with 15 μl of terminal extension buffer containing 1.7 x PCR buffer (34 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.4, 85 mM KCl), 2.55 mM MgCl₂, 0.75 U Taq DNA polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and 17 nM 5-propargylamino-dCTP-5/6-carboxytetramethyl-rhodamine (TAMRA-dCTP; Jena Bioscience, Jena, Germany) in a 384-well black flat-bottom plate (Greiner Bio-One, Kremsmünster, Austria) at 58°C for 1 h in the dark. The incorporation of fluorescent TAMRA-dCTP into digested DNA on the plate was directly measured using the Infinite 200 PRO plate-reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland) equipped with polarized light-sensitive filters (excitation/emission wavelength: 535/590 nm) and fluorescence polarization values were computed using i-control™ software (Tecan). All standards and samples were assayed in technical duplicates or triplicates and the averages and standard deviations were calculated from background-corrected FP values. Standards were included in all experiments to ensure the FP signals fell within the linear signal range. FP values of samples digested with MspI, HpaII or HpaII plus HpyCH4IV (HH) report the amount of DNA and the extent of 5mC, respectively. Therefore, the 5mC content (%) of λ DNA was assessed according to Formula 1 below, and the 5mC content of genomic DNA was calculated as FPHH/FPM. The FP value of the HH-cleaved sample (FPHH) was normalized to the corresponding MspI signal (FPM).

[Image: pone.0163184.e001.jpg]λ DNA 5mC methylation level (%) (0% Standard FPH ∕ FPM −  Sample FPH ∕ FPM) × 100(1)

Agarose gel electrophoresis

DNA (100 ng) was digested with MspI (0.5 U), HpaII (0.5 U) or a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (each of 0.5 U) in a 10-μl reaction containing 1xCutsmart® buffer at 37°C for 1 h. Digested DNA was separated by 0.8% agarose gel electrophoresis (80 V, 30 min) on gels pre-stained with Roti-safe (Carl-Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) and was visualized by ChemiDoc MP (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Acquired images were processed using Image Lab software (Bio-Rad). For each gel electrophoresis, 1 kb DNA Ladder (NEB) was applied onto the gel (Figs 2A and 3A, S1 and S2C Figs).

LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay

The level of 5mC in long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) sequences was investigated as previously described [34, 35]. Briefly, 200–500 ng genomic DNA was bisulfite converted using the EZ-96 DNA Methylation-Lightning Mag Prep Kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A promoter region (L1Hs) of a LINE-1 sequence that covers four CpG sites was amplified in a 50-μl reaction including 5 μl bisulfite-converted DNA, 2.5 U of MyTaq™ HS DNA Polymerase (Bioline, London, United Kingdom), 5x MyTaq Reaction Buffer (Bioline), and 0.4 μM of each forward (5'-TTT TGA GTT AGG TGT GGG ATA TA-3') and biotinylated [Btn] reverse (5'-[Btn]AAA ATC AAA AAA TTC CCT TTC-3') primers. Each PCR comprised an initial denaturation step (95°C for 1 min), 40 amplification cycles (95°C for 15 s, 56°C for 15 s, 72°C for 15 s), and a final extension step (72°C for 5 min). In addition, a water control without the DNA template and genomic DNA controls from EpiTech PCR Control DNA set (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) were included in the PCR. The specificity and quality of the resulting amplicons were confirmed using the Qiaxel DNA Screening Kit (2400) (Qiagen). The amplified LINE-1 sequence was analysed using a sequencing primer (5’-AGT TAG GTG TGG GAT ATA GT-3’) and PyroMark Gold Q96 Reagents (Qiagen) by PyrosquencingTM (Qiagen) with nucleotide dispensation order (ATC AGT GTG TCA GTC AGT CTA GTC TG) determined by Pyro Q-CpG methylation software v1.0.9. A cytosine located beyond a CpG site served as an internal bisulfite conversion control. Samples with incomplete bisulfite conversion were excluded from analysis. The median was calculated from the methylation percentage across the four analysed CpG sites (Fig 4).

Statistical analysis

The Graphpad Prism v6 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA) was used to carry out statistical tests. The correlations between assay results were calculated by the Spearman’s rank correlation test, and pairwise group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test (Fig 4).

Supplementary Material

Open In Web Browser

Acknowledgments

We are especially grateful to Sonja Luckhardt for technical support and to Dr. Richard Twyman for proof reading the manuscript.

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

Liyanage VR, Jarmasz JS, Murugeshan N, Del Bigio MR, Rastegar M, Davie JR. DNA modifications: function and applications in normal and disease States. Biology. 2014;3(4):670–723. Epub 2014/10/24. 10.3390/biology3040670. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4280507. doi: 10.3390/biology304067025340699

Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nature genetics. 2003;33 Suppl:245–54. Epub 2003/03/01. 10.1038/ng1089. doi: 10.1038/ng108912610534

Luna-Zurita L, Bruneau BG. Chromatin modulators as facilitating factors in cellular reprogramming. Current opinion in genetics & development. 2013;23(5):556–61. Epub 2013/09/03. 10.1016/j.gde.2013.07.002. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2013.07.00223993229

Deaton AM, Bird A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes & development. 2011;25(10):1010–22. Epub 2011/05/18. 10.1101/gad.2037511. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3093116. doi: 10.1101/gad.203751121576262

Dawson MA, Kouzarides T. Cancer epigenetics: from mechanism to therapy. Cell. 2012;150(1):12–27. Epub 2012/07/10. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.013. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.01322770212

Hirasawa R, Feil R. Genomic imprinting and human disease. Essays in biochemistry. 2010;48(1):187–200. Epub 2010/09/09. 10.1042/bse0480187. doi: 10.1042/bse048018720822494

Leeb M, Wutz A. Establishment of epigenetic patterns in development. Chromosoma. 2012;121(3):251–62. Epub 2012/03/20. 10.1007/s00412-012-0365-x. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3350763. doi: 10.1007/s00412-012-0365-x22427185

Hackett JA, Surani MA. DNA methylation dynamics during the mammalian life cycle. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 2013;368(1609):20110328 Epub 2012/11/21. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0328. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3539357. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.032823166392

Esteller M. Cancer epigenomics: DNA methylomes and histone-modification maps. Nature reviews Genetics. 2007;8(4):286–98. Epub 2007/03/07. 10.1038/nrg2005. doi: 10.1038/nrg200517339880

Sanchez-Mut JV, Graff J. Epigenetic Alterations in Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2015;9:347 Epub 2016/01/07. 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00347. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4681781. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.0034726734709

Thomas EA. DNA methylation in Huntington's disease: Implications for transgenerational effects. Neuroscience letters. 2015;S0304–3940(15):30223–8. Epub 2015/11/03. 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.10.060. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.10.06026522374

Labrie V, Pai S, Petronis A. Epigenetics of major psychosis: progress, problems and perspectives. Trends in genetics: TIG. 2012;28(9):427–35. Epub 2012/05/25. 10.1016/j.tig.2012.04.002. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3422438. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.04.00222622229

Kirchner H, Osler ME, Krook A, Zierath JR. Epigenetic flexibility in metabolic regulation: disease cause and prevention? Trends in cell biology. 2013;23(5):203–9. Epub 2013/01/02. 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.11.008. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.11.00823277089

Foulks JM, Parnell KM, Nix RN, Chau S, Swierczek K, Saunders M, et al Epigenetic drug discovery: targeting DNA methyltransferases. Journal of biomolecular screening. 2012;17(1):2–17. Epub 2011/10/04. 10.1177/1087057111421212. doi: 10.1177/108705711142121221965114

Lotsch J, Schneider G, Reker D, Parnham MJ, Schneider P, Geisslinger G, et al Common non-epigenetic drugs as epigenetic modulators. Trends in molecular medicine. 2013;19(12):742–53. Epub 2013/09/24. 10.1016/j.molmed.2013.08.006. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2013.08.00624054876

Langie SA, Koppen G, Desaulniers D, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, et al Causes of genome instability: the effect of low dose chemical exposures in modern society. Carcinogenesis. 2015;36 Suppl 1:S61–88. Epub 2015/06/25. 10.1093/carcin/bgv031. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4565613. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgv03126106144

Schiano C, Vietri MT, Grimaldi V, Picascia A, Pascale MR, Napoli C. Epigenetic-related therapeutic challenges in cardiovascular disease. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2015;36(4):226–35. Epub 2015/03/12. 10.1016/j.tips.2015.02.005. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2015.02.00525758254

Day JJ, Kennedy AJ, Sweatt JD. DNA methylation and its implications and accessibility for neuropsychiatric therapeutics. Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology. 2015;55:591–611. Epub 2014/10/24. 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124527. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4768530. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-12452725340930

Anisowicz A, Huang H, Braunschweiger KI, Liu Z, Giese H, Wang H, et al A high-throughput and sensitive method to measure global DNA methylation: application in lung cancer. BMC cancer. 2008;8:222 Epub 2008/08/05. 10.1186/1471-2407-8-222. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2546425. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-22218673580

Eick Dirk F H-J, Doerfter Walter. Quantitative Determination of 5Methylcytosine in DNA by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Analytical Biochemistry. 1983;135:165–71. 6422793

Eick D, Fritz HJ, Doerfler W. Quantitative determination of 5-methylcytosine in DNA by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal Biochem. 1983;135(1):165–71. Epub 1983/11/01. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(83)90746-7. .6422793

Havliš J, Trbušek M. 5-Methylcytosine as a marker for the monitoring of DNA methylation. Journal of Chromatography B. 2002;781(1–2):373–92. 10.1016/s1570-0232(02)00499-3.

Ziller MJ, Gu H, Muller F, Donaghey J, Tsai LT, Kohlbacher O, et al Charting a dynamic DNA methylation landscape of the human genome. Nature. 2013;500(7463):477–81. Epub 2013/08/09. 10.1038/nature12433. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3821869. doi: 10.1038/nature1243323925113

Hansen KD, Langmead B, Irizarry RA. BSmooth: from whole genome bisulfite sequencing reads to differentially methylated regions. Genome biology. 2012;13(10):R83 Epub 2012/10/05. 10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-r83. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3491411. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-r8323034175

Beck S. Taking the measure of the methylome. Nature biotechnology. 2010;28(10):1026–8. Epub 2010/10/15. 10.1038/nbt1010-1026. doi: 10.1038/nbt1010-102620944589

Kurdyukov S, Bullock M. DNA Methylation Analysis: Choosing the Right Method. Biology. 2016;5(1):3 Epub 2016/01/12. 10.3390/biology5010003. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4810160. doi: 10.3390/biology501000326751487

Masser DR, Stanford DR, Freeman WM. Targeted DNA methylation analysis by next-generation sequencing. Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE. 2015;(96):e52488 Epub 2015/03/06. 10.3791/52488. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4354667. doi: 10.3791/5248825741966

Jorda M, Peinado MA. Methods for DNA methylation analysis and applications in colon cancer. Mutation research. 2010;693(1–2):84–93. Epub 2010/07/06. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.06.010. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.06.01020599551

Zhao C, Xue H. A simple method for high-throughput quantification of genome-wide DNA methylation by fluorescence polarization. Epigenetics. 2012;7(4):335–9. Epub 2012/03/16. 10.4161/epi.19376. doi: 10.4161/epi.1937622419070

Karimi M, Johansson S, Stach D, Corcoran M, Grander D, Schalling M, et al LUMA (LUminometric Methylation Assay)—a high throughput method to the analysis of genomic DNA methylation. Experimental cell research. 2006;312(11):1989–95. Epub 2006/04/21. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2006.03.006. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2006.03.00616624287

Lisanti S, Omar WA, Tomaszewski B, De Prins S, Jacobs G, Koppen G, et al Comparison of methods for quantification of global DNA methylation in human cells and tissues. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e79044 Epub 2013/11/22. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079044. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3832524. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.007904424260150

Delgado-Cruzata L, Vin-Raviv N, Tehranifar P, Flom J, Reynolds D, Gonzalez K, et al Correlations in global DNA methylation measures in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and granulocytes. Epigenetics. 2014;9(11):1504–10. Epub 2014/12/09. 10.4161/15592294.2014.983364. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4622616. doi: 10.4161/15592294.2014.98336425482109

Liu F, Killian JK, Yang M, Walker RL, Hong JA, Zhang M, et al Epigenomic alterations and gene expression profiles in respiratory epithelia exposed to cigarette smoke condensate. Oncogene. 2010;29(25):3650–64. Epub 2010/05/05. 10.1038/onc.2010.129. doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.12920440268

Knothe C, Doehring A, Ultsch A, Lotsch J. Methadone induces hypermethylation of human DNA. Epigenomics. 2016;8(2):167–79. Epub 2015/09/05. 10.2217/epi.15.78. doi: 10.2217/epi.15.7826340303

Doehring A, Oertel BG, Sittl R, Lotsch J. Chronic opioid use is associated with increased DNA methylation correlating with increased clinical pain. Pain. 2013;154(1):15–23. Epub 2013/01/01. 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.011. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.01123273101

Achille NJ, Othus M, Phelan K, Zhang S, Cooper K, Godwin JE, et al Association between early promoter-specific DNA methylation changes and outcome in older acute myeloid leukemia patients. Leukemia research. 2016;42:68–74. Epub 2016/01/29. 10.1016/j.leukres.2016.01.004. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4779662. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2016.01.00426818573

Paradis A, Xiao D, Zhou J, Zhang L. Endothelin-1 promotes cardiomyocyte terminal differentiation in the developing heart via heightened DNA methylation. International journal of medical sciences. 2014;11(4):373–80. Epub 2014/03/01. 10.7150/ijms.7802. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3936032. doi: 10.7150/ijms.780224578615

Riganti C, Salaroglio IC, Caldera V, Campia I, Kopecka J, Mellai M, et al Temozolomide downregulates P-glycoprotein expression in glioblastoma stem cells by interfering with the Wnt3a/glycogen synthase-3 kinase/beta-catenin pathway. Neuro-oncology. 2013;15(11):1502–17. Epub 2013/07/31. 10.1093/neuonc/not104. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3813413. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not10423897632

Rossi AM, Taylor CW. Analysis of protein-ligand interactions by fluorescence polarization. Nature protocols. 2011;6(3):365–87. Epub 2011/03/05. 10.1038/nprot.2011.305. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3160472. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2011.30521372817

Moerke NJ. Fluorescence Polarization (FP) Assays for Monitoring Peptide-Protein or Nucleic Acid-Protein Binding. Current protocols in chemical biology. 2009;1(1):1–15. Epub 2009/12/01. 10.1002/9780470559277.ch090102. doi: 10.1002/9780470559277.ch09010223839960

Lea WA, Simeonov A. Fluorescence polarization assays in small molecule screening. Expert opinion on drug discovery. 2011;6(1):17–32. Epub 2012/02/14. 10.1517/17460441.2011.537322. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3277431. doi: 10.1517/17460441.2011.53732222328899

Chen X, Levine L, Kwok PY. Fluorescence polarization in homogeneous nucleic acid analysis. Genome Res. 1999;9(5):492–8. Epub 1999/05/18. 10.1101/gr.9.5.492. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC310763.10330129

Waalwijk C Fau—Flavell RA, Flavell RA. MspI, an isoschizomer of HpaII which cleaves both unmethylated and methylated hpaII sites. Nucleic acids research. 1978;5(9):3231–6. D—NLM: PMC342244 EDAT- 1978/09/01 MHDA- 1978/09/01 00:01 CRDT- 1978/09/01 00:00 PST—ppublish. 704354

Tardy-Planechaud S, Fujimoto J, Lin SS, Sowers LC. Solid phase synthesis and restriction endonuclease cleavage of oligodeoxynucleotides containing 5-(hydroxymethyl)-cytosine. Nucleic acids research. 1997;25(3):553–9. Epub 1997/02/01. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC146456.9016595

Barchitta M, Quattrocchi A, Maugeri A, Vinciguerra M, Agodi A. LINE-1 hypomethylation in blood and tissue samples as an epigenetic marker for cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e109478 Epub 2014/10/03. 10.1371/journal.pone.0109478. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4183594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.010947825275447

Reardon ES, Hong JA, Straughan DM, Azoury SC, Zhang M, Schrump DS. Pulmonary Metastases Exhibit Epigenetic Clonality: Implications for Precision Cancer Therapy. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2015;100(5):1839–48; discussion 48. Epub 2015/08/25. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.089. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.08926298164

Tost J, Gut IG. DNA methylation analysis by pyrosequencing. Nature protocols. 2007;2(9):2265–75. Epub 2007/09/15. 10.1038/nprot.2007.314. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.31417853883

Fulnecek J, Kovarik A. How to interpret methylation sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAP) profiles? BMC Genet. 2014;15(1):2 Epub 2014/01/08. 10.1186/1471-2156-15-2. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3890580. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-15-224393618

Cheng SC, Quintin J, Cramer RA, Shepardson KM, Saeed S, Kumar V, et al mTOR- and HIF-1alpha-mediated aerobic glycolysis as metabolic basis for trained immunity. Science. 2014;345(6204):1250684 Epub 2014/09/27. 10.1126/science.1250684. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4226238. doi: 10.1126/science.125068425258083

Arand J, Spieler D, Karius T, Branco MR, Meilinger D, Meissner A, et al In vivo control of CpG and non-CpG DNA methylation by DNA methyltransferases. PLoS genetics. 2012;8(6):e1002750 Epub 2012/07/05. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002750. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3386304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.100275022761581

Liang GG, Chan MF, Tomigahara Y, Tsai YC, Gonzales FA, Li E, et al Cooperativity between DNA methyltransferases in the maintenance methylation of repetitive elements. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22(2):480–91. 10.1128/Mcb.22.2.480–491.2002. ISI:000172983900009. doi: 10.1128/MCB.22.2.480-491.2002 11756544

Laird CD, Pleasant ND, Clark AD, Sneeden JL, Hassan KM, Manley NC, et al Hairpin-bisulfite PCR: assessing epigenetic methylation patterns on complementary strands of individual DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004;101(1):204–9. Epub 2003/12/16. 10.1073/pnas.2536758100. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC314163. doi: 10.1073/pnas.253675810014673087

Fazzari MJ, Greally JM. Epigenomics: beyond CpG islands. Nature reviews Genetics. 2004;5(6):446–55. Epub 2004/05/22. 10.1038/nrg1349. doi: 10.1038/nrg134915153997

Martinez-Arguelles DB, Lee S, Papadopoulos V. In silico analysis identifies novel restriction enzyme combinations that expand reduced representation bisulfite sequencing CpG coverage. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:534 Epub 2014/08/17. 10.1186/1756-0500-7-534. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4141122. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-53425127888

Wang J, Xia Y, Li L, Gong D, Yao Y, Luo H, et al Double restriction-enzyme digestion improves the coverage and accuracy of genome-wide CpG methylation profiling by reduced representation bisulfite sequencing. BMC genomics. 2013;14(1471–2164 (Electronic)):11 Epub 2013/01/18. 10.1186/1471-2164-14-11. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3570491. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-1123324053

Knothe C, Shiratori H, Resch E, Ultsch A, Geisslinger G, Doehring A, et al Disagreement between two common biomarkers of global DNA methylation. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8(1):60 Epub 2016/05/26. 10.1186/s13148-016-0227-0. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4877994. doi: 10.1186/s13148-016-0227-027222668

Jameson DM, Ross JA. Fluorescence polarization/anisotropy in diagnostics and imaging. Chem Rev. 2010;110(5):2685–708. Epub 2010/03/18. 10.1021/cr900267p. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2868933. doi: 10.1021/cr900267p20232898

Singer MF. SINEs and LINEs: highly repeated short and long interspersed sequences in mammalian genomes. Cell. 1982;28(3):433–4. Epub 1982/03/01. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(82)90194-5. .6280868

Deininger P. Alu elements: know the SINEs. Genome biology. 2011;12(12):236 Epub 2011/12/30. 10.1186/gb-2011-12-12-236. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3334610. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-12-23622204421

Wong Doo N, Makalic E, Joo JE, Vajdic CM, Schmidt DF, Wong EM, et al Global measures of peripheral blood-derived DNA methylation as a risk factor in the development of mature B-cell neoplasms. Epigenomics. 2016;8(1):55–66. Epub 2015/12/19. 10.2217/epi.15.97. doi: 10.2217/epi.15.9726679037

Zelic R, Fiano V, Zugna D, Grasso C, Delsedime L, Daniele L, et al Global Hypomethylation (LINE-1) and Gene-Specific Hypermethylation (GSTP1) on Initial Negative Prostate Biopsy as Markers of Prostate Cancer on a Rebiopsy. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2016;22(4):984–92. Epub 2015/10/18. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0606. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-060626475336

Udali S, Guarini P, Moruzzi S, Ruzzenente A, Tammen SA, Guglielmi A, et al Global DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation differ in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma and relate to survival rate. Hepatology. 2015;62(2):496–504. Epub 2015/04/03. 10.1002/hep.27823. doi: 10.1002/hep.2782325833413

O'Dwyer K, Maslak P. Azacitidine and the beginnings of therapeutic epigenetic modulation. Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy. 2008;9(11):1981–6. Epub 2008/07/17. 10.1517/14656566.9.11.1981. doi: 10.1517/14656566.9.11.198118627335

Gnyszka A J Z, Flis S. DNA Methyltransferase Inhibitors and Their Emerging role in epigenetic therapy of cancer. anticancer research. 2013;33(8):2989–96. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC23898051. 23898051

[Back]

Table 1. Comparison of high-throughput global DNA methylation assays.

Assay
Approx assay duration
DNA (ng)
Features/requirements
Internal control
Resolution
Format
Reference

MSFP
3.5 h
10–80

All organisms

No enrichment/purification

RE-based method

Included
CpG within RE sites
384-well
[29]

LUMA
5 h
100–500
96-well
[30–32]

LINE-1
5.5 h
2–166

Organism-specific due to primers (LINE-1: eukaryotes, Alu: primates)

Enrichment required for pyrosequencing

Bisulfite-conversion of DNA

Pyrosequencing or MethyLight qPCR

Pyro- sequencing: not required

MethyLight qPCR: included

CpG within LINE-1/Alu
[31–35]

Alu
5.5 h
2–25
[31, 32]

CpGlobal
2 d
100

All organisms

Enrichment required

RE-based method

Included
CpG within RE sites
[19]

ELISA
3–4 h
100

All organisms

Multiple washing steps required

No
Over-all 5mC
[36–38]

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163184.t001

The table focuses on assay conditions, methods, and readouts downstream of the DNA purification step. Internal controls are used to normalize the input DNA amount. Abbreviations: 5mC; 5-methylcytosine, LINE-1; long interspersed nuclear element-1, LUMA; luminometric methylation assay, MSFP; methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization, RE; restriction enzyme.

[Back]

[Back]

Fig 1. The workflow of the methyl-sensitive fluorescence polarization (MSFP) assay.

Lambda (λ) and human genomic DNA are restricted by MspI (white) or by HpaII each alone or by a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (grey) (Step 1). Subsequently, digested DNA with CpG overhangs at the 5' termini are terminally extended with fluorescence-labelled TAMRA-dCTP (C*, *C) (Step 2). TAMRA-dCTP incorporated into DNA is quantified by fluorescence polarization directly on the plate without additional purification procedures.

[Back]

[Back]

Fig 2. Measurement of global DNA methylation using the MSFP assay.

(A) In-vitro methylation of λ DNA was confirmed by HpaII digestion. Unmethylated and fully-methylated (5mC) λ DNA were digested by either MspI or HpaII and the digestion pattern was visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis. UD: undigested. (B) The standard curves represent unmethylated λ DNA, showing medians and ranges of 3–7 independent experiments, each performed in technical duplicates or triplicates. The amounts of digested DNA applied per well are indicated on the x-axis. (C) The MSFP measurement of λ DNA with different DNA methylation levels. Unmethylated and 5mC λ DNA were mixed to obtain 10 ng of DNA with various DNA methylation levels (0, 25, 50, 75, 100%) followed by the MSFP assay. The data show medians and ranges of three independent experiments, each performed in technical triplicates. (D) The accuracy of the DNA methylation level (%) determined by the MSFP. The DNA methylation content (5mC) of each analyte from Fig 2C was calculated according to the formula in the Materials and Methods section. The data represent medians and ranges of three independent experiments, each performed in technical triplicates.

[Back]

[Back]

Fig 3. Application of the MSFP assay to human genomic DNA.

(A) Digestion pattern of THP-1 genomic DNA digested with MspI, HpaII, or a combination of HpaII and HpyCH4IV (HH). The digested DNA was separated by agarose gel electrophoresis. UD; undigested. (B) Standard curves for THP-1 DNA in the MSFP assay. Data represent medians and ranges of three independent experiments performed in technical duplicates or triplicates. The amounts of digested DNA applied per well are indicated on the x-axis.

[Back]

[Back]

Fig 4. Comparison of the MSFP and LINE-1 assays.

(A) Detection of DNA hypomethylation induced by Aza and DAC using the LINE-1 pyrosequencing assay. Three independent experiments were carried out and each data value (circle, triangle) and its median (bar) are shown in a Box-Whisker-Plot. (B) The MSFP assay data present different DNA methylation states as the ratio of the FPHH values to the FPM values. In contrast to the LINE-1 data, a decrease in global DNA methylation (here due to Aza or DAC), results in a higher FPHH value and therefore, in a higher FPHH/FPM ratio. The DNA samples used for the MSFP assay were identical to those used for the LINE-1 assay. The data represent three independent experiments with technical triplicates and each data value (circle, triangle) and its median (bar) presented as a Box-Whisker-Plot. The statistical differences between untreated and treated groups (Aza or DAC) were determined using a Kruskall-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01) for both assays. (C) Correlation between the MSFP and LINE-1 assays. Global DNA methylation level in THP-1 cells treated with DNMT inhibitors (n = 18) was determined using the MSFP and LINE-1 assays, and the reciprocal correlation between the methods determined by two-tailed Spearman’s rank correlation test (ρ = –0.80).

[Back]