Cited by 206Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Epigenetic restriction of extraembryonic lineages mirrors the somatic transition to cancer

Open access
Smith, Zachary D., Shi, Jiantao, Gu, Hongcang, Donaghey, Julie, Clement, Kendell, Cacchiarelli, Davide, Gnirke, Andreas, Michor, Franziska +1 more·2017·Nature

Abstract

In mammals, the canonical somatic DNA methylation landscape is established upon specification of the embryo proper and subsequently disrupted within many cancer types. However, the underlying mechanisms that direct this genome-scale transformation remain elusive, with no clear model for its systematic acquisition or potential developmental utility. Here, we analysed global remethylation from the mouse preimplantation embryo into the early epiblast and extraembryonic ectoderm. We show that these two states acquire highly divergent genomic distributions with substantial disruption of bimodal, CpG density-dependent methylation in the placental progenitor. The extraembryonic epigenome includes specific de novo methylation at hundreds of embryonically protected CpG island promoters, particularly those that are associated with key developmental regulators and are orthologously methylated across most human cancer types. Our data suggest that the evolutionary innovation of extraembryonic tissues may have required co-option of DNA methylation-based suppression as an alternative to regulation by Polycomb-group proteins, which coordinate embryonic germ-layer formation in response to extraembryonic cues. Moreover, we establish that this decision is made deterministically, downstream of promiscuously used-and frequently oncogenic-signalling pathways, via a novel combination of epigenetic cofactors. Methylation of developmental gene promoters during tumorigenesis may therefore reflect the misappropriation of an innate trajectory and the spontaneous reacquisition of a latent, developmentally encoded epigenetic landscape.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature23891

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The similarity between tumor and placenta methylomes suggests that tumorigenesis may represent a latent developmental epigenomic program.

    “The similarity between tumor and placenta methylomes suggests that tumorigenesis may represent a latent developmental epigenomic program.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, Z. D., Shi, J., Gu, H., Donaghey, J., Clement, K., Cacchiarelli, D., Gnirke, A., Michor, F., & Meissner, A.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Meissner, Alexander
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-09-20
Volume
549
Issue
7673
Pages
543-547
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2754109996
Cited by
201
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • New York Stem Cell Foundation (P01GM099117, R01DA036898)
  • Starr Foundation (R01DA036898)
  • Israel Science Foundation
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • National Institutes of Health (5rm1hg006193-10, NIH U54CA193461)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA036898)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (RM1‐HG006193, P50HG006193)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA193461)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P01GM099117)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD078679)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
DNA methylation, extraembryonic ectoderm, epiblast, preimplantation embryo, de novo methylation, CpG island promoters, developmental regulators, cancer epigenetics, Polycomb group proteins, mouse embryo development, carcinogenesis
MeSH terms
Animals, Blastocyst, Ectoderm, Female, Germ Layers, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Placenta, Pregnancy, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental, CpG Islands, Cell Lineage, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review