Cited by 1,285Epigenetics and DNA MethylationChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting

Conservation and divergence of methylation patterning in plants and animals

Open access
Feng, Suhua, Cokus, Shawn J., Zhang, Xiaoyu, Chen, Pao-Yang, Bostick, Magnolia, Goll, Mary G., Hetzel, Jonathan, Jain, Jayati +7 more·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Cytosine DNA methylation is a heritable epigenetic mark present in many eukaryotic organisms. Although DNA methylation likely has a conserved role in gene silencing, the levels and patterns of DNA methylation appear to vary drastically among different organisms. Here we used shotgun genomic bisulfite sequencing (BS-Seq) to compare DNA methylation in eight diverse plant and animal genomes. We found that patterns of methylation are very similar in flowering plants with methylated cytosines detected in all sequence contexts, whereas CG methylation predominates in animals. Vertebrates have methylation throughout the genome except for CpG islands. Gene body methylation is conserved with clear preference for exons in most organisms. Furthermore, genes appear to be the major target of methylation in Ciona and honey bee. Among the eight organisms, the green alga Chlamydomonas has the most unusual pattern of methylation, having non-CG methylation enriched in exons of genes rather than in repeats and transposons. In addition, the Dnmt1 cofactor Uhrf1 has a conserved function in maintaining CG methylation in both transposons and gene bodies in the mouse, Arabidopsis, and zebrafish genomes.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1002720107

Cites

40 of 40 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 establishment, maintenance, and removal of epigenetic marks are critical during neurodevelopment, and when disrupted can have significant impacts on neurodevelopment and cognitive function.

    “The establishment, maintenance, and removal of epigenetic marks are critical during neurodevelopment and when disrupted can have significant impacts on neurodevelopment and cognitive function [ 63–66 ].”

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
Feng, S., Cokus, S. J., Zhang, X., Chen, P.-Y., Bostick, M., Goll, M. G., Hetzel, J., Jain, J., Strauss, S. H., Halpern, M. E., Ukomadu, C., Sadler, K. C., Pradhan, S., Pellegrini, M., & Jacobsen, S. E.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, and
  • Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • New England Biolabs (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-04-15
Volume
107
Issue
19
Pages
8689-8694
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2149206894
Cited by
1,285
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 71
FWCI
32.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (1f32ca126302-01)
  • National Cancer Institute (5F32CA126302, F32 CA126302)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM60398, R37GM060398, R01GM060398)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK080789)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD058530)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Keywords
DNA methylation, cytosine methylation, epigenetic inheritance, gene silencing, CG methylation, non-CG methylation, gene body methylation, CpG islands, UHRF1, Chlamydomonas, Ciona, Apis mellifera, comparative epigenomics, flowering plants, vertebrates
MeSH terms
Animals, Exons, Introns, Mutation, Phylogeny, Plants, Repetitive Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Zebrafish, Trans-Activators, Open Reading Frames, Arabidopsis, Evolution, Molecular, DNA Methylation, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Zebrafish Proteins

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