Cited by 553Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Widespread and tissue specific age-related DNA methylation changes in mice

Open access
Maegawa, Shinji, Hinkal, George, Kim, Hyun Soo, Shen, Lanlan, Zhang, Li, Zhang, Jiexin, Zhang, Nianxiang, Liang, Shoudan +2 more·2010·Genome Research

Abstract

Aberrant methylation of promoter CpG islands in cancer is associated with silencing of tumor-suppressor genes, and age-dependent hypermethylation in normal appearing mucosa may be a risk factor for human colon cancer. It is not known whether this age-related DNA methylation phenomenon is specific to human tissues. We performed comprehensive DNA methylation profiling of promoter regions in aging mouse intestine using methylated CpG island amplification in combination with microarray analysis. By comparing C57BL/6 mice at 3-mo-old versus 35-mo-old for 3627 detectable autosomal genes, we found 774 (21%) that showed increased methylation and 466 (13%) that showed decreased methylation. We used pyrosequencing to quantitatively validate the microarray data and confirmed linear age-related methylation changes for all 12 genomic regions examined. We then examined 11 changed genomic loci for age-related methylation in other tissues. Of these, three of 11 showed similar changes in lung, seven of 11 changed in liver, and six of 11 changed in spleen, though to a lower degree than the changes seen in colon. There was partial conservation between age-related hypermethylation in human and mouse intestines, and Polycomb targets in embryonic stem cells were enriched among the hypermethylated genes. Our findings demonstrate a surprisingly high rate of hyper- and hypomethylation as a function of age in normal mouse small intestine tissues and a strong tissue-specificity to the process. We conclude that epigenetic deregulation is a common feature of aging in mammals.

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 · 10.1101/gr.096826.109

Cites

4 of 4 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Estecio MR, Gharibyan V, Shen L, Ibrahim AE, Doshi K, He R, Jelinek J, Yang AS, Yan PS, Huang TH, et al. 2007. LINE-1 hypomethylation in cancer is highly variable and inversely correlated with microsatellite instability. PLoS One 2: e399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000399. · DOI
  2. Zhang B, Schmoyer D, Kirov S, Snoddy J. 2004. GOTree Machine (GOTM): A web-based platform for interpreting sets of interesting genes using Gene Ontology hierarchies. BMC Bioinformatics 18: 16. doi: 10.1186/1471- 2105-5-16. References http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/3/332.full.html#related-urls Articles cited in: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/3/332.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 53 articles, 13 of which can be accessed free at: License Service Email Alerting click here. top right corner of the article or Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article -sign up in the box at the https://genome.cshlp.org/subscriptions go to: Genome Research To subscribe to · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maegawa, S., Hinkal, G., Kim, H. S., Shen, L., Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Zhang, N., Liang, S., Donehower, L. A., & Issa, J.-P. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2010-01-27
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
332-340
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149585679
Cited by
553
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 38
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • F. M. Kirby Foundation
  • James N. Kirby Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (CA-16 672, CA100632)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA100632, CA-16672, CA105346, CA100632, R01CA098006, K25CA123344, R01CA105346, CA098006, P30CA016672)
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
promoter CpG islands, tissue-specific methylation, hypermethylation, hypomethylation, colon cancer risk, embryonic stem cells
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Colonic Neoplasms, Female, Male, Neoplasms, Organ Specificity, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, 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