Cited by 630Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting

Functional annotation of the human brain methylome identifies tissue-specific epigenetic variation across brain and blood

Open access
Davies, Matthew N, Volta, Manuela, Pidsley, Ruth, Lunnon, Katie, Dixit, Abhishek, Lovestone, Simon, Coarfa, Cristian, Harris, R Alan +6 more·2012·Genome Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dynamic changes to the epigenome play a critical role in establishing and maintaining cellular phenotype during differentiation, but little is known about the normal methylomic differences that occur between functionally distinct areas of the brain. We characterized intra- and inter-individual methylomic variation across whole blood and multiple regions of the brain from multiple donors. RESULTS: Distinct tissue-specific patterns of DNA methylation were identified, with a highly significant over-representation of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions (TS-DMRs) observed at intragenic CpG islands and low CG density promoters. A large proportion of TS-DMRs were located near genes that are differentially expressed across brain regions. TS-DMRs were significantly enriched near genes involved in functional pathways related to neurodevelopment and neuronal differentiation, including BDNF, BMP4, CACNA1A, CACA1AF, EOMES, NGFR, NUMBL, PCDH9, SLIT1, SLITRK1 and SHANK3. Although between-tissue variation in DNA methylation was found to greatly exceed between-individual differences within any one tissue, we found that some inter-individual variation was reflected across brain and blood, indicating that peripheral tissues may have some utility in epidemiological studies of complex neurobiological phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces the importance of DNA methylation in regulating cellular phenotype across tissues, and highlights genomic patterns of epigenetic variation across functionally distinct regions of the brain, providing a resource for the epigenetics and neuroscience research communities.

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 · 10.1186/gb-2012-13-6-r43

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 630

Authors
Davies, M. N., Volta, M., Pidsley, R., Lunnon, K., Dixit, A., Lovestone, S., Coarfa, C., Harris, R. A., Milosavljevic, A., Troakes, C., Al-Sarraj, S., Dobson, R., Schalkwyk, L. C., & Mill, J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Mill, Jonathan
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2012-06-15
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
R43-R43
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2117347068
Cited by
630
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 7
FWCI
28.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of London
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG036039, AG036039)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01DA025956)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Keywords
DNA methylation, brain regions, whole blood, interindividual variability, brain development, neuronal differentiation, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, SHANK3, neurodevelopmental genes, functional annotation, epigenetic variation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Autopsy, Base Composition, Brain, DNA, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Organ Specificity, Phenotype, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Genome, Human, Conserved Sequence, CpG Islands, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic, Gene Regulatory Networks, Molecular Sequence Annotation

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