Dynamic Changes of DNA Methylation During Wild Strawberry (Fragaria nilgerrensis) Tissue Culture
Open accessAbstract
Tissue culture is an important tool for asexual propagation and genetic transformation of strawberry plants. In plant tissue culture, variation of DNA methylation is a potential source of phenotypic variation in regenerated plants. However, the genome wide dynamic methylation patterns of strawberry tissue culture remain unclear. In this study, we used whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) to study genomic DNA methylation changes of a wild strawberry Fragaria nilgerrensis at six stages: from explants of shoot tips to outplanting and acclimation. Global methylation levels showed that CG sites exhibited the highest methylation level in all stages with an average of 49.5%, followed by CHG (33.2%) and CHH (12.4%). Although CHH accounted for the lowest proportion of total cytosine methylation, it showed the most obvious methylation change and the most of these changes occurred in the transposable element regions. The overall methylation levels alternately decreased and increased during the entire tissue culture process and the distribution of DNA methylation was non-uniform among different genetic regions. Furthermore, much more differentially methylated regions (DMRs) were detected in dedifferentiation and redifferentiation stages and most of them were transposable elements, suggesting these processes involved activating or silencing of amounts of transposons. The functional enrichment of the DMR-related genes indicated that genes involved in hormone metabolic processes, plant development and the stress response changed methylation throughout the tissue culture process. Finally, the quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was conducted to examine the association of methylation and gene expression of a set of different methylated genes. Our findings give deeper insight into the epigenetic regulation of gene expression during the plant tissue cultures process, which will be useful in the efficient control of somaclonal variations and in crop improvement.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
In Fragaria x ananassa, variation was observed.
“Variation observed”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [96]
The Introduction describes variation arising during plant tissue culture, and the Discussion says the study investigated methylation differences in F. nilgerrensis. The paper does not report observing variation in F. × ananassa, so the species-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Fragaria nilgerrensis, CHH methylation changes were most prominent, particularly in transposable element regions.
“CHH methylation changes were most prominent, particularly in transposable element regions.”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [96]
In Fragaria nilgerrensis, WGBS across six stages from explants to outplanting and acclimation showed CG sites had the highest methylation (49.5%), followed by CHG (33.2%) and CHH (12.4%).
“CG sites showed the highest methylation (49.5%), followed by CHG (33.2%) and CHH (12.4%).”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [96]
In Fragaria nilgerrensis, methylation levels fluctuated throughout the tissue culture process, with non-uniform distribution across different genetic regions.
“Methylation levels fluctuated throughout the tissue culture process, with non-uniform distribution across different genetic regions [96].”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [96]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 53 · Cited by 19
Research works printed but not linked: 51
- Azevedo C. Santos-Rosa M. J. Shirasu K. (2001). The U-box protein family in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 6 354– 358. 10.1016/S1360-1385(01)01960-4 11495788 · DOI
- Baránek M. Křižan B. Ondrušíková E. Pidra M. (2010). DNA-methylation changes in grapevine somaclones following in vitro culture and thermotherapy. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 101 11– 22. 10.1007/s11240-009-9656-1 · DOI
- Chen Y. Hu S. Liu M. Zhao B. Yang N. Li J. (2020). Analysis of Genome DNA Methylation at Inherited Coat Color Dilutions of Rex Rabbits. Front. Genet. 11: 603528. 10.3389/fgene.2020.603528 33552123 PMC7859435 · DOI
- Cheng C. Daigen M. Hirochika H. (2006). Epigenetic regulation of the rice retrotransposon Tos17. Mol. Genet. Genom. 276 378– 390. 10.1007/s00438-006-0141-9 16821043 · DOI
- Cokus S. J. Feng S. Zhang X. Chen Z. Merriman B. Haudenschild C. D. (2008). Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452 215– 219. 10.1038/nature06745 18278030 PMC2377394 · DOI
- Cortleven A. Leuendorf J. E. Frank M. Pezzetta D. Bolt S. Schmülling T. (2019). Cytokinin action in response to abiotic and biotic stresses in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 42 998– 1018. 10.1111/pce.13494 30488464 · DOI
- Dafni A. Anna E. C. Francesc P. (2018). Consistent inverse correlation between DNA methylation of the first intron and gene expression across tissues and species. Epigenet. Chromatin 11 37– 54. 10.1186/s13072-018-0205-1 29958539 PMC6025724 · DOI
- Deyoung B. J. Bickle K. L. Schrage K. J. Muskett P. Patel K. Clark S. E. (2010). The CLAVATA1-related BAM1, BAM2 and BAM3 receptor kinase-like proteins are required for meristem function in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 45 1– 16. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02592.x 16367950 · DOI
- Ehrlich M. Lacey M. (2013). DNA methylation and differentiation: silencing, upregulation and modulation of gene expression. Epigenomics 5 553– 568. 10.2217/epi.13.43 24059801 PMC3864898 · DOI
- Feng C. Wang J. Harris A. J. Folta K. M. Kang M. (2020). Tracing the diploid ancestry of the cultivated octoploid strawberry. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38 478– 485. 10.1093/molbev/msaa238 32941604 PMC7826170 · DOI
- Feng S. Cokus S. J. Zhang X. Chen P. Y. Jacobsen S. E. (2010). Conservation and Divergence of methylation patterning in plants and animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 107 8689– 8694. 10.1073/pnas.1002720107 20395551 PMC2889301 · DOI · Paper page
- Fukai E. Umehara Y. Sato S. Endo M. Kouchi H. Hayashi M. (2010). Derepression of the plant Chromovirus LORE1 induces germline transposition in regenerated plants. PLoS Genet. 6: e1000868. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000868 20221264 PMC2832683 · DOI
- Gassmann W. Hinsch M. E. Staskawicz B. J. (2010). The Arabidopsis RPS4 bacterial-resistance gene is a member of the TIR-NBS-LRR family of disease-resistance genes. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 20 265– 277. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1999.00600.x 10571887 · DOI
- Ghosh A. (2016). Detection of DNA methylation pattern in thidiazuron-induced blueberry callus using methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism. Biol. Plant. 61 511– 519. 10.1007/s10535-016-0678-3 · DOI
- Ghosh A. Igamberdiev A. U. Debnath S. C. (2021). Tissue culture-induced DNA methylation in crop plants: a review. Mol. Biol. Rep. 48 823– 841. 10.1007/s11033-020-06062-6 33394224 · DOI
- Guo R. Xue L. Luo G. Zhang T. Lei J. (2018). Investigation and taxonomy of wild Fragaria resources in Tibet, China. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 65 405– 415. 10.1007/s10722-017-0541-1 · DOI
- Gupta S. Pathak R. U. Kanungo M. S. (2006). DNA methylation induced changes in chromatin conformation of the promoter of the vitellogenin II gene of Japanese quail during aging. Gene 377 159– 168. 10.1016/j.gene.2006.04.020 16766142 · DOI
- Hesami M. Tohidfar M. Alizadeh M. Daneshvar M. H. (2020). Effects of sodium nitroprusside on callus browning of Ficus religiosa: an important medicinal plant. J. For. Res 31 789– 796. 10.1007/s11676-018-0860-x · DOI
- Horstman A. Li M. Heidmann I. Weemen M. Chen B. Angenent G. C. (2017). The BABY BOOM transcription factor activates the LEC1-ABI3-FUS3-LEC2 network to induce somatic embryogenesis. Plant Physiol. 175 848– 857. 10.1104/pp.17.00232 28830937 PMC5619889 · DOI
- Karim R. Nuruzzaman M. Khalid N. Harikrishna J. A. (2016). Importance of DNA and histone methylation in in vitro plant propagation for crop improvement: a review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 169 1– 16. 10.1111/aab.12280 · DOI · Paper page
- Kubis S. E. Castilho A. M. Vershinin A. V. Heslop-Harrison J. S. (2003). Retroelements, transposons and methylation status in the genome of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and the relationship to somaclonal variation. Plant Mol. Biol. 52 69– 79. 10.1023/a:1023942309092 12825690 · DOI
- Langmead B. Salzberg S. L. (2012). Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9 357– 359. 10.1038/nmeth.1923 22388286 PMC3322381 · DOI · Paper page
- Law J. A. Jacobsen S. E. (2010). Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11 204– 220. 10.1038/nrg2719 20142834 PMC3034103 · DOI
- Lee K. Seo P. J. (2018). Dynamic epigenetic changes during plant regeneration. Trends Plant Sci. 23 235– 247. 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.009 29338924 · DOI
- Li X. Zhu J. Hu F. Ge S. Ye M. Xiang H. (2012). Single-base resolution maps of cultivated and wild rice methylomes and regulatory roles of DNA methylation in plant gene expression. BMC Genomics 13: 300– 315. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-300 22747568 PMC3447678 · DOI
- Lin G. He C. Zheng J. Koo D. H. Le H. Zheng H. (2021). Chromosome-level genome assembly of a regenerable maize inbred line A188. Genome Biol. 22: 175. 10.1186/s13059-021-02396-x 34108023 PMC8188678 · DOI
- Lister R. Mukamel E. A. Nery J. R. Urich M. Puddifoot C. A. Johnson N. D. (2013). Global epigenomic reconfiguration during mammalian brain development. Science 341: 21. 10.1126/science.1237905 23828890 PMC3785061 · DOI · Paper page
- Livak K. J. Schmittgen T. D. (2001). Analysis of Relative Gene Expression Data Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR and the 2–ΔΔCt Method. Methods 25 402– 408. 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 11846609 · DOI · Paper page
- Lu J. Zhang Y. Diao X. (2021). Evaluation of Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Fragaria nilgerrensis using EST-SSR Markers. Gene 796-797 145791– 145798. 10.1016/j.gene.2021.145791 34175390 · DOI
- Mao X. Cai T. Olyarchuk J. G. Wei L. (2005). Automated genome annotation and pathway identification using the KEGG Orthology (KO) as a controlled vocabulary. Bioinformatics 21 3787– 3793. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti430 15817693 · DOI
- Neelakandan A. K. Wang K. (2012). Recent progress in the understanding of tissue culture-induced genome level changes in plants and potential applications. Plant Cell Rep. 31 597– 620. 10.1007/s00299-011-1202-z 22179259 · DOI
- Niederhuth C. E. Bewick A. J. Ji L. Alabady M. S. Kim K. D. Li Q. (2016). Widespread natural variation of DNA methylation within angiosperms. Genome Biol. 17: 20. 10.1186/s13059-016-1059-0 27671052 PMC5037628 · DOI
- Noguchi Y. Mochizuki T. Sone K. (2002). Breeding of a new aromatic strawberry by interspecific hybridization Fragaria x ananassa x F.nilgerrensis. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 71 208– 213. 10.2503/jjshs.71.208 · DOI
- Orowska R. (2021). Barley somatic embryogenesis-an attempt to modify variation induced in tissue culture. J. Biol. Res. 28 1– 12. 10.1186/s40709-021-00138-5 33726856 PMC7962293 · DOI · Paper page
- Qiao Q. Edger P. P. Xue L. Qiong L. Lu J. Zhang Y. (2021). Evolutionary history and pan-genome dynamics of strawberry (Fragaria spp.). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118: e2105431118. 10.1073/pnas.2105431118 34697247 PMC8609306 · DOI
- Rampey R. A. LeClere S. Kowalczyk M. Ljung K. Sandberg G. Bartel B. (2004). A family of auxin-conjugate hydrolases that contributes to free indole-3-acetic acid levels during Arabidopsis germination. Plant Physiol. 135 978– 988. 10.1104/pp.104.039677 15155875 PMC514132 · DOI
- Shimotohno A. Umeda-Hara C. Bisova K. Uchimiya H. Umeda M. (2004). The plant-specific kinase CDKF;1 is involved in activating phosphorylation of cyclin-dependent kinase-activating kinases in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 16 2954– 2966. 10.1105/tpc.104.025601 15486101 PMC527191 · DOI
- Stahl Y. Grabowski S. Bleckmann A. Kühnemuth R. Weidtkamp-Peters S. Pinto K. (2013). Moderation of Arabidopsis root stemness by CLAVATA1 and ARABIDOPSIS CRINKLY4 receptor kinase complexes. Curr. Biol. 23 362– 371. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.045 23394827 · DOI
- Takatsuka H. Ohno R. Umeda M. (2009). The Arabidopsis cyclin-dependent kinase-activating kinase CDKF;1 is a major regulator of cell proliferation and cell expansion but is dispensable for CDKA activation. Plant J. 59 475– 487. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03884.x 19368694 · DOI
- Tetsu K. Akemi O. (2013). Induction of epigenetic modifications by RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) and their inheritance to the next generation in plants (New gene modification techniques and useful plant production). Regul. Plant Growth Dev. 48 142– 147. 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00595 25426109 PMC4226233 · DOI
- Tiwari J. K. Chandel P. Gupta S. Gopal J. Bhardwaj V. (2013). Analysis of genetic stability of in vitro propagated potato microtubers using DNA markers. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 19 587– 595. 10.1007/s12298-013-0190-6 24431528 PMC3781281 · DOI
- Trujillo M. (2018). News from the PUB: plant U-box type E3 ubiquitin ligases. J. Exp. Bot. 69 371– 384. 10.1093/jxb/erx411 29237060 · DOI
- Us-Camas R. Rivera-Solís G. Duarte-Aké F. De-La-Pea C. (2014). In vitro culture: An epigenetic challenge for plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 118 187– 201. 10.1007/s11240-014-0482-8 · DOI
- Vining K. Pomraning K. R. Wilhelm L. J. Ma C. Pellegrini M. Di Y. (2013). Methylome reorganization during in vitro dedifferentiation and regeneration of Populus trichocarpa. BMC Plant Biol. 13: 92. 10.1186/1471-2229-13-92 23799904 PMC3728041 · DOI
- Wu H. Xu T. Feng H. Chen L. Li B. Yao B. (2015). Detection of differentially methylated regions from whole-genome bisulfite sequencing data without replicates. Nucleic Acids Res. 43: e141. 10.1093/nar/gkv715 26184873 PMC4666378 · DOI
- Xia L. Han J. D. Fang Y. H. Bai S. N. Rao G. Y. (2017). Expression analyses of embryogenesis-associated genes during somatic embryogenesis of Adiantum capillus-veneris L. in vitro: new insights into the evolution of reproductive organs in land plants. Front. Plant Sci. 8: 658. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00658 28496454 PMC5406782 · DOI
- Young M. D. Wakefield M. J. Smyth G. K. Oshlack A. (2010). Gene ontology analysis for RNA-seq: accounting for selection bias. Genome Biol. 11 316– 328. 10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r14 20132535 PMC2872874 · DOI · Paper page
- Zakrzewski F. Schmidt M. Lijsebettens M. V. Schmidt T. (2017). DNA methylation of retrotransposons, DNA transposons and genes in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 90 1156– 1175. 10.1111/tpj.13526 28257158 · DOI
- Zhang H. Lang Z. Zhu J. K. (2018). Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19 489– 506. 10.1038/s41580-018-0016-z 29784956 · DOI
- Zhang M. Kimatu J. N. Xu K. Liu B. (2010). DNA cytosine methylation in plant development. J. Genet. 37 1– 12. 10.1016/S1673-8527(09)60020-5 20171573 · DOI
- Zhou Y. Chen Y. Yamamoto K. T. Duan J. Tian C. E. (2010). Sequence and expression analysis of the Arabidopsis IQM family. Acta Physiol. Plant. 32 191– 198. 10.1007/s11738-009-0398-9 · DOI
- Authors
- Cao, Q., Feng, Y., Dai, X., Huang, L., Li, J., Tao, P., Crabbe, M. J. C., Zhang, T., & Qiao, Q.
- Affiliations
- Yunnan University (CN)
- University of Bedfordshire (GB)
- Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Ticao
- Qiao, Qin
- Venue
- Frontiers in Plant Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-11-30
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 765383-765383
- ISSN
- 1664-462X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8669611
- OpenAlex
- W3215429465
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- University of Bedfordshire Repository (University of Bedfordshire) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (32060237, 31770408, 32060085, 31760082)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
- Keywords
- DNA methylation, Fragaria nilgerrensis, Fragaria vesca, plant tissue culture, differentially methylated regions, transposable elements, epigenetic regulation, somaclonal variation, hormone metabolism, stress response, plant development
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