Back

DNA methylation meta-analysis confirms the division of the genome into two functional groups

Salnikov, L.; Goldberg, S.; Sukumaran, P.; Pinsky, E.

2022-01-14 developmental biology
10.1101/2022.01.10.475724 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Based on a meta-analysis of human genome methylation data, we tested a theoretical model in which aging is explained by the redistribution of limited resources in cells between two main tasks of the organism: its self-sustenance based on the function of the housekeeping gene group (HG) and functional differentiation, provided by the (IntG) integrative gene group. A meta-analysis of methylation of 100 genes, 50 in the HG group and 50 in IntG, showed significant differences (p<0.0001) between our groups in the level of absolute methylation values of genes bodies and its promoters. We showed a reliable decrease of absolute methylation values in IntG with rising age in contrast to HG, where this level remained constant. The one-sided decrease in methylation in the IntG group is indirectly confirmed by the dispersion data analysis, which also decreased in the genes of this group. The imbalance between HG and IntG in methylation levels suggests that this IntG-shift is a side effect of the ontogenesis grownup program and the main cause of aging. The theoretical model of functional genome division also suggests the leading role of slow dividing and post mitotic cells in triggering and implementing the aging process.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
11.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Gene
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 9%
7.0%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
Aging
○ 75 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
7
Brain Sciences
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
8
Epigenetics
○ 50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
9
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.8%
10
Cells
○ 249 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
11
GeroScience
○ 109 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
12
Biochimie
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
13
Frontiers in Physiology
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
npj Aging
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
15
Frontiers in Psychology
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
16
Life Sciences
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Plant Science
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
20
FEBS Open Bio
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
Biomedicines
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
22
Aging Cell
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
Computational Biology and Chemistry
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
Advanced Biology
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Biology
○ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
29
Genomics
○ 64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
○ 30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.