Back

Characterisation of the genetic determinants of context specific DNA methylation in primary monocytes

Gilchrist, J. P.; Fang, H.; Danielli, S.; Tomkova, M.; Nassiri, I.; Ng, E.; Tong, O.; Taylor, C. A.; Al-Mossawi, H. H.; Lau, E. K.; Neville, M. J.; Schuster-Bockler, B.; Knight, J. C.; Fairfax, B. P.

2023-05-19 genetics
10.1101/2023.05.17.541041 bioRxiv
Show abstract

DNA methylation (DNAm) has pervasive effects on gene expression and associations with ageing-related traits. Here we describe monocyte DNAm responses to inflammatory stimuli across 192 individuals. We find that, unlike the similarly widespread changes in gene expression elicited by LPS and IFN{gamma}, DNAm is markedly more sensitive to LPS. Exposure to LPS caused differential methylation at 20,858 immune-modulated CpGs (imCpGs) which display distinct genomic localisation and transcription factor usage, dependent upon whether methylation is lost or gained. Demethylated imCpGs are profoundly enriched for enhancers, and are over-represented by genes implicated in human diseases, most notably cancer. We find LPS-induced demethylation follows hydroxymethylation and for most sites the degree of demethylation correlates with baseline signal. Notably, we find LPS exposure triggers gain in epigenetic age by approximately 6 months, identifying a potential cause of accelerated epigentic aging which has diverse negative health associations. Finally, we explore the effect of genetic variation on LPS-induced changes in DNAm, identifying 209 imCpGs under genetic control. Exploring shared causal loci between LPS-induced DNAm responses and human disease traits highlights examples of human disease associated loci that also modulate imCpG formation. In summary, our findings suggest innate immune activity continually remodels DNAm in a highly punctate, enhancerenriched fashion that is under tight genetic control and predominantly involves genes commonly mutated in cancer.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.