Differential DNA methylation may contribute to temporal and spatial regulation of gene expression and the development of mycelia and conidia in entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii

2017 ◽  
Vol 121 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanzhen Li ◽  
Yulong Wang ◽  
Jianyu Zhu ◽  
Zhangxun Wang ◽  
Guiliang Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Entomopathogenic Fungus ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Metarhizium Robertsii ◽  
Spatial Regulation ◽  
Temporal And Spatial

scholarly journals Turning on Myogenin in Muscle: A Paradigm for Understanding Mechanisms of Tissue-Specific Gene Expression

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herve Faralli ◽  
F. Jeffrey Dilworth
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Developmental Regulation ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Specific Gene ◽  
Specific Expression ◽  
Tissue Specific ◽  
Spatial Regulation ◽  
Dna Elements ◽  
Temporal And Spatial ◽  
Expression Program

Expression of themyogenin(Myog) gene is restricted to skeletal muscle cells where the transcriptional activator turns on a gene expression program that permits the transition from proliferating myoblasts to differentiating myotubes. The strict temporal and spatial regulation onMyogexpression in the embryo makes it an ideal gene to study the developmental regulation of tissue-specific expression. Over the last 20 years, our knowledge of the regulation ofMyogexpression has evolved from the identification of the minimal promoter elements necessary for the gene to be transcribed in muscle, to a mechanistic understanding of how the proteins that bind these DNA elements work together to establish transcriptional competence. Here we present our current understanding of the developmental regulation of gene expression gained from studies of theMyoggene.

scholarly journals Temporal and Spatial Regulation of Gene Expression During Asexual Development ofNeurospora crassa

Genetics ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 186 (4) ◽  
pp. 1217-1230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Greenwald ◽  
Takao Kasuga ◽  
N. Louise Glass ◽  
Brian D. Shaw ◽  
Daniel J. Ebbole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Asexual Development ◽  
Spatial Regulation ◽  
Ofneurospora Crassa ◽  
Temporal And Spatial

scholarly journals DNA methylation and regulation of gene expression: Guardian of our health

The Nucleus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaurab Aditya Dhar ◽  
Shagnik Saha ◽  
Parama Mitra ◽  
Ronita Nag Chaudhuri
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression

scholarly journals TET2 coactivates gene expression through demethylation of enhancers

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. eaau6986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Wang ◽  
Patrick A. Ozark ◽  
Edwin R. Smith ◽  
Zibo Zhao ◽  
Stacy A. Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Estrogen Receptor Α ◽  
Dna Demethylation ◽  
Estrogen Response ◽  
Dna Base ◽  
Modified Dna ◽  
Global Increase ◽  
Methylation Patterns

The tet methylcytosine dioxygenase 2 (TET2) enzyme catalyzes the conversion of the modified DNA base 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. TET2 is frequently mutated or dysregulated in multiple human cancers, and loss of TET2 is associated with changes in DNA methylation patterns. Here, using newly developed TET2-specific antibodies and the estrogen response as a model system for studying the regulation of gene expression, we demonstrate that endogenous TET2 occupies active enhancers and facilitates the proper recruitment of estrogen receptor α (ERα). Knockout of TET2 by CRISPR-CAS9 leads to a global increase of DNA methylation at enhancers, resulting in attenuation of the estrogen response. We further identified a positive feedback loop between TET2 and ERα, which further requires MLL3 COMPASS at these enhancers. Together, this study reveals an epigenetic axis coordinating a transcriptional program through enhancer activation via DNA demethylation.

Epigenetic aspects of triple-negative in patients with breast cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1041-1041
Author(s):  
Joaquina Martínez-Galan ◽  
Sandra Rios ◽  
Juan Ramon Delgado ◽  
Blanca Torres-Torres ◽  
Jesus Lopez-Peñalver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtypes ◽  
Luminal A ◽  
Cancer Subtypes ◽  
Luminal B

1041 Background: Identification of gene expression-based breast cancer subtypes is considered a critical means of prognostication. Genetic mutations along with epigenetic alterations contribute to gene-expression changes occurring in breast cancer. However, the reproducibility of differential DNA methylation discoveries for cancer and the relationship between DNA methylation and aberrant gene expression have not been systematically analysed. The present study was undertaken to dissect the breast cancer methylome and to deliver specific epigenotypes associated with particular breast cancer subtypes. Methods: By using Real Time QMSPCR SYBR green we analyzed DNA methylation in regulatory regions of 107 pts with breast cancer and analyzed association with prognostics factor in triple negative breast cancer and methylation promoter ESR1, APC, E-Cadherin, Rar B and 14-3-3 sigma. Results: We identified novel subtype-specific epigenotypes that clearly demonstrate the differences in the methylation profiles of basal-like and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing tumors. Of the cases, 37pts (40%) were Luminal A (LA), 32pts (33%) Luminal B (LB), 14pts (15%) Triple-negative (TN), and 9pts (10%) HER2+. DNA hypermethylation was highly inversely correlated with the down-regulation of gene expression. Methylation of this panel of promoter was found more frequently in triple negative and HER2 phenotype. ESR1 was preferably associated with TN(80%) and HER2+(60%) subtype. With a median follow up of 6 years, we found worse overall survival (OS) with more frequent ESR1 methylation gene(p>0.05), Luminal A;ESR1 Methylation OS at 5 years 81% vs 93% when was ESR1 Unmethylation. Luminal B;ESR1 Methylation 86% SG at 5 years vs 92% in Unmethylation ESR1. Triple negative;ESR1 Methylation SG at 5 years 75% vs 80% in unmethylation ESR1. HER2;ESR1 Methylation SG at 5 years was 66.7% vs 75% in unmethylation ESR1. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence that well-defined DNA methylation profiles enable breast cancer subtype prediction and support the utilization of this biomarker for prognostication and therapeutic stratification of patients with breast cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document