Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23799904›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2013

Methylome reorganization during in vitro dedifferentiation and regeneration of Populus trichocarpa.

Kelly Vining, Kyle R Pomraning, Larry J Wilhelm, Cathleen Ma, Matteo Pellegrini, Yanming Di, Todd C Mockler, Michael Freitag, Steven H Strauss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Epigenetic Regulation of Auxin-Induced Somatic Embryogenesis in Plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Epigenetic memory and cell fate reprogramming in plants.Regeneration (Oxford, England) · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly ViningDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, USA. kelly.vining@oregonstate.edu
Kyle R Pomraning
Larry J Wilhelm
Cathleen Ma
Matteo Pellegrini
Yanming Di
Todd C Mockler
Michael Freitag
Steven H Strauss
Oregon State University · USCorvallis Environmental Center · USDonald Danforth Plant Science Center · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCytosine DNA methylation (5mC) is an epigenetic modification that is important to genome stability and regulation of gene expression. Perturbations of 5mC have been implicated as a cause of phenotypic variation among plants regenerated through in vitro culture systems. However, the pattern of change in 5mC and its functional role with respect to gene expression, are poorly understood at the genome scale. A fuller understanding of how 5mC changes during in vitro manipulation may aid the development of methods for reducing or amplifying the mutagenic and epigenetic effects of in vitro culture and plant transformation.

resultsWe investigated the in vitro methylome of the model tree species Populus trichocarpa in a system that mimics routine methods for regeneration and plant transformation in the genus Populus (poplar). Using methylated DNA immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (MeDIP-seq), we compared the methylomes of internode stem segments from micropropagated explants, dedifferentiated calli, and internodes from regenerated plants. We found that more than half (56%) of the methylated portion of the genome appeared to be differentially methylated among the three tissue types. Surprisingly, gene promoter methylation varied little among tissues, however, the percentage of body-methylated genes increased from 9% to 14% between explants and callus tissue, then decreased to 8% in regenerated internodes. Forty-five percent of differentially-methylated genes underwent transient methylation, becoming methylated in calli, and demethylated in regenerants. These genes were more frequent in chromosomal regions with higher gene density. Comparisons with an expression microarray dataset showed that genes methylated at both promoters and gene bodies had lower expression than genes that were unmethylated or only promoter-methylated in all three tissues. Four types of abundant transposable elements showed their highest levels of 5mC in regenerated internodes.

conclusionsDNA methylation varies in a highly gene- and chromosome-differential manner during in vitro differentiation and regeneration. 5mC in redifferentiated tissues was not reset to that in original explants during the study period. Hypermethylation of gene bodies in dedifferentiated cells did not interfere with transcription, and may serve a protective role against activation of abundant transposable elements.

Indexed as

Cell DedifferentiationCell Culture TechniquesCells, CulturedCytosineDNA MethylationEpigenomicsPopulusTransformation, GeneticCytosine

Identifiers

PMID23799904
PMCPMC3728041
OpenAlexW1995081774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.