2nd Principal Investigators Meeting
Identification of m5CpG Alterations Associated with Breast Carcinomas
Graham J. Brock
University of Glasgow
Table of Contents:
- Title and Author
- CpG Islands
- CpG Island methylation
- Isolation of methylated CpG Islands
- The Methyl-CpG Binding domain column
- Testing the MBD columns ability to separate three plasmids
- End-labelled human DNA fractionated using an MBD column
- Additional analysis of the ‘bound’ fraction
- Subtractive Hybridzation
- Outline of Subtractive Hybridization Procedure
- Recovery of plasmid spike
- Samples Analysed
- Subtraction using densely methylated fraction from matched pair 155/156
- Sequenced clones %GC vs.CpG Obs/Exp
- Preliminary results library 155pd-156n
- What is a predicted CGI?
- Identification of CpG methylation changes
- Sequence comparison
- Sequence comparison 1
- Sequence comparison 2
- Conclusions - Summary
- Acknowledgements
Identification of m5CpG Alterations Associated with Breast Carcinomas
|
Dr. Graham Brock University of Glasgow |
CpG Islands
CpG Island methylation
Isolation of methylated CpG Islands
- Methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) of MeCP2, fused to a histidine tag (HMBD) in a Ni-agarose matrix
- Each HMBD binds a single m5CpG, thus genomic DNA retained non-specifically at low salt concentration.
- However at increased salt conc. retained sequences will contain multiple m5CpG’s
The Methyl-CpG Binding domain column
Testing the MBD columns ability to separate three plasmids
End-labelled human DNA fractionated using an MBD column.
Additional analysis of the ‘bound’ fraction.
DNA eluting at salt concentration of ~0.8M and above was cloned and analysed, the resulting library contained.
- SINEs (Alu’s), LINEs and other high copy no. repeats
- rDNA (Non Transcribed Spacer), Mer22 and other low/medium copy no. repeats
- Heterochromatin from Chromosomes 1,9 & 16
- Exons/Pseudogenes
- CGIs from the inactive X
Subtractive Hybridzation.
- Although Methylated CGIs can be extracted the sample obtained is not pure and contains other methylated sequences
- To remove these we use extracted DNA from tumor as ‘tester’ and from normal sample as ‘driver’
- The subtraction will recover CGIs methylated in the tumor but not in the normal sample
Outline of Subtractive Hybridization Procedure
Recovery of plasmid spike
Samples Analysed
Specimens were obtained from patients undergoing mastectomies; tumors used in this study were classified as infiltrating ductal carcinomas. Adjacent normal parenchyma was obtained to serve as normal control
| ID No. | Age | Clinical Stage | Histological Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 91/92 | 55 | II | MD |
| 129/130 | 76 | II | PD |
| 155/156 | 43 | - | PD |
| 157/158 | 49 | II | WD |
Yan, P. S., et al. (2000). "CpG island arrays: an application toward deciphering epigenetic signatures of breast cancer." Clin Cancer Res 6(4): 1432-8
Subtraction using densely methylated fraction from matched pair 155/156
|
Lanes 1 & 2 Tester = 155pd Driver = 156n Lanes 3 & 4 Tester = 155pd Driver = 155pd S = ‘Sigma Taq’ B = ‘Bio-taq’ |
Sequenced clones %GC vs.CpGObs/Exp
Preliminary results library 155pd-156n
| Class of Sequence | Number | % of clones analysed |
|---|---|---|
| Predicted CGI | 39 | 29 |
| No. Significant Homology | 14 | 10 |
| High copy no. repeat | 26 | 19 |
| Low copy no. repeat | 19 | 14 |
| Exon/Pseudogene | 14 | 10 |
| Other | 25 | 18 |
| Total | 137 |
What is a predicted CGI?
The algorithm to determine CpG Islands is based on the definition of CpG Islands by Gardiner-Garden and Frommer (J. Mol. Bio 196:261-282, 1987)
Region of ~200bp which has a GC content >50% and a CpGObs/Exp of > 0.6
Additional Criteria - must be unmethylated in normal tissue
Identification of CpG methylation changes
Sequence comparison
Sequence comparison 1.
Sequence comparison 2.
Conclusions/Summary
- Method extracts cloned inserts with the sequence criteria of a CGI.
- Some of these predicted CGIs have altered methylation patterns when DNA from tumor and normal tissue is compared.
- Further analysis is currently underway of the remaining cloned sequences.
Acknowledgements
|
For helpful discussion Members of the Dynamic Mutation Group the MBSU for sequencing services both @ University of Glasgow |
Collaborators Tim Hui-Ming Huang @ University of Missouri Adrian Bird @ University of Edinburgh |
Funded by NIH Grant No. 1R21CA86305-01















