|
|
|
Vol. 12, No. 14, pp. 2108-2113, July 15, 1998
1 U 383 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), and 3 Laboratoire de Fécondation in Vitro Hôpital, Necker-Enfants Malades, 75743 Paris Cedex 15, France; 2 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université J. Fourier de Grenoble, 38706 La Tronche, France; 4 U 257 INSERM, Institut Cochin de Génétique Moléculaire (ICGM), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire-Cochin, 75014 Paris, France
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
DNA methylation patterns were evaluated during preimplantation mouse development by analyzing the binding of monoclonal antibody to 5-methylcytosine (5-MeC) on metaphase chromosomes. Specific chromosome patterns were observed in each cell stage. A banding pattern predominated in chromosomes at the one-cell stage. Banding was replaced at the two-cell stage by an asymmetrical labeling of the sister chromatids. Then, the proportion of asymmetrical chromosomes decreased by one-half at each cell division until the blastocyst stage, and chromosomes became progressively symmetrical and weakly labeled. Our results indicate that chromosome demethylation is associated with each DNA replication and suggest that a passive mechanism predominates during early development.
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The importance of DNA methylation during early stages of
mammalian development has been demonstrated by genetic
studies. Homozygous mutants for the DNA
methyltransferase gene (Li et al. 1992
) or for the gene encoding MeCP2
(a protein that binds specifically methylated CpGs) (Tate et al. 1996
)
are unable to complete embryogenesis.
The pattern of methylation is dynamic. Assays for overall genomic
methylation indicate that the genome of the mature oocyte is less
methylated than sperm DNA, which is itself less methylated than DNA of
somatic tissues (Monk et al. 1987
; Razin and Cedar 1993
). Nevertheless,
individual DNA sequences display specific methylation patterns in
gametes (Sanford et al. 1984
, 1987
; Howlett and Reik 1991
; Antequera
and Bird 1993
; Razin and Cedar 1993
; Rubin et al. 1994
).
A genome-wide demethylation, which was first demonstrated in mice by
analysis of total genomic DNA from eight-cell to blastocyst stages
(Monk et al. 1987
), characterizes the preimplantation embryo. Single-copy genes, the low-copy gene MUP (murine urinary protein), L1
(long interspersed repeated elements, LINES), and the minor satellite
(a component of centromeric heterochromatin) all become demethylated in
the embryo prior to implantation (Sanford et al. 1987
; Howlett and Reik
1991
; Razin and Cedar 1993
; Razin and Shemer 1995
). However, little is
known about the methylation pattern of other highly and mildly repeated
sequences that are likely to have a significant effect on the overall
genome methylation owing to their GC level (Sanford et al. 1984
; Hastie
1996
; see also Yoder et al. 1997
). These sequences include the major
satellite of mouse centromeres and the SINES (short
interspersed repeated elements). The Alu sequences of
primates and the mouse B1 (Alu equivalent) and B2 sequences
belong to this category of elements (Schmid 1996
).
The mechanism of genome-wide preimplantation demethylation remains
unknown. It is, for example, clear that the promoter region of the
APOA1 gene is actively demethylated (Kafri et al. 1993
). In contrast,
the association between the demethylation of L1 sequences and DNA
replication reported by Howlett and Reik (1991)
at early stages of
preimplantation development suggests a passive demethylation mechanism.
More recently, demethylation associated to replication was reported in
Xenopus early embryos (Matsuo et al. 1998
).
To gain insight into topological aspects of global methylation changes
in early mouse embryos, we have employed an immunochemical approach
to study metaphase chromosome methylation profiles using monoclonal
antibodies recognizing specifically 5-methylcytosines (5-MeCs). The
reliability of this technique has been firmly established by a number
of independent studies. The antibody has been well characterized and
used with success in several laboratories (Reynaud et al. 1991
; Miniou
et al. 1994
; Niveleau et al. 1994
; Tweedie et al. 1997
). The intensity
of antibody labeling correlates with the density of 5-MeCs in
particular regions of the genome. The resolution of this approach is
not high enough to assess the methylation of individual DNA sequences.
However, the antibody-staining profiles of metaphase chromosomes are
likely to provide direct information about the methylation status of
highly and interspersed repeated sequences (Miniou et al. 1994
, 1997
).
Because only clustered methylated CpGs can be recognized at chromosomal
level, CpG islands [which represent only 1% of the total genomic DNA
and are unmethylated, except in the X inactive chromosome (Bird
1986
)], and single- or low-copy DNA sequences contribute little to the
overall staining profile.
In this study anti-5-MeC staining profiles were obtained for metaphase chromosomes at each embryonic mitosis from the pronuclear to the blastocyst stages. The results indicate that there is a programmed progression of methylation events in chromosomes. The methylation pattern of old and new chromatids can be distinguished, suggesting that a replication-dependent mechanism of demethylation occurs during early development.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Chromosome methylation patterns were analyzed after each DNA replication of preimplantation development by indirect immunofluorescence using a monoclonal antibody recognizing 5-MeC.
At the one-cell stage in normal mouse embryos, two distinct sets of chromosomes could be distinguished easily (Fig. 1A,B). One set, which we show below as the maternal set, consisted of 20 elements (in the mouse, 2n = 40 chromosomes) with a heterogeneous fluorescence in euchromatic chromosome arms that corresponded to an R-like banding pattern. This banding pattern indicates that methylated sites recognized by the antibody were clustered in definite chromosome regions along the euchromatic arms. The paternal set of 20 chromosomes was labeled only faintly. The pale staining was not due to the extended length of these chromosomes, as it persisted when chromosomes were condensed by a prolonged colchicine treatment (Fig. 1B).
|
The parental origin of the two sets of chromosomes was determined in two different ways. First, we examined the chromosomes from parthenogenetic embryos, in which all of the chromosomes are of maternal origin. In these embryos, all 40 chromosomes showed a bright heterogeneous fluorescent pattern similar to R-banding (Fig. 1C). Next, we examined embryos with a number of translocated chromosomes from paternal origin. Here, all of the translocated chromosomes were stained faintly. In favorable examples, it could be seen that paternally inherited chromosomes were also labeled heterogeneously (Fig. 1D). However, the weakness of the labeling made difficult the identification of the banding pattern.
Centromeric regions of the pale chromosomes were usually strongly labeled, except for a small chromosome, probably the Y. Among the maternally derived chromosomes, only a few were labeled intensely at the centromeric heterochromatin (Fig. 1A).
Important changes in the chromosome staining appeared at the two-cell stage. The chromosomes still fell into two classes, strongly and weakly labeling with the anti-5-MeC antibody, corresponding to their maternal and paternal origin, respectively. But now, the staining was restricted to only one of the sister chromatids of each chromosome (Fig. 2A). This asymmetrical labeling of the chromatid pairs was also evident in the faint stained chromosomes of paternal origin, such as the translocated chromosomes in Figure 2, B and C. The differential staining of the two chromatids is particularly evident after image enhancement. In the parthenogenetic embryos, all 40 (maternally derived) chromosomes showed the strong, asymmetric labeling of the euchromatic arms. As was found for the chromosomes at the one-cell stage, in slightly undercondensed chromosomes, a band-like pattern reminiscent of R-banding could be observed along the brightly labeled chromatids of maternal origin.
|
In some chromosomes, pale and brightly stained regions alternated in
the chromatids, presenting a pattern similar to that resulting from
sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) observed after 5-bromodeoxyuridine
(BrdU) treatment during two S phases (Zakharov and Egolina 1972
; Latt
1973
). Similar chromosomes were occasionally observed at later stages
(Fig. 2E,F).
In normal four-cell-stage mouse embryos, most chromosomes were labeled faintly (Fig. 2E). The number of intensely and asymmetrically labeled chromosomes (maternal origin) was lower than at the previous stage, varying from cell to cell with a mean number per cell of 10 (20 metaphases were analyzed). Thus, at this stage, the proportion of asymmetrically stained chromosomes was half that at the two-cell stage. The weak labeling of chromosomes of paternal origin made an accurate counting of the number of asymmetrically labeled chromosomes difficult. Nevertheless, the global fluorescence of the karyotype was lower than at the two-cell stage. Again, chromosomes were often fluorescent in the centromeric region. In parthenogenetic embryos, the number of asymmetrically labeled chromosomes also fell by 50% between the two- and four-cell stages.
At the eight-cell stage, the overall level of methylation of euchromatin was lower than at the four-cell stage. Centromeric heterochromatin was labeled intensely in more than half of the chromosomes. Only five intensely labeled asymmetrical chromosomes were observed per metaphase (Fig. 2F). Thus, the number of asymmetrically labeled maternal chromosomes was again reduced by half. Concordantly, the number of asymmetrically labeled chromosomes observed in parthenogenetic embryos at the eight-cell stage was only 25% of that found at the two-cell stage.
At the morula and blastocyst stages, asymmetrically labeled chromosomes were very rare and the overall anti-5MeC fluorescence was low. Two populations of weakly staining metaphases were observed in normal and parthenogenetic embryos (not shown). In some metaphases, chromosomes had a normal appearance while in others they were thick and apparently less condensed. Micronuclei were frequently (10%-15%) observed (not shown). New experiments are required to clarify the origin of these two populations. Note that at these stages trophectoderm and ICM cells are already differentiated.
A diagram of the chromosome methylation patterns observed in euchromatin during preimplantation and the DNA modifications compatible with these patterns are shown in Figure 3.
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The methods currently used for the study of DNA methylation rely
on either differential enzymatic or chemical cleavage or on
differential sensitivity to chemical conversion of one base to another.
Our experimental approach is based on the detection of 5-MeC on mouse
metaphase chromosome preparations using a highly specific monoclonal
antibody. This method is able to provide a general overview of genomic
methylation patterns with a resolution at the level of chromosomal
bands. The results obtained help to understand how and where in the
genome major methylation changes occur during the first steps of
development. However, they give little direct information about the
nucleotide sequences involved in these changes. Nevertheless, the
R-band-like appearance of the antibody labeling pattern at some stages
may suggest that the role of mildly repeated sequences like B1 (the
mouse equivalent of the human Alu sequences) or B2
preferentially found in R bands (Boyle et al. 1990
) could be important
in the establishment of genomic methylation patterns.
In accordance with previous studies (Monk et al. 1987
), we observe a
gradual demethylation of the genome. However, each developmental stage
has its own characteristic chromosome pattern. At the one-cell stage,
half of the chromosomes in normal embryos are labeled more intensely
and display an R-like banding pattern. Chromosome analysis of
parthenogenetic embryos and embryos carrying Robertsonian
translocations of paternal origin shows that the more strongly labeled
chromosomes are those of maternal origin. Earlier studies concluded
that the genome is undermethylated in mature oocyte and methylated in
sperm (Monk et al. 1987
). Thus, our observation is unexpected, raising the possibility of a differential accessibility of the antibody to DNA.
Independent confirmation is clearly needed.
Nevertheless it should be noted that major sperm chromatin remodeling
seems to occur before the replication of male and female pronuclei
(McLay and Clarke 1997
), and chromosomes were analyzed after this first
S phase. In addition, we still observed parental differences at the
two-cell stage. A lower overall methylation level of the paternal
genome would correlate well with the reported higher transcriptional
activity and higher hyperacetylated H4 histone content of the paternal
pronucleus in fertilized oocyte (Ram and Schultz 1993
; Wiekowski et al.
1993
; Adenot et al. 1997
). Finally, the study of Monk et al. (1987)
deals with unmethylated HpaII cutting sites, whereas our
approach emphasizes the detection of clustered abundant methylated
sites.
At the two-cell stage, chromosome labeling of parthenogenetic embryos and embryos carrying paternally inherited translocated chromosomes indicates that maternal chromosomes are still labeled more intensely, but the signal is found asymmetrically on only one of the two sister chromatids of each chromosome. In less condensed maternal chromosome preparations, the visible banding on asymmetrically labeled chromatids indicates that methylated sites are still clustered in definite regions. Paternal chromosomes are also asymmetrically labeled, although the intensity of the label is very weak.
In embryos at the four-cell stage the number of asymmetrically labeled chromosomes decreases by half, and by the blastocyst stage, asymmetrically labeled chromosomes are very rare and most have become pale and symmetrically stained. Therefore, the distinction between parental chromosomes as detected by the monoclonal antibody is progressively lost between fertilization and implantation.
Asymmetrically stained chromosomes and sister chromatid exchanges have
been described in somatic tissues following treatment of normal cells
for two successive S phases with the thymidine analog BrdU (Zakharov
and Egolina 1972
; Latt 1973
) and the demethylating agent
5-azadeoxycytidine (5-aza-dC) (Haaf et al. 1986
). The incorporation of
5-aza-dC into DNA disturbs DNA methyltransferase activity at replication, resulting in chromosomes with hemimethylated DNA in both
chromatids (Jüttermann et al. 1994
). After a second replication cycle, chromosomes have one chromatid with unmethylated DNA and the
other one with hemimethylated DNA. These chromosomes are stained asymmetrically. If the incorporation of the base analog is continued, the average number of asymmetrical chromosomes halves at each additional cell cycle.
By analogy, if there is a failure of methylation activity during the
first DNA replication in the zygote, both new chromosomes will have two
hemimethylated chromatids and 5-MeC antibody labeling will then be
symmetrical. This is observed for the first metaphase after
fertilization (pronuclear or one-cell embryos). After the second cycle,
if there is again no methylation activity, the chromosomes will be
labeled asymmetrically due to the presence of one hemimethylated and
one unmethylated chromatid. Asymmetrically labeled chromosomes are
observed at the two-cell stage. The number of asymmetrical chromosomes
thereafter decreases by one-half after each cell cycle, indicating that
the failure of maintenance methylation persists during DNA replications
until blastocyst. The preferential cytoplasmic localization of DNA
methyltransferase in embryos (Carlson et al. 1992
) is compatible with a
failure in maintenance activity. However, methylation activity in
chromosomes is not inhibited completely during preimplantation
development, as centromeric heterochromatin remains labeled until
blastocyst stage.
Loss of DNA methylation may also result from active mechanisms
involving either an enzymatic activity, which removes methylcytosine and replaces it by cytosine, or a deamination of methylated CpGs, creating a mismatch that is then repaired (Jost and Saluz 1993
; Weiss
et al. 1996
). The existence of such mechanisms during preimplantation development cannot be excluded. Nonetheless, the chromosome methylation pattern that we observed in euchromatin reveals a loss of methylation correlated with DNA replication and strongly suggests that passive demethylation predominates during early development, at least for the
DNA sequences recognized by 5-MeC antibody in chromosomes. Site-specific passive demethylation may result from the binding of
specific proteins that inhibit methylase (Riggs and Jones 1983
) or by
the action of factors that protect DNA against methylation, as observed
in postimplantation development (Brandeis et al. 1994
; Macleod et
al. 1994
) and in germinal tissues (Chesnokov and Schmid 1995
). The
factors acting on DNA demethylation during preimplantation development
remain to be identified.
| |
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Collection and preparation of eggs
Six- to eight-week-old F1 female mice
(C57BL/6 × CBA) were superovulated by
intraperitoneal injection of 5 IU of pregnant mare's serum (Folligon,
Intervet), and 48 hr later, with 5 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin
(Chorulon, Intervet). They were then mated overnight with either adult
F1 males or a male with nine homozygous Robertsonian
translocations (Beechey and Evans 1996
). The next morning (0 day),
females with a vaginal plug were killed; fertilized eggs were removed
by puncturing the oviducts with a needle and released in M-2 medium
(Hogan et al. 1994
). Eggs were then incubated for 5-10 min at room
temperature with 300 µg/ml hyaluronidase (Sigma) to
remove cumulus cells and washed in M-2 medium. Embryos were cultured in
M-2 medium microdrops under paraffin oil (Merck) and incubated at
37°C in 5% CO2 in air either singly or in groups (15-30)
until the blastocyst stage.
Parthenogenetic activation
Eggs originating from the same mice and surrounded by cumulus
cells were activated 16 hr after hCG treatment by incubation for 6 min
in 7% ethanol in M-2 medium (Hogan et al. 1994
) and then transferred
to a medium containing 5 µg/ml cytochalasin B (Calbiochem). After 4 hr, cumulus cells were removed by incubation in
300 µg/ml hyaluronidase. Eggs with two pronuclei were
cultured in groups (15-30) in microdrops of M-2 medium under paraffin
oil as described above.
Embryo fixation
Embryos at the pronuclear stage were fixed 28-32 hr after injecting hCG, when pronuclei disappeared completely, without or with mitotic arrestant, in the night of 0 day. Other early embryos (two to eight cells) were incubated for 9-12 hr with 1 µg/ml colchicine at 37°C and then fixed. Morula and blastocyst stages were fixed after 7 and 4 hr of incubation with colchicine, respectively.
Chromosomes were prepared according to a modification of the air-drying
technique (Tarkowski 1966
). The hypotonic treatment time was varied
according to the stage of development: 1/6 dilution of
fetal calf serum (FCS), 400 µg/ml EDTA at room
temperature for 2-10 min (pronuclear to morula); 1/20
FCS, 1200 µg/ml EDTA at room temperature for 30 min
(blastocyst). Each embryo was then transferred onto a clean microscope
slide in a droplet of hypotonic solution. Methanol/acetic
acid (3:1) fixative was dropped onto the embryos and blow-dried.
For two- and four-cell embryos, the fixation was performed in the
morning and in the afternoon of the second day, respectively. The
chromosome preparations were done in the morning and in the afternoon
of the third day for eight-cell and morula embryos, respectively.
Blastocysts were fixed in the afternoon of the fourth day. Slides were
kept at
20°C until use.
5-MeC monoclonal antibody binding and chromosome analysis
The indirect immunofluorescence method used here was as
described previously (Miniou et al. 1994
). Slides were irradiated with
UV light for ~8 hr with a germicidal lamp, rinsed with cold PBS for
5 min, and immersed briefly in PBT (PBS, 0.1% Tween 20, 0.4% BSA).
5-MeC monoclonal antibody diluted in PBT (1:10) was added, and the
slides were incubated for 45 min at room temperature. They were then
rinsed for 5 min in PBT, and the second antibody, an anti-mouse
fluorescein-conjugated IgG (Sigma) diluted 1:40 in PBT, was added.
Slides were incubated again for 45 min at room temperature and rinsed
with PBS. Before the microscopic observation of the slides at pH 8, PPD
(P-phenylenediamine) solution
was added to avoid the quenching of fluorescence. Slides were examined
under a Leica fluorescence microscope equipped with fluorescein and double-pass band filters. Fluorescence labeling was intensified with
Adobe Photoshop.
At each cell stage, 20-40 metaphases were analyzed. Normal embryos were analyzed from pronuclear to blastocyst stage, parthenogenetic embryos were analyzed from pronuclear to morula stages, and embryos carrying translocated chromosomes of paternal origin were analyzed from pronuclear to eight-cell stages.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by grants from Association Française Contre les Myopathies, Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer and Ministère de la Recherche et de l'Education Nationale. We thank J.C. Allain for technical support in image intensification; Dr. J.L. Guenet for providing the mouse male carrying translocated chromosomes; Drs. R. Karess, A. Rosa, and S. Saint Just for critical reading; and Dr. T. Bestor for useful suggestions.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
[Key Words: DNA methylation; mammalian chromosomes; preimplantation embryos]
Received March 2, 1998; revised version accepted April 30, 1998.
5 Corresponding author.
E-MAIL viegas{at}ceylan.necker.fr; FAX +331 47 83 32 06.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. E. Torres-Padilla Cell identity in the preimplantation mammalian embryo: an epigenetic perspective from the mouse Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1246 - 1252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Wee, J.-J. Shim, D.-B. Koo, J.-I. Chae, K.-K. Lee, and Y.-M. Han Epigenetic alteration of the donor cells does not recapitulate the reprogramming of DNA methylation in cloned embryos Reproduction, December 1, 2007; 134(6): 781 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Yang, S. Yang, N. Beaujean, Y. Niu, X. He, Y. Xie, X. Tang, L. Wang, Q. Zhou, and W. Ji Epigenetic Marks in Cloned Rhesus Monkey Embryos: Comparison with Counterparts Produced In Vitro Biol Reprod, January 1, 2007; 76(1): 36 - 42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Kress, H. Thomassin, and T. Grange Active cytosine demethylation triggered by a nuclear receptor involves DNA strand breaks PNAS, July 25, 2006; 103(30): 11112 - 11117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Nikolettos, B. Asimakopoulos, and I. S. Papastefanou Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection-An Assisted Reproduction Technique That Should Make Us Cautious About Imprinting Deregulation Reproductive Sciences, July 1, 2006; 13(5): 317 - 328. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. C. Ribas, J. E. Taylor, C. McCorquodale, A. C. Mauricio, M. Sousa, and I. Wilmut Effect of Zona Pellucida Removal on DNA Methylation in Early Mouse Embryos Biol Reprod, February 1, 2006; 74(2): 307 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Imamura, A. Kerjean, T. Heams, J.-J. Kupiec, C. Thenevin, and A. Paldi Dynamic CpG and Non-CpG Methylation of the Peg1/Mest Gene in the Mouse Oocyte and Preimplantation Embryo J. Biol. Chem., May 20, 2005; 280(20): 20171 - 20175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Eckardt, N A. Leu, S. Kurosaka, and K J. McLaughlin Differential reprogramming of somatic cell nuclei after transfer into mouse cleavage stage blastomeres Reproduction, May 1, 2005; 129(5): 547 - 556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. D. Morgan, F. Santos, K. Green, W. Dean, and W. Reik Epigenetic reprogramming in mammals Hum. Mol. Genet., April 15, 2005; 14(suppl_1): R47 - R58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y.-G. Ko, K. Nishino, N. Hattori, Y. Arai, S. Tanaka, and K. Shiota Stage-by-Stage Change in DNA Methylation Status of Dnmt1 Locus during Mouse Early Development J. Biol. Chem., March 11, 2005; 280(10): 9627 - 9634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Fulka, M. Mrazek, O. Tepla, and J. Fulka Jr DNA methylation pattern in human zygotes and developing embryos Reproduction, December 1, 2004; 128(6): 703 - 708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Beaujean, J. Taylor, J. Gardner, I. Wilmut, R. Meehan, and L. Young Effect of Limited DNA Methylation Reprogramming in the Normal Sheep Embryo on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Biol Reprod, July 1, 2004; 71(1): 185 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. Shi, F. Dirim, E. Wolf, V. Zakhartchenko, and T. Haaf Methylation Reprogramming and Chromosomal Aneuploidy in In Vivo Fertilized and Cloned Rabbit Preimplantation Embryos Biol Reprod, July 1, 2004; 71(1): 340 - 347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Santos and W. Dean Epigenetic reprogramming during early development in mammals Reproduction, June 1, 2004; 127(6): 643 - 651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Piedrahita, B. Mir, S. Dindot, and S. Walker Somatic Cell Cloning: The Ultimate Form of Nuclear Reprogramming? J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2004; 15(5): 1140 - 1144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Gaudet, W. M. Rideout III, A. Meissner, J. Dausman, H. Leonhardt, and R. Jaenisch Dnmt1 Expression in Pre- and Postimplantation Embryogenesis and the Maintenance of IAP Silencing Mol. Cell. Biol., February 15, 2004; 24(4): 1640 - 1648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Lucifero, J.R. Chaillet, and J. M. Trasler Potential significance of genomic imprinting defects for reproduction and assisted reproductive technology Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2004; 10(1): 3 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Srivastava, E. Frolova, B. Rottinghaus, S. P. Boe, A. Grinberg, E. Lee, P. E. Love, and K. Pfeifer Imprint Control Element-mediated Secondary Methylation Imprints at the Igf2/H19 Locus J. Biol. Chem., February 14, 2003; 278(8): 5977 - 5983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Stach, O. J. Schmitz, S. Stilgenbauer, A. Benner, H. Dohner, M. Wiessler, and F. Lyko Capillary electrophoretic analysis of genomic DNA methylation levels Nucleic Acids Res., January 15, 2003; 31(2): e2 - e2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. H. Finnell, O. Spiegelstein, B. Wlodarczyk, A. Triplett, I. P. Pogribny, S. Melnyk, and J. S. James DNA Methylation in Folbp1 Knockout Mice Supplemented with Folic Acid during Gestation J. Nutr., August 1, 2002; 132(8): 2457S - 2461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Magdinier, S. G. d'Estaing, C. Peinado, B. Demirci, C. Berthet, J. F. Guerin, and R. Dante Epigenetic marks at BRCA1 and p53 coding sequences in early human embryogenesis Mol. Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 8(7): 630 - 635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Bird DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory Genes & Dev., January 1, 2002; 16(1): 6 - 21. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||