Analysis of Toxicants-Induced Alterations in DNA Methylation by Methylation-Sensitive-Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA-Polymerase Chain Reaction (MS-RAPD-PCR)

  • Kamaleshwar P. SinghEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2102)


Overwhelming evidence suggests that in addition to the genetic changes of DNA mutations, epigenetic changes of DNA methylation and histone modifications play important role in regulation of gene expression. DNA methylation is the most frequent epigenetic alteration observed in mammalian genomes, and generally it is negatively correlated with gene expression. Various methods are available for the detection of DNA methylation changes. Although the recent high-throughput methods for DNA methylation analysis have various advantages, they require high levels of technical expertise, costly equipment, and reagents. Because of these reasons, many of the global DNA methylation analysis methods are mainly performed at core facility, and laboratories with limited resources and expertise are not able to use these methods. Methylation-Sensitive-Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA-Polymerase Chain Reaction (MS-RAPD-PCR) is a restriction enzyme digestion and PCR-based method for the analysis of DNA methylation changes. This method is cost-effective, requires simple and basic instrumentation, and therefore can easily be performed in any laboratory with basic setup having a regular DNA thermal cycler and DNA gel electrophoresis system. Additional advantages of this method over other methods for DNA methylation analysis are that it requires very less amount of DNA and can screen DNA methylation changes globally at genome-wide level with high sensitivity. This method has been successfully used to detect changes in DNA methylation either occurring naturally or induced by various toxicants and environmental factors. A detail experimental protocol for MS-RAPD-PCR is described in this chapter.

Key words

MS-RAPD-PCR Epigenetics DNA methylation MspHpaII 


  1. 1.
    Bird A (1992) The essentials of DNA methylation. Cell 70:5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bird A (2002) DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev 16:6–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li E, Bestor TH, Jaenisch R (1992) Targeted mutation of the DNA methyltransferase gene results in embryonic lethality. Cell 69:915–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panning B, Jaenisch R (1998) RNA and the epigenetic regulation of X chromosome inactivation. Cell 93:305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li E, Beard C, Jaenisch R (1993) Role of DNA methylation in genomic imprinting. Nature 366:362–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walsh CP, Chaillet JR, Bestor TH (1998) Transcription of IAP endogenous retroviruses is constrained by cytosine methylation. Nat Genet 20:116–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones PA, Laird PW (1999) Cancer epigenetics come of age. Nat Genet 21:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson KD (2005) DNA methylation and human disease. Nat Rev Genet 6:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frommer M et al (1992) A genomic sequencing protocol that yields a positive display of 5-methylcytosine residues in individual DNA strands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:1827–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xiong Z, Laird PW (1997) COBRA: a sensitive and quantitative DNA methylation assay. Nucleic Acids Res 25:2532–2534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber M et al (2005) Chromosome-wide and promoter-specific analyses identify sites of differential DNA methylation in normal and transformed human cells. Nat Genet 37:853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rauch T, Pfeifer GP (2005) Methylated-CpG island recovery assay: a new technique for the rapid detection of methylated-CpG islands in cancer. Lab Investig 85:1172–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalgo ML et al (1997) Identification and characterization of differentially methylated regions of the genomic DNA by methylation-sensitive arbitrary primed PCR. Cancer Res 57:594–599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh KP, DuMond JW (2007) Genetic and epigenetic changes induced by chronic low dose exposure to arsenic in mouse testicular Leydig cells. Int J Oncol 30:253–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh KP, Kumari R, DuMond JW (2010) Simulated microgravity-induced epigenetic changes in human lymphocytes. J Cell Biochem 111:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh KP, Kumari R, Pevey C, Jackson D, DuMond JW (2009) Long duration exposure to cadmium leads to increased cell survival, decreased DNA repair capacity, and genomic instability in mouse testicular Leydig cells. Cancer Lett 279(1):84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang H, He L, Song J, Cui W, Zhang Y, Jia C, Francis D, Rogers HJ, Sun L, Tai P, Hui X, Yang Y, Liu W (2016) Cadmium-induced genomic instability in Arabidopsis: molecular toxicological biomarkers for early diagnosis of cadmium stress. Chemosphere 150:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tyagi T, Treas JN, Mahalingaiah PK, Singh KP (2015) Potentiation of growth inhibition and epigenetic modulation by combination of green tea polyphenol and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine in human breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149(3):655–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Correia B, Valledor L, Meijón M, Rodriguez JL, Dias MC, Santos C, Cañal MJ, Rodriguez R, Pinto G (2013) Is the interplay between epigenetic markers related to the acclimation of cork oak plants to high temperatures? PLoS One 8(1):e53543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu WB, Liu JY, Ao L, Zhou ZY, Zhou YH, Cui ZH, Yang H, Cao J (2009) Dynamic changes in DNA methylation during multistep rat lung carcinogenesis induced by 3-methylcholanthrene and diethylnitrosamine. Toxicol Lett 189(1):5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health (TIEHH)Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations