Comprehensive Whole DNA Methylome Analysis by Integrating MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq

  • Xiaoyun Xing
  • Bo Zhang
  • Daofeng Li
  • Ting Wang
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1708)


Understanding the role of DNA methylation often requires accurate assessment and comparison of these modifications in a genome-wide fashion. Sequencing-based DNA methylation profiling provides an unprecedented opportunity to map and compare complete DNA CpG methylomes. These include whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS), Reduced-Representation Bisulfite-Sequencing (RRBS), and enrichment-based methods such as MeDIP-seq, MBD-seq, and MRE-seq. An investigator needs a method that is flexible with the quantity of input DNA, provides the appropriate balance among genomic CpG coverage, resolution, quantitative accuracy, and cost, and comes with robust bioinformatics software for analyzing the data. In this chapter, we describe four protocols that combine state-of-the-art experimental strategies with state-of-the-art computational algorithms to achieve this goal. We first introduce two experimental methods that are complementary to each other. MeDIP-seq, or methylation-dependent immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing, uses an anti-methylcytidine antibody to enrich for methylated DNA fragments, and uses massively parallel sequencing to reveal identity of enriched DNA. MRE-seq, or methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme digestion followed by sequencing, relies on a collection of restriction enzymes that recognize CpG containing sequence motifs, but only cut when the CpG is unmethylated. Digested DNA fragments enrich for unmethylated CpGs at their ends, and these CpGs are revealed by massively parallel sequencing. The two computational methods both implement advanced statistical algorithms that integrate MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq data. M&M is a statistical framework to detect differentially methylated regions between two samples. methylCRF is a machine learning framework that predicts CpG methylation levels at single CpG resolution, thus raising the resolution and coverage of MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq to a comparable level of WGBS, but only incurring a cost of less than 5% of WGBS. Together these methods form an effective, robust, and affordable platform for the investigation of genome-wide DNA methylation.

Key words

MeDIP-seq MRE-seq M&M methylCRF 



We thank Joseph F. Costello, Ravi Nagarajan, Chibo Hong for developing the experimental protocols described in this chapter. We thank Michael Stevens for developing methylCRF. We thank Nan Lin, Yan Zhou, Boxue Zhang for developing M&M. We thank members of the Wang laboratory for testing and improving various parts of the methods. This work was supported by NIH grant U01ES017154 (T.W.), R01HG007354 (T.W.), NIDA’s R25 program DA027995 (B.Z.), and American Cancer Society grant RSG-14-049-01-DMC (T.W.).


  1. 1.
    Bird A (2002) DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev 16:6–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ziller MJ, Muller F, Liao J et al (2011) Genomic distribution and inter-sample variation of non-CpG methylation across human cell types. PLoS Genet 7:e1002389CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lister R, Pelizzola M, Kida YS et al (2011) Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 471:68–73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramsahoye BH, Biniszkiewicz D, Lyko F et al (2000) Non-CpG methylation is prevalent in embryonic stem cells and may be mediated by DNA methyltransferase 3a. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:5237–5242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yan J, Zierath JR, Barres R (2011) Evidence for non-CpG methylation in mammals. Exp Cell Res 317:2555–2561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aran D, Sabato S, Hellman A (2013) DNA methylation of distal regulatory sites characterizes dysregulation of cancer genes. Genome Biol 14:R21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suzuki MM, Bird A (2008) DNA methylation landscapes: provocative insights from epigenomics. Nat Rev Genet 9:465–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones PA (2012) Functions of DNA methylation: islands, start sites, gene bodies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 13:484–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith ZD, Meissner A (2013) DNA methylation: roles in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet 14:204–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robertson KD (2005) DNA methylation and human disease. Nat Rev Genet 6:597–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergman Y, Cedar H (2013) DNA methylation dynamics in health and disease. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20:274–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Irizarry RA, Ladd-Acosta C, Wen B et al (2009) The human colon cancer methylome shows similar hypo- and hypermethylation at conserved tissue-specific CpG island shores. Nat Genet 41:178–186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hon GC, Rajagopal N, Shen Y et al (2013) Epigenetic memory at embryonic enhancers identified in DNA methylation maps from adult mouse tissues. Nat Genet 45:1198–1206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stadler MB, Murr R, Burger L et al (2011) DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature 480:490–495PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang B, Zhou Y, Lin N et al (2013) Functional DNA methylation differences between tissues, cell types, and across individuals discovered using the M&M algorithm. Genome Res 23:1522–1540CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ziller MJ, Gu H, Muller F et al (2013) Charting a dynamic DNA methylation landscape of the human genome. Nature 500:477–481CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schlesinger F, Smith AD, Gingeras TR et al (2013) De novo DNA demethylation and noncoding transcription define active intergenic regulatory elements. Genome Res 23:1601–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xie M, Hong C, Zhang B et al (2013) DNA hypomethylation within specific transposable element families associates with tissue-specific enhancer landscape. Nat Genet 45:836–841CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cokus SJ, Feng S, Zhang X et al (2008) Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452:215–219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH et al (2009) Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 462:315–322CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laurent L, Wong E, Li G et al (2010) Dynamic changes in the human methylome during differentiation. Genome Res 20:320–331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meissner A, Gnirke A, Bell GW et al (2005) Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing for comparative high-resolution DNA methylation analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 33:5868–5877CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meissner A, Mikkelsen TS, Gu H et al (2008) Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nature 454:766–770PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber M, Davies JJ, Wittig D et al (2005) Chromosome-wide and promoter-specific analyses identify sites of differential DNA methylation in normal and transformed human cells. Nat Genet 37:853–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maunakea AK, Nagarajan RP, Bilenky M et al (2010) Conserved role of intragenic DNA methylation in regulating alternative promoters. Nature 466:253–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Serre D, Lee BH, Ting AH (2010) MBD-isolated genome sequencing provides a high-throughput and comprehensive survey of DNA methylation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res 38:391–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kriukiene E, Labrie V, Khare T et al (2013) DNA unmethylome profiling by covalent capture of CpG sites. Nat Commun 4:2190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harris RA, Wang T, Coarfa C et al (2010) Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. Nat Biotechnol 28:1097–1105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bock C, Tomazou EM, Brinkman AB et al (2010) Quantitative comparison of genome-wide DNA methylation mapping technologies. Nat Biotechnol 28:1106–1114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang Y, Pastor WA, Shen Y et al (2010) The behaviour of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in bisulfite sequencing. PLoS One 5:e8888CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Booth MJ, Branco MR, Ficz G et al (2012) Quantitative sequencing of 5-methylcytosine and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine at single-base resolution. Science 336:934–937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu M, Hon GC, Szulwach KE et al (2012) Tet-assisted bisulfite sequencing of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. Nat Protoc 7:2159–2170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taiwo O, Wilson GA, Morris T et al (2012) Methylome analysis using MeDIP-seq with low DNA concentrations. Nat Protoc 7:617–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nair SS, Coolen MW, Stirzaker C et al (2011) Comparison of methyl-DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) and methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) protein capture for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveal CpG sequence coverage bias. Epigenetics 6:34–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pelizzola M, Koga Y, Urban AE et al (2008) MEDME: an experimental and analytical methodology for the estimation of DNA methylation levels based on microarray derived MeDIP-enrichment. Genome Res 18:1652–1659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stevens M, Cheng JB, Li D et al (2013) Estimating absolute methylation levels at single-CpG resolution from methylation enrichment and restriction enzyme sequencing methods. Genome Res 23:1541–1553CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lafferty J, McCallum A, Pereira F (2001) Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Departmental Papers CIS-159Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wallach H (2004) Conditional random fields: an introduction. Technical report MS-CIS-04-21 Department of computer and information science, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhou X, Li D, Lowdon RF et al (2014) methylC track: visual integration of single-base resolution DNA methylation data on the WashU EpiGenome browser. Bioinformatics 30:2206–2207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhou X, Lowdon RF, Li D et al (2013) Exploring long-range genome interactions using the WashU Epigenome browser. Nat Methods 10:375–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhou X, Wang T (2012) Using the Wash U Epigenome Browser to examine genome-wide sequencing data. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Chapter 10:Unit10 10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhou X, Maricque B, Xie M et al (2011) The human epigenome browser at Washington university. Nat Methods 8:989–990CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Quail MA, Kozarewa I, Smith F et al (2008) A large genome center's improvements to the Illumina sequencing system. Nat Methods 5:1005–1010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Edison Family Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology, Department of GeneticsWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations