Decreased Fidelity in Replicating CpG Methylation Patterns in Cancer Cells

Research Article
Decreased Fidelity in Replicating CpG Methylation Patterns
in Cancer Cells
1
1
2
1
Toshikazu Ushijima, Naoko Watanabe, Kimiko Shimizu, Kazuaki Miyamoto,
1
1
Takashi Sugimura, and Atsushi Kaneda
1
Carcinogenesis Division and 2Cancer Genomics Division, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan
gene transcription has been implicated as a mechanism to
protect CGIs from de novo methylation (1, 7–10).
As for the fidelity in replicating methylation patterns, including
both methylated and unmethylated statuses of CpG sites, there had
been limited information. The methylated status of exogenous and
endogenous sequences was inherited with fidelities of f94% and
98.8% to 99.9% per site per generation, respectively (11, 12).
Recently, taking advantage of methylation analysis by sequencing
after bisulfite modification (13), we measured the fidelity in
replicating the methylation status of each CpG site in normal cells
(14). A single human mammary epithelial cell was expanded to 106
cells, methylation patterns in the expanded cell population were
analyzed, and deviation from the inferred original methylation
patterns of the two alleles in the starting single cell was analyzed.
The fidelity in replicating methylation patterns was in the range of
99.85% to 99.92% per site per generation in promoter CGIs and
99.56% to 99.83% in CGIs outside promoter regions. Fidelities of
99.90% and 99.60% are expected to yield 0.020 and 0.077
methylation errors per site, respectively, in 20 generations.
When a CGI is methylated, almost all CpG sites in the CGI are
methylated. The methylation of a normally unmethylated CGI is
known to be triggered by methylation of multiple CpG sites in the
CGI (15, 16). With the high fidelity observed in normal cells, the
probability that multiple CpG sites are methylated is very low,
assuming that de novo methylation of proximate CpG sites is not
cooperative. However, methylation of CGIs is frequently observed
in cancers (6). Moreover, some cancers are associated with frequent
aberrant methylation of multiple CGIs, called the CGI methylator
phenotype (17, 18). Although there remains a dispute over the
presence of the CGI methylator phenotype (19), one possible
mechanism for the CGI methylator phenotype is a general decrease
in the fidelity in replicating methylation patterns. Alternatively,
methylation of CGIs could cluster by a possible growth advantage
conferred by methylation of promoter CGIs of tumor suppressor
genes. Cancer cells with a long history would be expected to have
accumulated more aberrant methylation than cancer cells with a
short history. Also, ‘‘aberrant’’ methylation observed in cancer cells
could be simply representing methylation present in cancer
precursor cells, which is too small a fraction to be detected in
normal tissues.
In this study, we measured fidelity in replicating methylation
patterns in four gastric cancer cells, HSC39, HSC57, KATOIII and
AGS, using promoter CGIs of five genes, bA305P22.2.3, FLJ32130,
a homologue of RIKEN2210016 (RIKEN2210016), E-cadherin and
Cyclophilin A. The first four genes were selected because they
can be potentially silenced in human gastric cancers (18, 20).
Abstract
The unmethylated or methylated status of individual CpG
sites is faithfully copied into daughter cells. Here, we analyzed
the fidelity in replicating their methylation statuses in cancer
cells. A single cell was clonally expanded, and methylation
statuses of individual CpG sites were determined for an
average of 12.5 DNA molecules obtained from the expanded
population. By counting the deviation from the original
methylation patterns inferred, the number of errors was
measured. The analysis was done in four gastric cancer cell
lines for five CpG islands (CGI), and repeated six times (total
1,495 clones sequenced). HSC39 and HSC57 showed error
rates <1.0 10 3 errors per site per generation (99.90-100%
fidelity) for all the five CGIs. In contrast, AGS showed
significantly elevated error rates, mainly due to increased
de novo methylation, in three CGIs (1.6- to 3.2-fold), and
KATOIII showed a significantly elevated error rate in one CGI
(2.2-fold). By selective amplification of fully methylated DNA
molecules by methylation-specific PCR, those were stochastically detected in KATOIII and AGS but never in HSC39 and
HSC57. When methylation of entire CGIs was examined for
eight additional CGIs, KATOIII and AGS had frequent
methylation, whereas HSC39 and HSC57 had few. KATOIII
and AGS had four and eight times, respectively, as high
expression levels of DNMT3B as HSC39. These data showed
that some cancer cells have decreased fidelity in replicating
methylation patterns in some CGIs, and that the decrease
could lead to methylation of the entire CGIs. (Cancer Res 2005;
65(1): 11-7)
Introduction
CpG methylation serves as a long-term cellular memory (1).
The methylation pattern of each cell is formed during embryonic
development and is maintained in adult somatic cells (1, 2).
Methylation of CpG islands (CGI) in gene promoters causes
silencing of the downstream genes in normal and cancer cells
(3–6). In order to maintain the methylated or unmethylated
status of CpG sites, hemi-methylated CpG sites are methylated
at DNA replication into fully methylated CpG sites, mainly by
DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) that has a high affinity to
hemi-methylated CpG sites (1, 5). It is also important for the
maintenance of methylation patterns that unmethylated CpG
sites are not methylated during DNA replication and in other
phases of the cell cycle. The presence of Sp1 binding sites and
Materials and Methods
Requests for reprints: Toshikazu Ushijima, Carcinogenesis Division, National Cancer
Center Research Institute, 1-1 Tsukiji 5-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.
Phone: 81-3-3547-5240; Fax: 81-3-5565-1753; E-mail: [email protected].
I2005 American Association for Cancer Research.
www.aacrjournals.org
Cell Culture and DNA/RNA Extraction. HSC39 and HSC57 were kind
gifts from Dr. K. Yanagihara, National Cancer Center Research Institute, and
11
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Cancer Research
efficiency of bisulfite modification, the PCR product of the CGI of the Ecadherin gene mixed with rat genomic DNA was simultaneously
processed. The unconversion rate of cytosines at CpG sites was <0.002.
The methylation-specific PCR (MSP) product of the RIKEN2210016 CGI
was similarly cloned and three to four clones were analyzed.
Methylation-specific PCR. MSP (23) was done using 1 AL of the bisulfitemodified DNA solution and primers specific for methylated (M) or unmethylated (U) sequences (Supplementary Table; refs. 18, 23, 24). The
optimal annealing temperature was determined by amplifying DNA of
normal human mammary epithelial cells and DNA treated by SssImethylase (NEB, Beverly, MA). PCR was done for 33 to 35 cycles for
analysis of CGI methylation, and a sample was regarded to have aberrant
methylation when the PCR product was obtained with the M set
primers. To examine the presence of DNA molecules fully methylated in
the RIKEN2210016 CGI, PCR was done for 40 cycles in four replicates.
Methylation Pattern Error Rate, Fidelity, and Error Rate of a CpG
Site. All these three parameters were calculated as reported (14). To infer
the original methylation patterns in the single starting cell, the bisulfitesequenced clones were classified according to their methylation patterns.
The most common patterns were used to assign starting methylation status
for each allele of a particular CGI, and deviations in other bisulfite-derived
clones were assigned to a particular allele based on the minimum number
of changes required to match the inferred original patterns. Bias in the
selection of the original patterns was confirmed to be <20% of the total
number of errors by selecting different clones as the original patterns. The
total number of deviations in each culture was divided by the number of
CpG sites observed, and an average number of errors per CpG site during
the culture (21.6-23.1 generations), which we termed methylation pattern
error rate (MPER), was calculated. The average MPER for a CGI in a cell line
was calculated from the MPERs obtained for the six cultures. Fidelity in
replicating methylation patterns (F: % per site per generation) was
calculated from MPERs (M: errors per site per observed generations) by
an equation: M = 1 F g (g = number of generations). The error rate of a
CpG site (E: errors per site per generation) was calculated from the
equation F + E = 1.
Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR. From 3 Ag of DNasetreated total RNA, cDNA was synthesized in 20 AL with a random hexamer
primer and Superscript II reverse transcriptase (Life Technologies, Inc.,
Rockville, MD). One microliter of the cDNA solution was amplified in a
solution that contained SYBR Green PCR Core Reagents (Applied
Biosystems) and 200 nmol/L of primers. The sequences of the primers are
listed in the Supplementary Table. PCR was done using an iCycler iQ
KATOIII and AGS were obtained from the Japanese Collection of Research
Bioresources (Tokyo, Japan) and the American Type Culture Collection
(Manassas, VA), respectively. Human mammary epithelial cells were
purchased from Cambrex (East Rutherford, NJ).
For analysis of fidelity in replicating methylation patterns, a single cell in
log-phase growth was plated in a well of a 96-well plate. Cells were serially
transferred to a well of a 12-well plate and to a 10-cm dish. When the cells
grew to the target cell number (5 106), they were collected after
measuring the actual number of cells. The number of cell generations
observed was calculated from the plating efficiencies and the final cell
count. The culture was repeated six times for each cell line.
High molecular weight genomic DNA was extracted by serial extraction
with phenol/chloroform and ethanol precipitation, and RNA was isolated
using ISOGEN (Nippon Gene, Tokyo, Japan).
Fluorescence In situ Hybridization. Chromosome spreads were obtained by using standard protocols (21). BAC clones (RP11-305P22 for
bA305P22.2.3 , CIT987SK-A-635H12 for FLJ32130 , RP11-575L7 for
RIKEN2210016, RP11-354M1 for E-cadherin, and RP11-105B9 for Cyclophilin
A) were obtained from the mapping core group at the Sanger Institute or
from Dr. H. Shizuya at the California Institute of Technology. A BAC was
labeled with biotin 16-dUTP, using a nick translation kit (Roche, Basel,
Switzerland). Probes were mixed after denaturation and then hybridized to
the chromosome preparations. After washing, the signals were visualized
after incubation with avidin-FITC. The washed slides were counterstained
with diamidino-2-phenylindole (VYSIS, Downers Grove, IL).
Bisulfite Modification and Sequencing. Sodium bisulfite modification was done according to previous reports (13, 22). After restriction of
genomic DNA with BamHI, 500 ng of the DNA were denatured in 0.3 N
NaOH. The denatured DNA was dissolved in a solution containing 3.1 mol/L
NaHSO3 (pH 5.3) and 0.5 mmol/L hydroquinone, and the solution
underwent 15 cycles of denaturation at 95jC for 30 seconds and incubation
at 50jC for 15 minutes. After desalting the sample with the Wizard DNA
clean-up system (Promega, Madison, WI), the sample was desulfonated in
0.3 N NaOH. The DNA sample was ethanol-precipitated with ammonium
acetate and dissolved in 20 AL of TE buffer.
Each region of a specific CGI was amplified by PCR using 1 AL of the
solution and primers common to the methylated and unmethylated DNA
sequences (Supplementary Table; refs. 14, 18). PCR products were cloned
into pGEM-T Easy vector (Promega) and were cycle-sequenced using an
ABI automated DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). At
least 10 clones and more than thrice the gene copy number obtained by
fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were analyzed. To monitor the
Figure 1. Representative of FISH analysis of the four gastric cancer
cell lines (bA305P22.2.3 ). At least five metaphases were observed,
and the numbers of each CGI in a cell was measured. A, HSC39; B,
HSC57; C, KATOIII; and D, AGS. HSC39 shows hybridization to two
separate chromosomal loci, consistent with the normal location of this
CGI on chromosome 20; HSC57 shows five loci on one normal
chromosome 20 and two isochromosome 20s; KATOIII shows four
loci on two normal chromosome 20s and one isochromosome 20;
AGS shows three loci on three normal chromosome 20s.
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
12
www.aacrjournals.org
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Decreased Fidelity in Methylation Replication
detection system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). The absence of nonspecific amplification was confirmed by observing melting curves of the
product. The number of cDNA molecules in a sample was quantified by
normalizing to the amplification curves of standard samples that contained
101 to 107 copies of the gene. The amount was normalized to that of PCNA.
RIKEN2210016, E-cadherin, and Cyclophilin A (representative
results in Fig. 2). Based on the observed errors and copy numbers
obtained by FISH, MPERs, fidelities, and error rates were calculated
(Table 1). Two cell lines, HSC39 and HSC57, showed error rates
smaller than 1.0 10 3 errors per site per generation for all the five
CGIs, which were in the same range as our previous data in normal
cells (14). In contrast, AGS had significantly elevated error rates
for bA305P22.2.3 (3.2-fold compared with HSC57, P < 0.05),
RIKEN2210016 (5.7-fold, P < 0.01) and E-cadherin (1.6-fold, P <
0.01). KATOIII showed an elevated error rate for RIKEN2210016
(1.9-fold compared with HSC57, P < 0.05) and tended to show an
elevated error rate for bA305P22.2.3 (2.2-fold, P = 0.06).
The errors observed were mainly due to methylation of
unmethylated CpG sites, but demethylation of methylated sites
was also observed. In RIKEN2210016, a DNA molecule methylated at 9 of 19 CpG sites was observed in AGS (arrowhead ,
Fig. 2A). This showed that AGS, and possibly KATOIII, had
decreased fidelities in replicating methylation patterns, that the
decrease was prominent in CGIs of bA305P22.2.3 and
RIKEN2210016, and that the decrease could lead to methylation
of nearly half of all the CpG sites.
Results
Analysis of Fidelities in Replicating Methylation Pattern.
A single cell of HSC39, HSC57, KATOIII, and AGS was expanded to
5.0 F 0.2, 7.1 F 0.2, 2.9 F 0.0, and 5.6 F 0.1 (mean F SE) 106,
respectively. Plating efficiencies during the two transfers were 96 F
2%, 86 F 3%, 92F 2%, and 95 F 1%, respectively. Based on these
values, the number of cells that should have been produced at the
time of harvest was calculated as 5.4, 9.5, 3.4, and 6.2 107 ( final
cell count per plating efficiency per plating efficiency), and they
were estimated to have undergone 22.3, 23.1, 21.6 and 22.5
generations, respectively. The copy numbers of the five CGIs in
the four cancer cell lines were analyzed by FISH (representative
results in Fig. 1; summarized in Table 1).
The methylation status of each CpG site was determined by
bisulfite sequencing of promoter CGIs of bA305P22.2.3, FLJ32130,
Table 1. Fidelities in replicating methylation patterns in cancer cell lines
Gene
Cell line
No. copies
MPER F S D
(no. errors per site
per observed generations)
Fidelity
(% per site
per generation)
Error rate
( 10 3 errors per site
per generation)
bA305P22.2.3
HSC39
HSC57
KATOIII
AGS
HMEC
HSC39
HSC57
KATOIII
AGS
HMEC
HSC39
HSC57
KATOIII
AGS
HMEC
HSC39
HSC57
KATOIII
AGS
HMEC
HSC39
HSC57
KATOIII
AGS
HMEC
2
5
4
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
5
2
2
0.012
0.022
0.046
0.078
0.023
0.000
0.007
0.011
0.006
0.000
0.010
0.015
0.028
0.087
0.018
0.023
0.022
0.019
0.036
0.022
0.011
0.008
0.003
0.015
0.032
99.95
99.90
99.78
99.64
99.89
100.00
99.96
99.95
99.97
100.00
99.95
99.93
99.87
99.60
99.91
99.90
99.90
99.91
99.84
99.89
99.95
99.96
99.98
99.93
99.85
0.5
1.0
2.2
3.2
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
1.3
4.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.6
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.7
1.5
FLJ32130
RIKEN2210016
E-cadherin
Cyclophilin A
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
0.007
0.012
0.024
0.050*
0.016
0.000
0.005
0.014
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.010
0.012*
0.031c
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.004
0.009c
0.012b
0.006
0.008
0.003
0.008
0.017b
NOTE: MPERs were calculated from the observed number of errors, and the average in six clonal populations is shown along with the SD. Fidelity and
error rate were calculated by the equation described in the Materials and Methods. MPERs in KATOIII and AGS were compared with that of HSC57 by
the t test.
*P < 0.05.
cP < 0.01.
bDescribed in our previous report (14).
www.aacrjournals.org
13
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Cancer Research
Figure 2. Representative of bisulfite sequencing. Unmethylated sites (o) and methylated CpG sites (.), and nucleotide positions of the CpG sites in the PCR
product are shown above. Brackets, original methylation patterns inferred; right, numbers of deviation from them. A, RIKEN2210016 . In HSC39 and HSC57,
methylation patterns were stable, and original patterns were easily inferred in some cultures (culture #2 of HSC39 and #1 of HSC57). In KATOIII and AGS,
methylation patterns were unstable, and it was difficult to infer the original methylation patterns. Especially, in AGS, a DNA molecule methylated in 9 of 19 CpG
sites was present (arrowhead). B, E-cadherin . Methylation patterns were stable in all the four cell lines.
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
14
www.aacrjournals.org
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Decreased Fidelity in Methylation Replication
primers were fully methylated for all the clones sequenced
(representative results in Fig. 3B).
Accumulation of aberrant methylation of the entire CGIs was
examined, using eight additional promoter CGIs that can be
methylated in human gastric cancers (Fig. 3C). None and one
CGI were aberrantly methylated in HSC39 and HSC57, respectively, whereas five and seven CGIs were methylated in KATOIII
and AGS, respectively. The frequency of aberrant methylation
was in accordance with the decreased fidelity in replicating
methylation patterns.
Gene Expression Levels of the Analyzed Genes and DNMTs.
Considering that gene transcription has been implicated as one
of the mechanisms to protect a CGI from de novo methylation
(1, 15, 16, 26), expression levels of the five genes were measured
by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (Fig. 4). In KATOIII
and AGS, in which decreased fidelity was observed for
bA305P22.2.3, but not for FLJ32130, the former gene had higher
expression levels than the latter. KATOIII and AGS had
RIKEN2210016 expression levels comparable to those of HSC39
and HSC57. Therefore, the decreased fidelity was unlikely to be
due to low expression levels.
Most of the errors in the methylation patterns in CGIs were
considered to be due to de novo methylation. Therefore,
expression levels of two de novo methyltransferases, DNMT3A
and DNMT3B, and the maintenance methyltransferase, DNMT1,
were also measured. It was shown that DNMT3B was expressed
at 4- to 8-fold higher levels in the two cell lines with low
fidelities, KATOIII and AGS, and that DNMT3A was not
expressed at all in KATOIII.
Figure 3. Emergence of fully methylated DNA molecules and the presence
of CIMP in cell lines with decreased fidelity. A, selective amplification of
methylated DNA molecules by MSP (40 cycles of PCR). For each sample of
bisulfite modified DNA, four reactions (a-d) were performed. Although
unmethylated DNA molecules were consistently detected, methylated DNA
molecules were stochastically detected only in KATOIII and AGS (arrowheads ).
This indicated that zero to a few fully methylated DNA molecules were present
in 250 to 380 molecules. B, methylation statuses of CpG sites between the MSP
primers. From all the 19 PCR products obtained with M set primers, three to four
clones were sequenced. All the clones were fully methylated. C, Methylation
statuses of eight additional promoter CGIs and five CGIs whose fidelity was
analyzed. Presence of only the M band (closed boxes ), that of both M and U
bands (hatched boxes ) and that of the U band only (open boxes ) by MSP (33-35
cycles). Whereas HSC39 and HSC57 had accumulation of no and only one,
respectively, aberrantly methylated CGIs, KATOIII and AGS had that of five and
seven, respectively, aberrantly methylated CGIs. Data already reported (18) and
data in this study were combined.
Discussion
It was shown here that KATOIII and AGS gastric cancer cell lines
had decreased fidelities in replicating methylation patterns, which
was prominent in specific CGIs, such as those of bA305P22.2.3 and
RIKEN2210016. The decreased fidelity was mainly due to methylation of unmethylated CpG sites, and led to emergence of fully
methylated DNA molecules. This is the first experimental evidence
that some cancer cells have decreased fidelity in replicating
methylation patterns compared with other cancer cell lines and
normal cells (14). Sequencing an average of 12.5 clones for each CGI
in each cell line and repeating six experiments corresponded to
analysis of 30,398 CpG sites in 1,495 clones, and this enabled to
detect statistically significant increases at 1.6- to 3.2-folds.
The number of fully methylated DNA molecules was very
small, in the range of zero to a few per reaction tube. For their
MSP, 500 ng of genomic DNA, which corresponds to 1.5 105
gene copies, were treated with bisulfite, and 1 of 20 of it was
used. Our protocol of bisulfite treatment is known to reduce
copy numbers to 1 of 20 to 30 due to DNA degradation (data
not shown). This calculates as 250 to 375 copies of template
DNA having been present in one reaction of MSP, and that the
fraction of fully methylated DNA molecules was 0-1/250-375 (00.4%). Although the fraction was very small, a cell could gain a
growth advantage and expand clonally if the full methylation
was induced in a promoter CGI of a tumor suppressor gene. It
can be noted that mutations, although their frequency is very
low, have a significant impact on carcinogenesis. The decreased
fidelity was also considered to be related to the frequent
methylation of entire CGIs in KATOIII and AGS.
Emergence of Fully Methylated DNA Molecules in Cell Lines
with Decreased Fidelity. The decreased fidelity produced DNA
molecules methylated at nearly half of all the CpG sites.
Considering that ‘‘seeds of methylation’’ could trigger methylation
of the entire CGI (15, 16), we further analyzed the presence of fully
methylated DNA molecules (Fig. 3A). Since the number of fully
methylated DNA molecules was expected to be extremely small, we
adopted a strategy of selective amplification of methylated DNA
molecules by MSP (25). MSP primers used recognized three CpG
sites located 5V to the region analyzed by bisulfite sequencing and
three 3V CpG sites within the region (Fig. 3B). Stochastic
amplification of methylated DNA molecules was specifically
observed for KATOIII (10 positive reactions out of 24 reactions)
and AGS (9 positive reactions out of 24 reactions), showing that
zero to a few DNA molecules were contained in these reactions. All
the PCR products were sequenced, and 16 CpG sites between MSP
www.aacrjournals.org
15
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Cancer Research
Figure 4. mRNA expression levels of the five genes whose CGIs
were analyzed and three DNMTs. The expression levels were
measured quantitatively by real-time reverse transcription-PCR and
normalized to PCNA . Expression levels of bA305P22.2.3 and
RIKEN2210016 among the cancer cell lines did not correlate with the
presence of decreased fidelities. The expression levels of DNMT3B
were high in the two cell lines with decreased fidelities, KATOIII,
and AGS. DNMT3A was not expressed in KATOIII at all, and the
meaning of this is unclear.
Decreased fidelity was prominent in the CGIs of bA305P22.2.3
and RIKEN2210016. In AGS, Cyclophilin A was most abundantly
expressed, followed by bA305P22.2.3, FLJ32130, RIKEN2210016, and
E-cadherin. Although absence of transcription is considered to be
important for gene silencing (1, 15, 16, 26), the decreased fidelity in
cancer cells was shown to affect even actively transcribed genes like
bA305P22.2.3 and FLJ32130. Sp1 binding sites are also known to be
important to protect CGIs from being methylated (7–9). There are
five putative Sp1 binding sites for both bA305P22.2.3 and
RIKEN2210016, whereas there are one, three and four sites for
FLJ32130, E-cadherin, and Cyclophilin A, respectively. Therefore, no
direct correlation was observed between the number of Sp1 binding
sites and the resistance to decreased fidelity. Accordingly, promoter
CGIs affected by decreased fidelity in cancers seemed to be
determined by some other factors than gene transcription and Sp1
binding sites. The number of chromosomes obtained by FISH did
not show any clear correlation with the fidelity, and thus histone
modifications or other chromatin structures were likely to be
involved.
As for the role of overexpression of DNA methyltransferases in
induction of CGI methylation, reports that support the role (27–29)
and those that do not (15, 30) are available. Since the decreased
fidelity observed in this study was mainly due to high susceptibility
to de novo methylation, we examined expression levels of DNA
methyltransferases, DNMT3A, DNMT3B, and DNMT1. Although
DNMT1 expression was not different in cell lines with and without
the decreased fidelity, DNMT3B expression was 4- to 8-fold higher
in the two cell lines with the decreased fidelity. Therefore, we could
not rule out the overexpression of DNMT3B as a mechanism for the
high susceptibility to de novo methylation in KATOIII and AGS, but
that of DNMT1 was unlikely.
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
The error rates obtained here were examined in six independent
cultures for each CGI in each cell line, and all the differences
obtained were statistically significant and led to appearance of
fully methylated DNA molecules. Possible selection bias of the
original methylation patterns was confirmed to be <20% of the
total number of errors, as in our previous study (14). However,
our assay system neglects interaction among neighboring CpG
sites for the purpose of simple calculation, and calculates the
number of errors in one replication from the number of errors
accumulated during a culture. The number of errors in one
replication can be underestimated by the presence of a mechanism
that corrects methylation errors, and can be overestimated by the
presence of an error in the early phase of culture. A method
recently developed by Laird et al. (31) neatly measures methylation
errors in one replication, and reports larger amounts of errors than
this report.
In summary, this study showed that some cancers have
decreased fidelity in replicating methylation patterns, mainly due
to de novo methylation, that the decreased fidelity was prominent
in some specific CGIs, and that the decrease could lead to full
methylation of a CGI.
Acknowledgments
Received 8/13/2003; revised 9/22/2004; accepted 10/22/2004.
Grant support: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan Grant-in-Aid for the
Third Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page
charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
We thank Dr. H. Shizuya for providing BAC clones and Drs. E. Okochi-Takada and
M. Mihara for their critical discussion.
16
www.aacrjournals.org
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Decreased Fidelity in Methylation Replication
References
1. Bird A. DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic
memory. Genes Dev 2002;16:6–21.
2. Li E. Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nat Rev Genet
2002;3:662–73.
3. Futscher BW, Oshiro MM, Wozniak RJ, et al. Role for
DNA methylation in the control of cell type specific
maspin expression. Nat Genet 2002;31:175–9.
4. Ohgane J, Hattori N, Oda M, Tanaka S, Shiota K.
Differentiation of trophoblast lineage is associated with
DNA methylation and demethylation. Biochem Biophys
Res Commun 2002;290:701–6.
5. Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene
expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and
environmental signals. Nat Genet 2003;33 Suppl:245–54.
6. Jones PA, Baylin SB. The fundamental role of
epigenetic events in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 2002;
3:415–28.
7. Brandeis M, Frank D, Keshet I, et al. Sp1 elements
protect a CpG island from de novo methylation. Nature
1994;371:435–8.
8. Macleod D, Charlton J, Mullins J, Bird AP. Sp1 sites in
the mouse aprt gene promoter are required to prevent
methylation of the CpG island. Genes Dev 1994;8:2282–
92.
9. Machon O, Strmen V, Hejnar J, Geryk J, Svoboda J. Sp1
binding sites inserted into the rous sarcoma virus long
terminal repeat enhance LTR-driven gene expression.
Gene 1998;208:73–82.
10. Han L, Lin IG, Hsieh CL. Protein binding protects
sites on stable episomes and in the chromosome from
de novo methylation. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:3416–24.
11. Wigler M, Levy D, Perucho M. The somatic
replication of DNA methylation. Cell 1981;24:33–40.
12. Pfeifer GP, Steigerwald SD, Hansen RS, Gartler
SM, Riggs AD. Polymerase chain reaction-aided genomic sequencing of an X chromosome-linked CpG
www.aacrjournals.org
island: methylation patterns suggest clonal inheritance, CpG site autonomy, and an explanation of
activity state stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1990;87:8252–6.
13. Clark SJ, Harrison J, Paul CL, Frommer M. High
sensitivity mapping of methylated cytosines. Nucl Acids
Res 1994;22:2990–7.
14. Ushijima T, Watanabe N, Okochi E, Kaneda A,
Sugimura T, Miyamoto K. Fidelity of the methylation
pattern and its variation in the genome. Genome Res
2003;13:868–74.
15. Song JZ, Stirzaker C, Harrison J, Melki JR, Clark SJ.
Hypermethylation trigger of the glutathione-S -transferase gene (GSTP1) in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene
2002;21:1048–61.
16. Stirzaker C, Song JZ, Davidson B, Clark SJ. Transcriptional gene silencing promotes DNA hypermethylation through a sequential change in chromatin
modifications in cancer cells. Cancer Res 2004;64:
3871–7.
17. Toyota M, Ahuja N, Ohe-Toyota M, Herman JG, Baylin
SB, Issa JP. CpG island methylator phenotype in
colorectal cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;
96:8681–6.
18. Kaneda A, Kaminishi M, Yanagihara K, Sugimura T,
Ushijima T. Identification of silencing of nine genes
in human gastric cancers. Cancer Res 2002;62:
6645–50.
19. Yamashita K, Dai T, Dai Y, Yamamoto F, Perucho M.
Genetics supersedes epigenetics in colon cancer
phenotype. Cancer Cell 2003;4:121–31.
20. Tamura G, Yin J, Wang S, et al. E-Cadherin gene
promoter hypermethylation in primary human gastric
carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:569–73.
21. Harnden DG, Klinger HP. An international system
for human cytogenetic nomenclature. Basel: Karger;
1985.
22. Rein T, Zorbas H, DePamphilis ML. Active mammalian replication origins are associated with a high-
17
density cluster of mCpG dinucleotides. Mol Cell Biol
1997;17:416–26.
23. Herman JG, Graff JR, Myohanen S, Nelkin BD,
Baylin SB. Methylation-specific PCR: a novel PCR assay
for methylation status of CpG islands. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 1996;93:9821–6.
24. Fleisher AS, Esteller M, Wang S, et al. Hypermethylation of the hMLH1 gene promoter in human
gastric cancers with microsatellite instability. Cancer
Res 1999;59:1090–5.
25. Suter CM, Martin DI, Ward RL. Germline epimutation of MLH1 in individuals with multiple cancers. Nat
Genet 2004;36:497–501.
26. De Smet C, Loriot A, Boon T. Promoter-dependent
mechanism leading to selective hypomethylation within
the 5V region of gene MAGE-A1 in tumor cells. Mol Cell
Biol 2004;24:4781–90.
27. Ahluwalia A, Hurteau JA, Bigsby RM, Nephew KP.
DNA methylation in ovarian cancer. II. Expression of
DNA methyltransferases in ovarian cancer cell lines and
normal ovarian epithelial cells. Gynecol Oncol 2001;
82:299–304.
28. Vertino PM, Yen RW, Gao J, Baylin SB. De novo
methylation of CpG island sequences in human
fibroblasts overexpressing DNA (cytosine-5-)-methyltransferase. Mol Cell Biol 1996;16:4555–65.
29. Biniszkiewicz D, Gribnau J, Ramsahoye B, et al.
Dnmt1 overexpression causes genomic hypermethylation, loss of imprinting, and embryonic lethality. Mol
Cell Biol 2002;22:2124–35.
30. Eads CA, Danenberg KD, Kawakami K, Saltz LB,
Danenberg PV, Laird PW. CpG island hypermethylation
in human colorectal tumors is not associated with
DNA methyltransferase overexpression. Cancer Res
1999;59:2302–6.
31. Laird CD, Pleasant ND, Clark AD, et al. Hairpinbisulfite PCR: assessing epigenetic methylation patterns
on complementary strands of individual DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:204–9.
Cancer Res 2005; 65: (1). January 1, 2005
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.
Decreased Fidelity in Replicating CpG Methylation Patterns
in Cancer Cells
Toshikazu Ushijima, Naoko Watanabe, Kimiko Shimizu, et al.
Cancer Res 2005;65:11-17.
Updated version
Cited articles
Citing articles
E-mail alerts
Reprints and
Subscriptions
Permissions
Access the most recent version of this article at:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/1/11
This article cites 28 articles, 17 of which you can access for free at:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/1/11.full#ref-list-1
This article has been cited by 4 HighWire-hosted articles. Access the articles at:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/1/11.full#related-urls
Sign up to receive free email-alerts related to this article or journal.
To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications
Department at [email protected].
To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, contact the AACR Publications
Department at [email protected].
Downloaded from cancerres.aacrjournals.org on July 8, 2017. © 2005 American Association for Cancer
Research.