Skip Navigation


Nucleic Acids Research Advance Access originally published online on August 20, 2008
Nucleic Acids Research 2008 36(18):e119; doi:10.1093/nar/gkn534
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Print PDF (275K) Freely available
Right arrow Screen PDF (163K) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
36/18/e119    most recent
gkn534v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Commercial Re-use Guidelines
for Open Access NAR Content
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quinlivan, E. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quinlivan, E. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, J. F., III
Related Collections
Right arrow Nucleic acid modification
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nucleic Acids Research, 2008, Vol. 36, No. 18 e119
© 2008 The Author(s)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Methods Online

DNA methylation determination by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry using novel biosynthetic [U-15N]deoxycytidine and [U-15N]methyldeoxycytidine internal standards

Eoin P. Quinlivan1,* and Jesse F. Gregory, III2

1Biomedical Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, General Clinical Research Center and 2Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 352 381 6925; Fax: +1 352 846 0990; Email: epq{at}ufl.edu

Received April 24, 2008. Revised July 24, 2008. Accepted August 4, 2008.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Methylation of the promoter CpG regions regulates gene transcription by inhibiting transcription factor binding. Deoxycytidine methylation may regulate cell differentiation, while aberrations in the process may be involved in cancer etiology and the development of birth defects (e.g. neural tube defects). Similarly, nutritional deficiency and certain nutragenomic interactions are associated with DNA hypomethylation. While LC-MS has been used previously to measure percentage genomic deoxycytidine methylation, a lack of a secure source of internal standards and the need for laborious and time-consuming DNA digestion protocols constitute distinct limitations. Here we report a simple and inexpensive protocol for the biosynthesis of internal standards from readily available precursors. Using these biosynthetic stable-isotopic [U-15N]-labeled internal standards, coupled with an improved DNA digestion protocol developed in our lab, we have developed a low-cost, high-throughput (>500 samples in 4 days) assay for measuring deoxycytidine methylation in genomic DNA. Inter- and intraassay variation for the assay (%RSD, n = 6) was <2.5%.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
CpG islands are 5'-deoxycytidine-deoxyguanosine-3'-rich regions of DNA. In mammalian cells these regions are initiation sites for DNA transcription (1). Deoxycytidine methylation (dCyt->MdCyt) of the CpG island plays an important role in regulating gene transcription by blocking transcription factor binding. The inhibition of transcription factor binding increases exponentially with methylation density (2) but can be overcome with increased transcription factor concentrations. Alternatively, the methylated CpG promoter region can act as an initiation site for heterochromatin formation (3), which irreversibly inhibits transcription. By promoting heterochromatin formation, DNA methylation is thought to be a major component of epigenetic gene regulation, i.e. inheritance of information on the basis of gene expression as opposed to gene sequence (genetics). Examples of epigenetic gene regulation include autosomal gene inheritance, where one parental copy is silenced (4) and X-chromosome inactivation in mammals (5). DNA methylation also is thought to play a role in cell differentiation, as methylation levels are tissue specific (6,7) and change during tissue maturation (6).

CpG hypomethylation has been associated with a number of carcinoma types including Wilms tumors (8) (typified by frequent chromosome 1 and chromosome 16 pericentromeric rearrangements), ovarian epithelial carcinoma (8) and breast cancer (9). DNA hypomethylation also may cause chromosomal instability by promoting stand breakage (10) while the pericentromeric rearrangements observed in the rare genetic disease, immunodeficiency, centromeric heterochromatin instability and facial anomalies (ICF), may be due to the associated hypomethylation of chromosome 1 (11). DNA methyltransferase inhibitors cause similar a hypomethylation and pericentromeric rearrangement of chromosome 1. Subjects homozygous for the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) 677 C->T polymorphism have been shown to exhibit (12) global hypomethylation of DNA, especially when coupled with low plasma folate (<12 nmol/l) or red cell folate (<1.13 nmol/g hemoglobin) concentrations. It has been suggested that the aberrations in DNA methylation associated with the MTHFR 677 TT genotype may explain why this gene polymorphism is a risk factor for breast (13), cervical (14) and some colon cancers (15), and why mothers homozygous for the genotype are at increased risk (16) of having a child with a neural tube defect (NTD).

Despite the potential importance of assessing global DNA methylation no ‘gold standard’ exists for its measurement. Cytosine extension assays (17) are motif specific, are unable to distinguish between hemi- and fully methylated motifs, and exhibit large inter- (~15%) and intra (~4%) assay variability. Methyl-acceptance assays (18) similarly exhibit large inter- (~9%) and intra (~5%) assay variability. For both assays intersample variability is probably higher, as both assays are dependent on the quality of the DNA sample (e.g. strand breaks, denatured DNA) which may vary among samples, and the reproducibility with which the DNA concentration can be measured (a single sample of homogenous quality and concentration is typically used to determine inter- and intraassay variability). Furthermore, both of these assays are only semiquantitative, as they provide only a relative measure of dCyt methylation (or rather a measure of unmethylated dCyt in the CpG motif), not an absolute measure. This makes comparisons of samples measured in different labs, or measured on different days, difficult.

In contrast, the LC-MS (or LC-MS/MS) methods provide a quantitative measure of dCyt methylation independently of DNA quality. However, most LC-MS methods lack a readily available and secure source of MdCyt internal standard. For example, while Friso et al. (19) used a labeled MdCyt internal standard when developing their LC-MS method, they needed a custom synthesis. To compensate for a lack of an internal standard, some developers of LC-MS methods have used external standards [intraassay %RSD = 4% (20)] or pseudo-internal standards, e.g. deoxyguanosine [%RSD = 1.7–9.2% (21,22)]. In the absence of an internal standard, no correction can be made for sample recovery during preparation and for changes in ionization efficiency between runs (e.g. due to ion suppression, detector contamination, changes in gas pressures, detector saturation or changes in running buffer).

Consequently, we devised a simple and inexpensive protocol for synthesizing [U-15N3]-labeled deoxynucleosides for use as LC-MS/MS internal standards. The starting materials and biological reagents used in the synthesis are readily available commercially (ensuring a secure source of internal standards for future studies), and the biosynthesis can be conducted in a laboratory equipped with standard biochemical or biological equipment. We report the use of these stable-isotopic [U-15N]-labeled deoxynucleosides, specifically [15N3]dCyt and [15N3]MdCyt, as internal standards in a LC-MS/MS assay for the determination of percentage DNA methylation (%MdCyt).


   Experimental Section
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Biosynthesis and purification of [U-15N]-labeled DNA
Cryopreserved Escherichia coli K12 was inoculated into 10-ml growth medium (23) containing 50 mM NaCl, 25 mM KH2PO5, 70 µM CaCl, 2.1 mM MgSO4, 10 mM glucose and 50 mM [15N]NH4Cl (Cambridge Isotopes, Andover, MA), pH 7.2. The sample was incubated at 37°C in a shaking incubator. While in log-phase growth (~12-h growth) 10 µl of culture was used to inoculate 50 ml of fresh [15N]-labeled growth medium. This second culture was grown to lag-phase (~24-h growth), at which point the bacteria were harvested by centrifuging at 300 g for 10 min. Bacterial DNA was extracted using a Bactozol Kit (Molecular Research Center, Cincinnati, OH) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Bactazol Kit includes an RNA hydrolysis step allowing for the selective precipitation of DNA from cell lysates. The DNA pellet was washed twice with 75% v/v ethanol and reconstituted (~50 µg/ml) in 10 mM Tris–HCl, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 10 mM MgCl2 (pH 7.9).

[U-15N]DNA methylation
To increase [15N3]MdCyt abundance in the standard the [U-15N]DNA was hypermethylated by adding (per 100 µg of DNA) 100 U SssI (CpG) methyltransferase (New England Biochemicals, Ipswich, MA) and 20 µl SAM (32 mM), and incubating at 37°C for 4 h.

Preparation of [U-15N]internal standard
The hypermethylated [U-15N]DNA was hydrolyzed to nucleosides (24) by adding 250 U Benzonase (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), 300 mU phosphdiesterase (Sigma, St Louis, MO) and 200 U alkaline phosphatase (Sigma), and incubating at 37°C for 12 h. The percentage unlabeled deoxynucleoside was determined by analyzing a portion of the digested internal standard (equivalent to ~1 µg [15N]DNA) by LC-MS/MS. The peak corresponding to the unlabeled (M+0) and labeled (M+3) deoxynucleosides was integrated. [In the case of the unlabeled (M+0) peak this was mainly background noise]. The area of each unlabeled deoxynucleoside peak was expressed as a percentage of the corresponding M+3 labeled deoxynucleoside peak.

DNA digestion
DNA was quantified using a PicoGreen kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Digest Mix (enough for 100 samples) was prepared using 250 U Benzonase, 300 mU phosphdiesterase, 200 U alkaline phosphatase, 200 µl of digested [U-15N]DNA (equivalent to ~10 µg DNA) and 0.5 ml 10x Buffer [100 mM Tris–HCl, 500 mM NaCl, 100 mM MgCl2 (pH 7.9)], and made up to 5 ml with water. DNA samples (1 µg in 50-µl water) were digested by adding 50 µl Digest Mix and incubating at 37°C for 6 h.

Liquid hromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy
Sample injection was 10 µl (equivalent to 100 ng DNA). DNA digests were chromatographed using a 3 µm Luna C18(2) column (50 x 3 mm, Phenomenex, Torrance, CA) eluted with 5 mmol/l ammonium acetate/0.1% (v/v) acetic acid using a methanol gradient at a flow rate of 0.5 ml/min. The methanol gradient increased linearly from 4% to 18% over 3.5 min. where it was held for 1.5 min, after which it returned to baseline (4%). There was a 1-min delay before the next injection—not allowing the column to fully equilibrate improved the peak shape. Total run time (injection to injection) was 6 min.

Samples were analyzed in ESI mode using a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. For the determination of isotopic nucleosides enrichment scanning was performed in positive ionization mode using selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode, monitoring the mass to charge (m/z) transitions of dCyt: 228.1->112.0; [15N3]dCyt: 231.1->115.0; MdCyt: 242.1->126.0; [15N3]MdCyt 245.1->129.0. Chromatograms were analyzed using the Xcalibur software package (Thermo; Version 2.0).

Preparation of standard curves
Stock solutions of dCyt (Sigma) and MdCyt (ChemGenes Corporation, Wilmington, MA) were prepared in water. The concentration of the stock solutions was determined by diluting 1 in 10 with 0.1 M HCl and measuring their absorbance. The molar absorptivity coefficients ({Jukcy}) used were: dCyt {Jukcy} = 13 400 M–1cm–1 at 280 nm and MdCyt {Jukcy} = 12 200 M–1cm–1 at 286 nm (25).

A stock mixture of the two standards was carefully prepared to give an exact known concentration ratio of dCyt to MdCyt (typically on the order of 12:1). The stock solution was further diluted to make a working solution. A standard curve was prepared from the working solution by serially dilution with water (Figure 1). To 50 µl of each standard dilution was added 50 µl of the Digest Mix (containing the [U-15N] internal standards). Standard curves were prepared by plotting the analyte/internal standard ratio (M+0/M+3) against nucleoside concentration.


Figure 1
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. Standard curves for (a) deoxycytidine and (b) 5-methyldeoxycytidine, corrected for recovery of their respective [15N3]-labeled internal standard. Insets, uncorrected standard curves.

 
Determining percentage deoxycytidine methylation
The concentration of dCyt and MdCyt in each sample was calculated from the standard curves using the analyte/internal standard ratio (M+0/M+3) by reverse prediction. Percentage dCyt methylation (%MdCyt) was calculated by dividing the MdCyt concentration by the total dCyt concentration ([dCyt] + [MdCyt]).

Inter- and intraassay variability
Intraassay variability was determined by running six replicate DNA samples within the same run. Interassay variability was determined by running six replicate DNA samples on 6 consecutive days.

Effect of [U-15N]DNA concentration on measured deoxycytidine methylation
To determine the effect of variations in the volume (e.g. due to pipetting error) of added [U-15N]DNA internal standard had on %MdCyt, 50 µl of a stock dCyt and MdCyt mixture were spiked (in triplicate) with 25, 50 or 75 µl of the Digest Mix. Concentrations of dCyt and MdCyt were determined as described above, as was %MdCyt.

Preparation of stock DNA mixtures of varying percentage DNA methylation
Using a REPLI-g Midi kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) 100 ng of pooled lymphocyte DNA was amplified to ~40 µg according to the manufacturer's instructions. Amplification produces an unmethylated end product that, according to the manufacturer's literature, is essentially fully double stranded. The amplified DNA was divided, and half was methylated using SssI (CpG) methyltransferase (New England Biochemicals). The DNA was purified using a Qiaex II Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen). The methylated and unmethylated DNA was mixed to give a series of samples with known ratios of methylated to unmethylated DNA. Percentage DNA methylation for each sample was determined by LC-MS/MS as described above.

Methyl-acceptance assay
DNA samples showing wide variability in methylation (as determined by LC-MS/MS) were identified from a folate intervention study (26). The relative abundance of unmethylated cytosines in the CpG motif in these samples was determined using a modification (27) of the Balaghi and Wagner [3H]methyl-acceptance assay (28). In brief, DNA (0.5 µg) was incubated with SssI methyltransferase (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA) and [3H]methyl S-adenosylmethionione (New England Nuclear, Boston) at 30°C for 4 h. The DNA was collected on a DE81 ion-exchange filter. After washing, to remove unincorporated label, the dried filter paper was counted in a liquid scintillation counter. Each DNA sample was analyzed in triplicate. Typical inter- and intraassay variability determined using a pooled lymphocyte DNA sample were 10 and 7%, respectively.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
[U-15N]internal standard
Using only a portion of the [U-15N]-labeled DNA extracted from each 50 ml E. coli culture, we were able to produce several milligrams of hypermethylated DNA. After digesting to deoxynucleosides this produced enough [U-15N]-labeled internal standard for several tens-of-thousands of assays. All of the components used are inexpensive and readily available commercially. This biosynthetic method produced highly enriched [15N3]dCyt and [15N3]MdCyt internal standards containing <0.5% of the unlabeled (M+0) isotopomer. Similarly, the contribution of unlabeled dCyt and MdCyt standards to the M+3 signal (e.g. due to natural enrichment) was minor (<0.1%).

Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy
The chromatographic conditions gave good separation of dCyt and MdCyt (Figure 2). The relatively high specificity of the mass transitions employed yielded good signal-to-noise ratios with negligible appearance of contaminating peaks. [15N2]Deoxyuridine and [15N2]thymidine (derived from the [U-15N]-labeled DNA) have, respectively, similar mass transition to [15N3]dCyt (231.1->115.0) and [15N3]MdCyt (245.1->129.0). However, their retention time (deoxyuridine = 1.59 min; thymidine = 3.13 min) were sufficiently dissimilar from dCyt (retention time = 1.20) and MdCyt (retention time = 1.94) so as not to interfere with the analysis. Furthermore, under normal experimental conditions [15N2]deoxyuridine was not present at detectable concentrations.


Figure 2
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2. LC-MS/MS chromatogram of a typical sample, showing (a) deoxycytidine, (c) 5-methyldeoxycytidine peak, (b) and (d) their respective [15N3]-labeled internal standard peaks.

 
Standard curves
After adjusting for internal standard recovery (M+0/M+3), standard curves were linear over the range of interest (dCyt: 1–100 µmol/l; MdCyt: 0.1–10 µmol/l; P ≥ 0.999) and over a range at least an order of magnitude higher and lower.

Inter- and intraassay reproducibility and variability
The assay exhibited good reproducibility and little inter- (4.36%; %RSD = 2.36%; n = 6) and intraassay (4.33%; %RSD = 2.49%; n = 6) variability. The importance of using an internal standard was evident from the large variability observed for the unadjusted dCyt and MdCyt peak areas (Table 1). This was particularly evident for MdCyt determination, where a large decrease in peak area (~25%) was observed between the third and subsequent samples, resulting in a large variation in peak area (%RSD {approx} 20%). However, as the response of the [15N3]MdCyt internal standard was similarly affected (as would be expected), the %RSD for the corrected MdCyt peak area (M+0/M+3) was only 2.54%.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. An example of interassay peak area variability observed in the assay, and its correction using recovery of the [15N3]-labeled internal standard

 
Effect of varying internal standard or sample DNA concentrations
As expected, the volume of internal standard added to the sample greatly affected (Table 2) apparent dCyt and MdCyt concentration. In contrast, %MdCyt values were independent of the internal standard concentration. Similarly, when changing the sample DNA concentration (using 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 µg) the measured concentrations of dCyt and MdCyt increased with DNA concentration, while the %MdCyt was consistent (%RSD = 2.3%; data not shown). Consequently, the amount of internal standard or sample DNA used in the assay has little effect on the measured %MdCyt.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. The effect of varying the volume of [U-15N]-internal standard added on the apparent concentrations of deoxycytidine (dCyt) and 5-methyldeoxycytidine (MdCyt), and on apparent percentage deoxycytidine methylation (%MdCyt)

 
Linearity of DNA admix
The REPLI-g amplified product exhibited little (<0.1%) DNA methylation while the post methylated (with SssI) DNA had 3.94% DNA methylation. Admixes of the methylated and unmethylated DNA, containing different fixed ratios of the methylated and unmethylated DNA, exhibited (Figure 3) good linearity (r = 0.9998) when assayed by LC-MS/MS.


Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 3. Percentage methylation of DNA admixes, each containing a fixed ratio of methylated to unmethylated DNA. The plot shows the percentage DNA methylation for each admix versus the percentage fully methylated DNA in each sample. DNA admixes were prepared by mixing known ratios of methylated and unmethylated DNA. The resulting mixtures were analyzed by LC-MS/MS to determine their percentage DNA methylation. Unmethylated DNA was prepared by amplifying genomic DNA as described in the text. Methylated DNA was prepared by methylating the amplified DNA with SssI (CpG) methyltransferase.

 
Comparison of LC-MS/MS and [3H]methyl-acceptance assay results
Results from the LC-MS/MS assay and the [3H]methyl-acceptance assay are not directly comparable as the LC-MS/MS assay quantitatively measures the percentage of methylated dCyt in the sample, while the [3H]methyl-acceptance assay semiquantitatively measures the number of unmethylated dCyt in the CpG motif (e.g. the results from both assays are, at best, inversely proportional). However, within the confines of the assay (particularly the [3H]methyl-acceptance assay) the two assays showed good agreement with each other (Table 3), with samples with a relatively low %MdCyt exhibiting a relatively high methyl-acceptance capacity.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Comparison methylation in human DNA determined by LC-MS/MS, or by [3H]methyl-acceptance

 
Sample throughput and clinical applications
Using a Repeater Pipetter (Eppendorf) it was possible to add Digest Mix to each well of a 96-well plate in <2 min. In this manner >500 pre-plated samples (26,29) could be digested in a single day. These >500 samples could then be analyzed LC-MS/MS in <3 days, due to the short chromatography time for each sample (6 min. from injection to injection).


   CONCLUSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
We have devised a simple and inexpensive protocol for synthesizing [U-15N3]-labeled deoxynucleoside. Using these [U-15N3]internal standards we have devised a LC-MS/MS protocol for the high-throughput determination of percentage DNA methylation. The one-step sample digestion procedure, and ability to prepare and analyze large numbers of samples (>500 samples) in a single assay, greatly reduce the risk of sample error and potentially limits intersample variability. Furthermore, as this method gives an absolute measure of DNA methylation (rather than the relative values determined by the cytosine extension or [3H]methyl-acceptance assays) results from different studies or different labs are directly comparable.


   FUNDING
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
REFERENCES
 
National Institutes of Health (DK72398, partial); General Clinical Research Center (MO1-RR00082); Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Funding for open access charge: NIH [grant number DK 72398].

Conflict of interest statement. None declared


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 
The authors wish to thank David Maneval for performing the REPLI-g DNA amplification and [3H]methyl-acceptance assays.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Experimental Section
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSION
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Delgado S, Gomez M, Bird A. Antrquera, F. Initiation of DNA replication at CpG islnds in mammalian chromosomes. EMBO J. (1998) 17:2426–2435.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  2. Hsieh C-L. Dependence of transcriptional repression on CpG methylation density. Mol. Cell Biol. (1994) 14:5487–5494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  3. Razin A. CpG methylation, chromatin structure and gene silencing – a three-way connection. EMBO J. (1998) 17:4905–4908.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  4. Bartolomei MS, Tilghman SM. Genomic imprinting in mammals. Annu. Rev. Genet. (1997) 31:493–525.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  5. Heard E, Clerc P. Avner, P. X-chromosome inactivation in mammals. Annu. Rev. Genet. (1997) 31:571–610.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  6. Gama-Sosa MA, Midgett RM, Slagel VA, Githens S, Kuo KC, Gehrke CW, Ehrlich M. Tissue-specific differences in DNA methylation in various mammals. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (1983) 740:212–219.[Medline]

  7. Ehrlich M, Gama-Sosa MA, Huang L.-H, Midgett RM, Kuo KC, McCune RA, Gehrke C. Amount and distribution of 5-methylcytosine in human DNA from different types of tissues or cells. Nucleic Acids Res. (1982) 10:2709–2721.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  8. Qu G, Grundy PE, Narayan A, Ehrlich M. Frequent hypomethylation in Wilms tumors of pericentromeric DNA in chromasomes 1 and 16. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. (1999) 109:34–39.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  9. Bernardino J, Roux C, Almeida A, Vogt N, Gibaud A, Gerbault-Seureau M, Magdelenat H, Bourgeois CA, Malfoy B, Dutrillaux B. DNA hypomethylation in breast cancer: an independent parameter of tumor progression? Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. (1997) 97:83–89.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  10. Chen RZ, Pettersson U, Beard C, Jackson-Grusby L, Jaenisch R. DNA hypomethylation leads to elevated mutation rates. Nature (1998) 395:89–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  11. Ji W, Hernandez R, Zhang XY, Qu GZ, Frady A, Varela M, Ehrlich M. DNA demethylation and pericentromeric rearrangements of chromosome 1. Mutat. Res. (1997) 379:33–41.[Web of Science][Medline]

  12. Friso S, Choi S.-W, Girelli D, Mason JB, Dolnikowski GG, Bagley PJ, Olivieri O, Jacques PF, Rosenberg IH, Corrocher R, et al. A common mutation in the 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene affects genomic DNA methylation through an interaction with folate status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA (2002) 99:5606–5611.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  13. Shrubsole MJ, Gao Y.-T, Cai Q, Shu XO, Dai Q, Hebert JR, Jin F, Zheng W. MTHFR polymorphisms, dietary folate intake, and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. (2004) 13:190–196.[CrossRef]

  14. Gerhard DS, Nguyen LT, Zhang ZY, Borecki IB, Coleman BI, Rader JS. A relationship between methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase variants and the development of invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. (2003) 90:560–565.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  15. Oyama K, Kawakami K, Maeda K, Ishiguro K, Watanabe G. The association between methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism and promoter methylation in proximal colon cancer. Anticancer Res. (2004) 24:649–654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  16. Whitehead AS, Gallagher P, Mills JL, Kirke PN, Burke H, Molloy AM, Weir DG, Shields DC, Scott JM. A genetic defect in 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase in neural tube defects. Q. J. Med. (1995) 88:763–766.

  17. Axume J, Smith SS, Pogribny IP, Moriarty DJ, Caudill MA. The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase 677TT genotype and folate intake interact to lower global leukocyte DNA methylation in young Mexican American women. Nutr. Res. 27:13–17.

  18. Pufulete M, Al-Ghnaniem R, Leather AJ, Appleby P, Gout S, Terry C, Emery PW, Sanders TA. Folate status, genomic DNA hypomethylation, and risk of colorectal adenoma and cancer: a case control study. Gastroenterology (2003) 124:1240–1248.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  19. Friso S, Choi S.-W, Dolnikowski GG, Selhub J. A method to assess genomic DNA methylation using high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. (2002) 74:4526–4531.[Medline]

  20. Shelnutt KP, Kauwell GP, Gregory J.F. III, Maneval DR, Quinlivan EP, Theriaque DW, Henderson GN, Bailey LB. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase 677C–>T polymorphism affects DNA methylation in response to controlled folate intake in young women. J. Nutr. Biochem. (2004) 15:554–560.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  21. Liu Z, Liu S, Xie Z, Blum W, Perrotti D, Paschka P, Klisovic R, Byrd J, Chan KK, Marcucci G. Characterization of in vitro and in vivo hypomethylating effects of decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia by a rapid, specific and sensitive LC-MS/MS method. Nucleic Acids Res. (2007) 35:e31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  22. Song L, James SR, Kazim L, Karpf AR. Specific method for the determination of genomic DNA methylation by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. (2005) 77:504–510.[Medline]

  23. Quinlivan EP, McPartlin J, Weir DG, Scott JM. Mechanism of the antimicrobial drug trimethoprim revisited. FASEB J. (2000) 14:2519–2524.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  24. Quinlivan EP, Gregory JF. DNA digestion to deoxyribonucleosides: a simplified one-step procedure. Anal. Biochem. (2008) 373:383–385.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  25. Dawson RMC, Elliott DC, Elliott WH, Jones JM. Data for Biomedical Research (1969) 2nd. Oxford University Press: New York. 169–179.

  26. Quinlivan E, Crider K, Berry RJ, Hao L, Li Z, Zhu J.-H, Maneval D, Young TP, Bailey LB. Global DNA methylation changes in response to chronic consumption and withdrawal of low, moderate, and high folic acid doses. FASEB J. (2008) 22:689.7.

  27. Rampersaud GC, Kauwell GP, Hutson AD, Cerda JJ, Bailey LB. Genomic DNA methylation decreases in response to moderate folate depletion in elderly women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (2000) 72:998–1003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  28. Balaghi M, Wagner C. DNA methylation in folate deficiency: use of cpg methylase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. (1993) 193:1184–1190.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  29. Zhu J-H, Ling L, Li Z, Quinlivan E, Maneval D, Yang TP, Berry RJ, Crider K, Rasmussen S, Bailey LB. Low vitamin B12 status is negatively associated with global DNA methylation in young Chinese women. FASEB J. (2008) 22:689.8.

  30. Rhee I, Bachman KE, Park BH, Jair KW, Yen RW, Schuebel KE, Cui H, Feinberg AP, Lengauer C, Kinzler KW, et al. DNMT1 and DNMT3b cooperate to silence genes in human cancer cells. Nature (2002) 416:552–556.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
Y. Kadariya, B. Yin, B. Tang, S. A. Shinton, E. P. Quinlivan, X. Hua, A. Klein-Szanto, T. I. Al-Saleem, C. H. Bassing, R. R. Hardy, et al.
Mice Heterozygous for Germ-line Mutations in Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase (MTAP) Die Prematurely of T-Cell Lymphoma
Cancer Res., July 15, 2009; 69(14): 5961 - 5969.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Nutr.Home page
Y. Lamers, J. Williamson, M. Ralat, E. P. Quinlivan, L. R. Gilbert, C. Keeling, R. D. Stevens, C. B. Newgard, P. M. Ueland, K. Meyer, et al.
Moderate Dietary Vitamin B-6 Restriction Raises Plasma Glycine and Cystathionine Concentrations While Minimally Affecting the Rates of Glycine Turnover and Glycine Cleavage in Healthy Men and Women
J. Nutr., March 1, 2009; 139(3): 452 - 460.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Print PDF (275K) Freely available
Right arrow Screen PDF (163K) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
36/18/e119    most recent
gkn534v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Commercial Re-use Guidelines
for Open Access NAR Content
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quinlivan, E. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quinlivan, E. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gregory, J. F., III
Related Collections
Right arrow Nucleic acid modification
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?