Effects of ploidy variation on promoter DNA methylation and gene expression in rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polyploidy, or whole-genome duplication (WGD) promotes genetic diversification in plants. However, whether WGD is accompanied by epigenetic regulation especially DNA methylation remains yet elusive. Methylation of different region in genomic DNA play discrete role in gene regulation and developmental processes in plants. RESULTS: In our study, we used an apomictic rice line (SARII-628) that produces twin seedlings of different ploidy for methylated DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeDIP-seq). We compared the level of methylation and mRNA expression in three different (CG, CHG, and CHH) sequence contexts of promoter region among haploid (1X), diploid (2X), and triploid (3X) seedling. We used MeDIP-Seq analysis of 14 genes to investigate whole genome DNA methylation and found that relative level of DNA methylation across different ploidy was in following order e.g. diploid > triploid > haploid. GO functional classification of differentially methylated genes into 9 comparisons group of promoter, intergenic and intragenic region discovered, these genes were mostly enriched for cellular component, molecular function, and biological process. By the comparison of methylome data, digital gene expression (DGE), mRNA expression profile, and Q-PCR findings LOC_ Os07g31450 and LOC_ Os01g59320 were analyzed for BS-Seq (Bisulphite sequencing). CONCLUSIONS: We found that (1) The level of the promoter DNA methylation is negatively correlated with gene expression within each ploidy level. (2) Among all ploidy levels, CG sequence context had highest methylation frequency, and demonstrated that the high CG methylation did reduce gene expression change suggesting that DNA methylation exert repressive function and ensure genome stability during WGD. (3) Alteration in ploidy (from diploid to haploid, or diploid to triploid) reveals supreme changes in methylation frequency of CHH sequence context. Our finding will contribute an understanding towards lower stability of CHH sequence context and educate the effect of promoter region methylation during change in ploidy state in rice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".