Key Points
-
Many epigenetic approaches contribute to our understanding of gene regulation and cell identity. By pursuing these epigenetic approaches, different levels of functionality can be proven for epigenomic features.
-
Epigenomic profiling is providing a descriptive view of the chromatin landscape, and data integration enables us to 'infer' functionality from complex data sets.
-
Genetic manipulations are crucial to show the relevance of chromatin-modifying enzymes (and genomic domains that harbour epigenomic features); however, they can sometimes fall short of distinguishing the effect of an epigenomic feature from other induced changes.
-
Epigenome editing provides a new possibility to test the functionality of epigenomic features directly. Numerous recent publications have indicated a ubiquitous applicability of epigenome editing and its potential in manipulating gene expression.
-
Once current limitations are overcome, epigenetic screens — using large-scale epigenome editing approaches across the epigenome — will allow functional epigenomic features to be distinguished from non-functional counterparts.
Abstract
Myriads of epigenomic features have been comprehensively profiled in health and disease across cell types, tissues and individuals. Although current epigenomic approaches can infer function for chromatin marks through correlation, it remains challenging to establish which marks actually have causative roles in gene regulation and other processes. After revisiting how classical approaches have addressed this question in the past, we discuss the current state of epigenomic profiling and how functional information can be indirectly inferred. We also present new approaches that promise definitive functional answers, which are collectively referred to as 'epigenome editing'. In particular, we explore CRISPR-based technologies for single-locus and multi-locus manipulation. Finally, we discuss which level of function can be achieved with each approach and introduce emerging strategies for high-throughput progression from profiles to function.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jaenisch, R. & Bird, A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat. Genet. 33, 245–254 (2003).
Waddington, C. H. The epigenotype. 1942. Int. J. Epidemiol. 41, 10–13 (2012).
Waddington, C. H. The Strategy of the Genes; a Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology (Allen & Unwin, 1957). The first occurrence of the epigenetic landscape as a metaphor of epigenetic mechanisms.
Benayoun, B. A., Pollina, E. A. & Brunet, A. Epigenetic regulation of ageing: linking environmental inputs to genomic stability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 593–610 (2015).
Clark, S. J., Lee, H. J., Smallwood, S. A., Kelsey, G. & Reik, W. Single-cell epigenomics: powerful new methods for understanding gene regulation and cell identity. Genome Biol. 17, 72 (2016).
Berdasco, M. & Esteller, M. Aberrant epigenetic landscape in cancer: how cellular identity goes awry. Dev. Cell 19, 698–711 (2010).
Bird, A. Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature 447, 396–398 (2007).
Henikoff, S. & Greally, J. M. Epigenetics, cellular memory and gene regulation. Curr. Biol. 26, R644–R648 (2016).
Taudt, A., Colome-Tatche, M. & Johannes, F. Genetic sources of population epigenomic variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 319–332 (2016).
Zhao, Y. & Zhou, D. X. Epigenomic modification and epigenetic regulation in rice. J. Genet. Genomics 39, 307–315 (2012).
Ha, M. Understanding the chromatin remodeling code. Plant Sci. 211, 137–145 (2013).
Schmitz, R. J. & Ecker, J. R. Epigenetic and epigenomic variation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 149–154 (2012).
Law, J. A. & Jacobsen, S. E. Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 204–220 (2010).
Mendenhall, E. M. et al. Locus-specific editing of histone modifications at endogenous enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1133–1136 (2013). This paper coined the term 'epigenome editing' by providing an excellent example proving its capacity.
Köferle, A., Stricker, S. H. & Beck, S. Brave new epigenomes: the dawn of epigenetic engineering. Genome Med. 7, 59 (2015).
Dominguez, A. A., Lim, W. A. & Qi, L. S. Beyond editing: repurposing CRISPR–Cas9 for precision genome regulation and interrogation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 5–15 (2016).
Keung, A. J., Joung, J. K., Khalil, A. S. & Collins, J. J. Chromatin regulation at the frontier of synthetic biology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 159–171 (2015).
Shalem, O., Sanjana, N. E. & Zhang, F. High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 299–311 (2015).
Spitz, F. & Furlong, E. E. Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 613–626 (2012).
Mueller-Planitz, F., Klinker, H. & Becker, P. B. Nucleosome sliding mechanisms: new twists in a looped history. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1026–1032 (2013).
Narlikar, G. J., Sundaramoorthy, R. & Owen-Hughes, T. Mechanisms and functions of ATP-dependent chromatin-remodeling enzymes. Cell 154, 490–503 (2013).
Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
Mifsud, B. et al. Mapping long-range promoter contacts in human cells with high-resolution capture Hi-C. Nat. Genet. 47, 598–606 (2015).
Hotchkiss, R. D. The quantitative separation of purines, pyrimidines, and nucleosides by paper chromatography. J. Biol. Chem. 175, 315–332 (1948).
Wu, T. P. et al. DNA methylation on N6-adenine in mammalian embryonic stem cells. Nature 532, 329–333 (2016).
Booth, M. J., Raiber, E. A. & Balasubramanian, S. Chemical methods for decoding cytosine modifications in DNA. Chem. Rev. 115, 2240–2254 (2015).
Balasubramanian, S. Chemical biology on the genome. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 22, 4356–4370 (2014).
Tan, M. et al. Identification of 67 histone marks and histone lysine crotonylation as a new type of histone modification. Cell 146, 1016–1028 (2011).
Khare, S. P. et al. HIstome — a relational knowledgebase of human histone proteins and histone modifying enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D337–D342 (2012).
Zhou, V. W., Goren, A. & Bernstein, B. E. Charting histone modifications and the functional organization of mammalian genomes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 7–18 (2011).
Tessarz, P. & Kouzarides, T. Histone core modifications regulating nucleosome structure and dynamics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 703–708 (2014).
Maurano, M. T. et al. Systematic localization of common disease-associated variation in regulatory DNA. Science 337, 1190–1195 (2012).
Li, S. & Mason, C. E. The pivotal regulatory landscape of RNA modifications. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 15, 127–150 (2014).
Dominissini, D. et al. The dynamic N1-methyladenosine methylome in eukaryotic messenger RNA. Nature 530, 441–446 (2016).
Machnicka, M. A. et al. MODOMICS: a database of RNA modification pathways — 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D262–D267 (2013).
Cantara, W. A. et al. The RNA Modification Database, RNAMDB: 2011 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D195–D201 (2011).
Wang, X. & He, C. Dynamic RNA modifications in posttranscriptional regulation. Mol. Cell 56, 5–12 (2014).
Lupianez, D. G. et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 161, 1012–1025 (2015). A prime example of the use of genome-editing technology to show the specific functionality of domains containing complex epigenomic features.
Roadmap Epigenomics, C. et al. Integrative analysis of111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015). One of several key publications of the Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium providing a public resource of epigenomic data.
Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. Large-scale imputation of epigenomic datasets for systematic annotation of diverse human tissues. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 364–376 (2015).
Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216 (2012). This publication is an example of the possibilities complex epigenomic data holds for the inference of functionality.
Hoffman, M. M. et al. Unsupervised pattern discovery in human chromatin structure through genomic segmentation. Nat. Methods 9, 473–476 (2012).
Hoffman, M. M. et al. Integrative annotation of chromatin elements from ENCODE data. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 827–841 (2013).
Whalen, S., Truty, R. M. & Pollard, K. S. Enhancer-promoter interactions are encoded by complex genomic signatures on looping chromatin. Nat. Genet. 48, 488–496 (2016).
Claussnitzer, M. et al. FTO obesity variant circuitry and adipocyte browning in humans. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 895–907 (2015). This paper shows how GWAS and epigenomic data can be integrated to gain new insights into disease mechanisms.
Onengut-Gumuscu, S. et al. Fine mapping of type 1 diabetes susceptibility loci and evidence for colocalization of causal variants with lymphoid gene enhancers. Nat. Genet. 47, 381–386 (2015).
Saeed, S. et al. Epigenetic programming of monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation and trained innate immunity. Science 345, 1251086 (2014).
Spisak, S. et al. CAUSEL: an epigenome- and genome-editing pipeline for establishing function of noncoding GWAS variants. Nat. Med. 21, 1357–1363 (2015).
Kurukuti, S. et al. CTCF binding at the H19 imprinting control region mediates maternally inherited higher-order chromatin conformation to restrict enhancer access to Igf2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10684–10689 (2006).
Murrell, A., Heeson, S. & Reik, W. Interaction between differentially methylated regions partitions the imprinted genes Igf2 and H19 into parent-specific chromatin loops. Nat. Genet. 36, 889–893 (2004). Among the first papers to show the involvement of chromatin architecture in genomic imprinting.
Wutz, A. et al. Imprinted expression of the Igf2r gene depends on an intronic CpG island. Nature 389, 745–749 (1997).
Latos, P. A. et al. Airn transcriptional overlap, but not its lncRNA products, induces imprinted Igf2r silencing. Science 338, 1469–1472 (2012). This publication shows the functional relevance of non-coding transcription (and not the ncRNA itself) to an epigenetic model of gene silencing.
Fanucchi, S., Shibayama, Y., Burd, S., Weinberg, M. S. & Mhlanga, M. M. Chromosomal contact permits transcription between coregulated genes. Cell 155, 606–620 (2013).
Kim, H. & Kim, J. S. A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 321–334 (2014).
Zhou, H. Y. et al. A Sox2 distal enhancer cluster regulates embryonic stem cell differentiation potential. Genes Dev. 28, 2699–2711 (2014).
Groschel, S. et al. A single oncogenic enhancer rearrangement causes concomitant EVI1 and GATA2 deregulation in leukemia. Cell 157, 369–381 (2014).
Webster, D. E. et al. Enhancer-targeted genome editing selectively blocks innate resistance to oncokinase inhibition. Genome Res. 24, 751–760 (2014).
Wang, S., Wen, F., Tessneer, K. L. & Gaffney, P. M. TALEN-mediated enhancer knockout influences TNFAIP3 gene expression and mimics a molecular phenotype associated with systemic lupus erythematosus. Genes Immun. 17, 165–170 (2016).
Canver, M. C. et al. BCL11A enhancer dissection by Cas9-mediated in situ saturating mutagenesis. Nature 527, 192–197 (2015).
Guo, Y. et al. CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162, 900–910 (2015).
Korkmaz, G. et al. Functional genetic screens for enhancer elements in the human genome using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 192–198 (2016). Among the first publications to show the potential of CRISPR for functional screens of non-coding elements.
Bulut-Karslioglu, A. et al. Suv39h-dependent H3K9me3 marks intact retrotransposons and silences LINE elements in mouse embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell 55, 277–290 (2014).
Martens, J. H. et al. The profile of repeat-associated histone lysine methylation states in the mouse epigenome. EMBO J. 24, 800–812 (2005).
Branco, M. R., Oda, M. & Reik, W. Safeguarding parental identity: Dnmt1 maintains imprints during epigenetic reprogramming in early embryogenesis. Genes Dev. 22, 1567–1571 (2008).
Seidl, C. I., Stricker, S. H. & Barlow, D. P. The imprinted Air ncRNA is an atypical RNAPII transcript that evades splicing and escapes nuclear export. EMBO J. 25, 3565–3575 (2006).
Li, E., Bestor, T. H. & Jaenisch, R. Targeted mutation of the DNA methyltransferase gene results in embryonic lethality. Cell 69, 915–926 (1992). Early example of the use of gene targeting to study the effect of epigenomic marks.
Okano, M., Bell, D. W., Haber, D. A. & Li, E. DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell 99, 247–257 (1999).
Tachibana, M. et al. G9a histone methyltransferase plays a dominant role in euchromatic histone H3 lysine 9 methylation and is essential for early embryogenesis. Genes Dev. 16, 1779–1791 (2002).
Peters, A. H. et al. Loss of the Suv39h histone methyltransferases impairs mammalian heterochromatin and genome stability. Cell 107, 323–337 (2001).
Lagger, G. et al. Essential function of histone deacetylase 1 in proliferation control and CDK inhibitor repression. EMBO J. 21, 2672–2681 (2002).
O'Carroll, D. et al. The Polycomb-group gene Ezh2 is required for early mouse development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 4330–4336 (2001).
Dodge, J. E., Kang, Y. K., Beppu, H., Lei, H. & Li, E. Histone H3-K9 methyltransferase ESET is essential for early development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 2478–2486 (2004).
Wang, J. et al. The lysine demethylase LSD1 (KDM1) is required for maintenance of global DNA methylation. Nat. Genet. 41, 125–129 (2009).
Bradley, A. et al. The mammalian gene function resource: the International Knockout Mouse Consortium. Mamm. Genome 23, 580–586 (2012).
Eppig, J. T. et al. The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): facilitating mouse as a model for human biology and disease. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D726–D736 (2015).
Zhang, X., Wen, H. & Shi, X. Lysine methylation: beyond histones. Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. (Shanghai) 44, 14–27 (2012).
Glozak, M. A., Sengupta, N., Zhang, X. & Seto, E. Acetylation and deacetylation of non-histone proteins. Gene 363, 15–23 (2005).
Broske, A. M. et al. DNA methylation protects hematopoietic stem cell multipotency from myeloerythroid restriction. Nat. Genet. 41, 1207–1215 (2009).
Lee, P. P. et al. A critical role for Dnmt1 and DNA methylation in T cell development, function, and survival. Immunity 15, 763–774 (2001).
Shaknovich, R. et al. DNA methyltransferase 1 and DNA methylation patterning contribute to germinal center B-cell differentiation. Blood 118, 3559–3569 (2011).
Su, I. H. et al. Polycomb group protein Ezh2 controls actin polymerization and cell signaling. Cell 121, 425–436 (2005).
Su, I. H. et al. Ezh2 controls B cell development through histone H3 methylation and Igh rearrangement. Nat. Immunol. 4, 124–131 (2003).
Boonsanay, V. et al. Regulation of skeletal muscle stem cell quiescence by Suv4-20h1-Dependent facultative heterochromatin formation. Cell Stem Cell 18, 229–242 (2016).
Delgado-Olguin, P. et al. Epigenetic repression of cardiac progenitor gene expression by Ezh2 is required for postnatal cardiac homeostasis. Nat. Genet. 44, 343–347 (2012).
Montgomery, R. L. et al. Histone deacetylases 1 and 2 redundantly regulate cardiac morphogenesis, growth, and contractility. Genes Dev. 21, 1790–1802 (2007).
Dawson, M. A. & Kouzarides, T. Cancer epigenetics: from mechanism to therapy. Cell 150, 12–27 (2012).
Domcke, S. et al. Competition between DNA methylation and transcription factors determines binding of NRF1. Nature 528, 575–579 (2015). Domcke et al . use DNA-methylation-free ES cells to study transcription factor dependencies.
Riising, E. M. et al. Gene silencing triggers polycomb repressive complex 2 recruitment to CpG islands genome wide. Mol. Cell 55, 347–360 (2014).
Schmitz, S. U. et al. Jarid1b targets genes regulating development and is involved in neural differentiation. EMBO J. 30, 4586–4600 (2011).
Lewis, P. W. et al. Inhibition of PRC2 activity by a gain-of-Function H3 mutation found in pediatric glioblastoma. Science 340, 857–861 (2013). This publication reveals that histone mutations found in paediatric gliomas are globally blocking Polycomb-repressive complex 2 (PRC2) activity.
McKay, D. J. et al. Interrogating the function of metazoan histones using engineered gene clusters. Dev. Cell 32, 373–386 (2015).
McKnight, J. N., Tsukiyama, T. & Bowman, G. D. Sequence-targeted nucleosome sliding in vivo by a hybrid Chd1 chromatin remodeler. Genome Res. 26, 693–704 (2016).
Knight, S. C. et al. Dynamics of CRISPR–Cas9 genome interrogation in living cells. Science 350, 823–826 (2015).
Chavez, A. et al. Comparison of Cas9 activators in multiple species. Nat. Methods 13, 563–567 (2016).
Maeder, M. L. et al. Targeted DNA demethylation and activation of endogenous genes using programmable TALE–TET1 fusion proteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1137–1142 (2013). Maeder et al . show that targeted DNA demethylation using TALE proteins can influence transcription of endogenous genes.
Hilton, I. B. et al. Epigenome editing by a CRISPR–Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 510–517 (2015). A key example of epigenome editing using acetyltransferase activity.
Kearns, N. A. et al. Functional annotation of native enhancers with a Cas9-histone demethylase fusion. Nat. Methods 12, 401–403 (2015). A further key example of epigenome editing based on a histone de-methylase.
Rivenbark, A. G. et al. Epigenetic reprogramming of cancer cells via targeted DNA methylation. Epigenetics 7, 350–360 (2012).
Siddique, A. N. et al. Targeted methylation and gene silencing of VEGF-A in human cells by using a designed Dnmt3a-Dnmt3L single-chain fusion protein with increased DNA methylation activity. J. Mol. Biol. 425, 479–491 (2013).
Bernstein, D. L., Le Lay, J. E., Ruano, E. G. & Kaestner, K. H. TALE-mediated epigenetic suppression of CDKN2A increases replication in human fibroblasts. J. Clin. Invest. 125, 1998–2006 (2015).
Minucci, S. & Pelicci, P. G. Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 38–51 (2006).
Papp, B. & Plath, K. Epigenetics of reprogramming to induced pluripotency. Cell 152, 1324–1343 (2013).
Heller, E. A. et al. Locus-specific epigenetic remodeling controls addiction- and depression-related behaviors. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1720–1727 (2014).
Amabile, A. et al. Inheritable silencing of endogenous genes by hit-and-run targeted epigenetic editing. Cell 167, 219–232 (2016).
Liu, X. S. et al. Editing DNA methylation in the mammalian genome. Cell 167, 233–247 (2016).
Vojta, A. et al. Repurposing the CRISPR–Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5615–5628 (2016).
Kungulovski, G. et al. Targeted epigenome editing of an endogenous locus with chromatin modifiers is not stably maintained. Epigenet. Chromatin 8, 12 (2015).
Bintu, L. et al. Dynamics of epigenetic regulation at the single-cell level. Science 351, 720–724 (2016).
Keung, A. J., Bashor, C. J., Kiriakov, S., Collins, J. J. & Khalil, A. S. Using targeted chromatin regulators to engineer combinatorial and spatial transcriptional regulation. Cell 158, 110–120 (2014).
Konermann, S. et al. Optical control of mammalian endogenous transcription and epigenetic states. Nature 500, 472–476 (2013).
Tschopp, P. & Duboule, D. A genetic approach to the transcriptional regulation of Hox gene clusters. Annu. Rev. Genet. 45, 145–166 (2011).
Splinter, E. et al. CTCF mediates long-range chromatin looping and local histone modification in the β-globin locus. Genes Dev. 20, 2349–2354 (2006).
Deng, W. et al. Reactivation of developmentally silenced globin genes by forced chromatin looping. Cell 158, 849–860 (2014).
Schwartzman, O. & Tanay, A. Single-cell epigenomics: techniques and emerging applications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 716–726 (2015).
Köferle, A. et al. CORALINA: a universal method for the generation of gRNA lbraries for CRISPR-based screening. BMC Genomics http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3268-z (in the press) (2016).
Lane, A. B. et al. Enzymatically generated CRISPR libraries for genome labeling and screening. Dev. Cell 34, 373–378 (2015).
Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M. & Smolenski, J. Don't edit the human germ line. Nature 519, 410–411 (2015).
Wyatt, G. R. Recognition and estimation of 5-methylcytosine in nucleic acids. Biochem. J. 48, 581–584 (1951).
Scarano, E. The control of gene function in cell differentiation and in embryogenesis. Adv. Cytopharmacol 1, 13–24 (1971).
Holliday, R. & Pugh, J. E. DNA modification mechanisms and gene activity during development. Science 187, 226–232 (1975).
Riggs, A. D. X inactivation, differentiation, and DNA methylation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 14, 9–25 (1975).
McGhee, J. D. & Ginder, G. D. Specific DNA methylation sites in the vicinity of the chicken β-globin genes. Nature 280, 419–420 (1979).
Sutter, D., Westphal, M. & Doerfler, W. Patterns of integration of viral DNA sequences in the genomes of adenovirus type 12-transformed hamster cells. Cell 14, 569–585 (1978).
Jahner, D. et al. De novo methylation and expression of retroviral genomes during mouse embryogenesis. Nature 298, 623–628 (1982).
Wolf, S. F., Jolly, D. J., Lunnen, K. D., Friedmann, T. & Migeon, B. R. Methylation of the hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase locus on the human X chromosome: implications for X-chromosome inactivation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 2806–2810 (1984).
Li, E., Beard, C. & Jaenisch, R. Role for DNA methylation in genomic imprinting. Nature 366, 362–365 (1993).
Busslinger, M., Hurst, J. & Flavell, R. A. DNA methylation and the regulation of globin gene expression. Cell 34, 197–206 (1983). Among the first studies to functionally test the relevance of an epigenomic mark.
Irizarry, R. A. et al. The human colon cancer methylome shows similar hypo- and hypermethylation at conserved tissue-specific CpG island shores. Nat. Genet. 41, 178–186 (2009).
Metivier, R. et al. Cyclical DNA methylation of a transcriptionally active promoter. Nature 452, 45–50 (2008).
Kangaspeska, S. et al. Transient cyclical methylation of promoter DNA. Nature 452, 112–115 (2008).
Hellman, A. & Chess, A. Gene body-specific methylation on the active X chromosome. Science 315, 1141–1143 (2007).
Lister, R. et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 462, 315–322 (2009).
Libertini, E. et al. Information recovery from low coverage whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. Nat. Commun. 7, 11306 (2016).
Martin, T. C., Yet, I., Tsai, P. C. & Bell, J. T. coMET: visualisation of regional epigenome-wide association scan results and DNA co-methylation patterns. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 131 (2015).
Maze, I., Noh, K. M., Soshnev, A. A. & Allis, C. D. Every amino acid matters: essential contributions of histone variants to mammalian development and disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 259–271 (2014).
Pradeepa, M. M. et al. Histone H3 globular domain acetylation identifies a new class of enhancers. Nat. Genet. 48, 681–686 (2016).
Buenrostro, J. D., Wu, B., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. ATAC-seq: A method for assaying chromatin accessibility genome-wide. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 109, 21.29.1–21.29.9 (2015).
Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009).
Barr, C. L. & Misener, V. L. Decoding the non-coding genome: elucidating genetic risk outside the coding genome. Genes Brain Behav. 15, 187–204 (2016).
Baker, M. Making sense of chromatin states. Nat. Methods 8, 717–722 (2011).
Cano-Rodriguez, D. et al. Writing of H3K4Me3 overcomes epigenetic silencing in a sustained but context-dependent manner. Nat. Commun. 7, 12284 (2016).
Choudhury, S. R., Cui, Y., Lubecka, K., Stefanska, B. & Irudayaraj, J. CRISPR–dCas9 mediated TET1 targeting for selective DNA demethylation at BRCA1 promoter. Oncotarget http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10234 (2016).
Xu, X. et al. A CRISPR-based approach for targeted DNA demethylation. Cell Discov. 2, 16009 (2016).
Snowden, A. W., Gregory, P. D., Case, C. C. & Pabo, C. O. Gene-specific targeting of H3K9 methylation is sufficient for initiating repression in vivo. Curr. Biol. 12, 2159–2166 (2002).
Acknowledgements
S.H.S. was supported by DFG (STR 1385/1-1). A.K. was supported by a CRUK Ph.D. Fellowship. S.B. was supported by the EU-FP7 BLUEPRINT Project (282510) and the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre (BRC84/CN/SB/5984).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Related links
DATABASES
FURTHER INFORMATION
Supplementary information
Supplementary Video 1
http://www.paulliamharrison.co.uk/movies/Genetic%20landscape%20model_0224.mov Contemporary version of the Waddington landscape (see also FIG. 1). Epigenetic and epigenomic manipulation promises to dynamically change the landscape and thus cellular phenotypes. This movie is from 'EpiGeneScapes' by Paul Liam Harrison (2015). EpigeneScapes is a body of work that includes animations, drawings, sculptures, interactive installations and a series of mixed media prints derived from the C. H. Waddington concept of the epigenetic landscape. The animated model was developed in collaboration with Mhairi Towler and Link Li and was undertaken as part of Paul Liam Harrison's role as Associate Artist with EpigeneSys European Network of Excellence. http://www.epigenesys.eu/en/science-and-you/art-and-science. Courtesy of P. L. Harrison, University of Dundee, UK, and EpiGeneSys. (MOV 26917 kb)
Glossary
- Genome-wide association studies
-
(GWAS). Studies that aim to identify genetic loci associated with an observable trait, disease or condition.
- Single-nucleotide polymorphisms
-
(SNPs). Single base-pair differences in the DNA sequence between individual members of a species.
- DNase I-hypersensitive sites
-
(DHSs). Regions of chromatin that are sensitive to digestion with DNase I, indicating that these sites are accessible and free of nucleosomes.
- Hi-C
-
Experimental method to map contacts formed between segments of DNA in three-dimensional space on a genome-wide scale.
- CRISPR–Cas9
-
(Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats–CRISPR-associated protein 9). Components of a bacterial defence system against viruses.
- COMETs
-
Blocks of co-methylation identified by methylome segmentation.
- Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing
-
(ChIP–seq). A method for mapping the distribution of histone modifications or chromatin-associated proteins or transcription factors along the genome. DNA and proteins are crosslinked and an antibody specific to the protein of interest is used to enrich for DNA sequences bound to this protein. These are then identified by sequencing, revealing the genome-wide profile of the protein of interest.
- Assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing
-
(ATAC-seq). A method to identify regions of open chromatin in cells using an engineered Tn5 transposase to both cleave DNA and integrate primer sequences into the cleaved DNA.
- Formaldehyde-assisted isolation of regulatory elements followed by sequencing
-
(FAIRE–seq). A technique that uses the solubility of open chromatin in the aqueous phase during phenol–chloroform extraction to identify sites of open chromatin.
- Chromosome conformation capture assays
-
A group of techniques (including 3C, 4C, 5C, Hi-C and ChIA-PET) that are used to map physical interactions between segments of DNA in three-dimensional space.
- Topologically associating domains
-
(TADs). Regions of chromatin in which loci frequently interact with each other, usually based on evidence from chromosome conformation capture techniques. Loci located in different TADs do not frequently come into contact.
- Zinc finger
-
A modular DNA-binding protein that can be engineered to bind to a sequence of choice.
- Transcription activator-like effector
-
(TALE). DNA-binding protein that has a modular architecture, with each module (∼34 amino acids) recognizing a single nucleotide in a DNA sequence and that can therefore be engineered to bind to a DNA sequence of choice.
- Cas9
-
(CRISPR-associated protein 9). Useful for genome engineering because it can be guided (by a guide RNA) to a particular site in the genome where it makes a DNA double-strand break.
- dCas9
-
The nuclease-dead version of Cas9, which can no longer produce DNA double-strand breaks.
- Guide RNA
-
(gRNA). An artificial fusion of CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and transactivating crRNA (tracrRNA) used to target the Cas9 protein to a target site in the genome.
- Pooled screens
-
Approaches in which cells receiving the screening library (for example, pools of guide RNAs) are grown and selected together for a phenotypic change.
- Fluorescence-activated cell sorting
-
(FACS). An experimental method that measures a fluorescence-based signal (from a reporter or antibody staining) emitted from individual cells of a population, and uses these fluorescence signals to isolate single cells of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stricker, S., Köferle, A. & Beck, S. From profiles to function in epigenomics. Nat Rev Genet 18, 51–66 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.138
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.138
This article is cited by
-
Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the JMJ-C gene family in melon (Cucumis melo L.) reveals their potential role in fruit development
BMC Genomics (2023)
-
Early-life stress perturbs the epigenetics of Cd36 concurrent with adult onset of NAFLD in mice
Pediatric Research (2023)
-
Advancing CAR T cell therapy through the use of multidimensional omics data
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2023)
-
Integrative genomic analyses in adipocytes implicate DNA methylation in human obesity and diabetes
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Polycomb contraction differentially regulates terminal human hematopoietic differentiation programs
BMC Biology (2022)