1. Genetics and Genomics
  2. Plant Biology
Download icon

Stress induced gene expression drives transient DNA methylation changes at adjacent repetitive elements

  1. David Secco
  2. Chuang Wang
  3. Huixia Shou
  4. Matthew D Schultz
  5. Serge Chiarenza
  6. Laurent Nussaume
  7. Joseph R Ecker
  8. James Whelan
  9. Ryan Lister  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Western Australia, Australia
  2. Zhejiang University, China
  3. Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States
  4. Université d'Aix-Marseille, France
  5. La Trobe University, Australia
Research Article
  • Cited 139
  • Views 7,003
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e09343 doi: 10.7554/eLife.09343

Abstract

Cytosine DNA methylation (mC) is a genome modification that can regulate the expression of coding and non-coding genetic elements. However, little is known about the involvement of mC in response to environmental cues. Using whole genome bisulfite sequencing to assess the spatio-temporal dynamics of mC in rice grown under phosphate starvation and recovery conditions, we identified widespread phosphate starvation-induced changes in mC, preferentially localized in transposable elements (TEs) close to highly induced genes. These changes in mC occurred after changes in nearby gene transcription, were mostly DCL3a-independent, could partially be propagated through mitosis, however no evidence of meiotic transmission was observed. Similar analyses performed in Arabidopsis revealed a very limited effect of phosphate starvation on mC, suggesting a species-specific mechanism. Overall, this suggests that TEs in proximity to environmentally induced genes are silenced via hypermethylation, and establishes the temporal hierarchy of transcriptional and epigenomic changes in response to stress.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Secco

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chuang Wang

    State Key laboratory of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, College of Life Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Huixia Shou

    State Key laboratory of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, College of Life Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Matthew D Schultz

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Serge Chiarenza

    UMR 6191 CEA, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement des Plantes, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laurent Nussaume

    UMR 6191 CEA, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement des Plantes, Université d'Aix-Marseille, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Joseph R Ecker

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James Whelan

    Department of Botany, School of Life Science, ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ryan Lister

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
    For correspondence
    ryanlister@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Detlef Weigel, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany

Publication history

  1. Received: June 10, 2015
  2. Accepted: July 20, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 21, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 18, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Secco et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,003
    Page views
  • 1,685
    Downloads
  • 139
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Marcos H de Moraes et al.
    Research Article Updated

    When bacterial cells come in contact, antagonism mediated by the delivery of toxins frequently ensues. The potential for such encounters to have long-term beneficial consequences in recipient cells has not been investigated. Here, we examined the effects of intoxication by DddA, a cytosine deaminase delivered via the type VI secretion system (T6SS) of Burkholderia cenocepacia. Despite its killing potential, we observed that several bacterial species resist DddA and instead accumulate mutations. These mutations can lead to the acquisition of antibiotic resistance, indicating that even in the absence of killing, interbacterial antagonism can have profound consequences on target populations. Investigation of additional toxins from the deaminase superfamily revealed that mutagenic activity is a common feature of these proteins, including a representative we show targets single-stranded DNA and displays a markedly divergent structure. Our findings suggest that a surprising consequence of antagonistic interactions between bacteria could be the promotion of adaptation via the action of directly mutagenic toxins.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Maarten De Jong, Neal M Alto
    Insight

    The toxins that some bacteria secrete to kill off rival species can also generate mutations that help toxin-resistant populations adapt to new environments.