DNA repair- and nucleotide metabolism-related genes exhibit differential CHG methylation patterns in natural and synthetic polyploids (Brassica napus L.)

Abstract

Polyploidization plays a crucial role in the evolution of angiosperm species. Almost all newly formed polyploids encounter genetic or epigenetic instabilities. However, the molecular mechanisms contributing to genomic instability in synthetic polyploids have not been clearly elucidated. Here, we performed a comprehensive transcriptomic and methylomic analysis of natural and synthetic polyploid rapeseeds (Brassica napus). Our results showed that the CHG methylation levels of synthetic rapeseed in different genomic contexts (genes, transposon regions, and repeat regions) were significantly lower than those of natural rapeseed. The total number and length of CHG-DMRs between natural and synthetic polyploids were much greater than those of CG-DMRs and CHH-DMRs, and the genes overlapping with these CHG-DMRs were significantly enriched in DNA damage repair and nucleotide metabolism pathways. These results indicated that CHG methylation may be more sensitive than CG and CHH methylation in regulating the stability of the polyploid genome of B. napus. In addition, many genes involved in DNA damage repair, nucleotide metabolism, and cell cycle control were significantly differentially expressed between natural and synthetic rapeseeds. Our results highlight that the genes related to DNA repair and nucleotide metabolism display differential CHG methylation patterns between natural and synthetic polyploids and reveal the potential connection between the genomic instability of polyploid plants with DNA methylation defects and dysregulation of the DNA repair system. In addition, it was found that the maintenance of CHG methylation in B. napus might be partially regulated by MET1. Our study provides novel insights into the establishment and evolution of polyploid plants and offers a potential idea for improving the genomic stability of newly formed Brassica polyploids.

References

[1] Leitch, A. R. & Leitch, I. J. Genomic plasticity and the diversity of polyploid plants. Science 320, 481-483 (2008).

[2] Jiao, Y. et al. Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 473, 97-100 (2011).

[3] Wendel, J. F., Jackson, S. A., Meyers, B. C. & Wing, R. A. Evolution of plant genome architecture. Genome Biol. 17, 37 (2016).

[4] Barker, M. S., Husband, B. C. & Pires, J. C. Spreading winge and flying high: the evolutionary importance of polyploidy after a century of study. Am. J. Bot. 103, 1139-1145 (2016).

[5] Ren, R. et al. Widespread whole genome duplications contribute to genome complexity and species diversity in angiosperms. Mol. Plant 11, 414-428 (2018).

[6] Comai, L. The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 836 (2005).

[7] Van de Peer, Y., Mizrachi, E. & Marchal, K. The evolutionary significance of polyploidy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 411 (2017).

[8] Fawcett, J. A., Maere, S. & Peer, Y. V. D. Plants with double genomes might have had a better chance to survive the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5737-5742 (2009).

[9] Vanneste, K., Baele, G., Maere, S. & Van de Peer, Y. Analysis of 41 plant genomes supports a wave of successful genome duplications in association with the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Genome Res. 24, 1334-1347 (2014).

[10] Zhang, H., Lang, Z. & Zhu, J.-K. Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 489 (2018).

[11] Herrera, L. A., Prada, D., Andonegui, M. A. & Dueñas-González, A. The epigenetic origin of aneuploidy. Curr. Genomics 9, 43-50 (2008).

[12] Chalhoub, B. et al. Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic Brassica napus oilseed genome. Science 345, 950-953 (2014).

[13] Mason, A. S. & Snowdon, R. J. Oilseed rape: learning about ancient and recent polyploid evolution from a recent crop species. Plant Biol. 18, 883-892 (2016).

[14] Song, K., Lu, P., Tang, K. & Osborn, T. C. Rapid genome change in synthetic polyploids of Brassica and its implications for polyploid evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 7719-7723 (1995).

[15] Lukens, L. et al. Patterns of sequence loss and cytosine methylation within a population of newly resynthesized Brassica napus allopolyploids. Plant Physiol. 140, 336-348 (2005).

[16] Gaeta, R. T., Pires, J. C., Iniguez-Luy, F., Leon, E. & Osborn, T. C. Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype. Plant Cell 19, 3403-3417 (2007).

[17] Xu, Y., Zhong, L., Wu, X., Fang, X. & Wang, J. Rapid alterations of gene expression and cytosine methylation in newly synthesized Brassica napus allopolyploids. Planta 229, 471-483 (2009).

[18] Szadkowski, E. et al. The first meiosis of resynthesized Brassica napus, a genome blender. N. Phytol. 186, 102-112 (2010).

[19] Xiong, Z., Gaeta, R. T. & Pires, J. C. Homoeologous shuffling and chromosome compensation maintain genome balance in resynthesized allopolyploid Brassica napus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7908-7913 (2011).

[20] Cui, C., Ge, X., Gautam, M., Kang, L. & Li, Z. Cytoplasmic and genomic effects on meiotic pairing in Brassica hybrids and allotetraploids from pair crosses of three cultivated diploids. Genetics 191, 725-738 (2012).

[21] Ran, L. et al. Analysis of cytosine methylation in early generations of resynthesized Brassica napus. J. Integr. Agr. 15, 1228-1238 (2016).

[22] Zhou, R., Moshgabadi, N. & Adams, K. L. Extensive changes to alternative splicing patterns following allopolyploidy in natural and resynthesized polyploids. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 16122-16127 (2011).

[23] Zhang, X., Ge, X., Shao, Y., Sun, G. & Li, Z. Genomic change, retrotransposon mobilization and extensive cytosine methylation alteration in Brassica napus introgressions from two intertribal hybridizations. Plos ONE 8, e56346 (2013).

[24] Samans, B., Chalhoub, B. & Snowdon, R. J. Surviving a genome collision: genomic signatures of allopolyploidization in the recent crop species Brassica napus. Plant Genome 10, https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2017.02.0013 (2017).

[25] Cokus, S. J. et al. Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452, 215-219 (2008).

[26] Lister, R. et al. Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell 133, 523-536 (2008).

[27] Chodavarapu, R. K. et al. Transcriptome and methylome interactions in rice hybrids. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12040-12045 (2012).

[28] Gent, J. I. et al. CHH islands: de novo DNA methylation in near-gene chromatin regulation in maize. Genome Res. 23, 628-637 (2013).

[29] Song, Q. et al. Genome-wide analysis of DNA methylation in soybean. Mol. Plant 6, 1961-1974 (2013).

[30] Zhong, S. et al. Single-base resolution methylomes of tomato fruit development reveal epigenome modifications associated with ripening. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 154-159 (2013).

[31] Xu, J. et al. Single-base methylome analysis reveals dynamic epigenomic differences associated with water deficit in apple. Plant Biotechnol. J. 16, 672-687 (2018).

[32] Calarco, J. P. et al. Reprogramming of DNA methylation in pollen guides epigenetic inheritance via small RNA. Cell 151, 194-205 (2012).

[33] Hsieh, P. H. et al. Arabidopsis male sexual lineage exhibits more robust maintenance of CG methylation than somatic tissues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 15132-15137 (2016).

[34] Ingouff, M. et al. Live-cell analysis of DNA methylation during sexual reproduction in Arabidopsis reveals context and sex-specific dynamics controlled by noncanonical RdDM. Genes Dev. 31, 72-83 (2017).

[35] Quadrana, L. & Colot, V. Plant transgenerational epigenetics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 50, 467-491 (2016).

[36] Goldberg, R. B., Beals, T. P. & Sanders, P. M. Anther development: basic principles and practical applications. Plant Cell 5, 1217-1229 (1993).

[37] Soltis, D. E., Buggs, R. J. A., Doyle, J. J. & Soltis, P. S. What we still don’t know about polyploidy. Taxon 59, 1387-1403 (2010).

[38] Van Drunen, W. E. & Husband, B. C. Evolutionary associations between polyploidy, clonal reproduction, and perenniality in the angiosperms. N. Phytol. 224, 1266-1277 (2019).

[39] Madlung, A. & Comai, L. The effect of stress on genome regulation and structure. Ann. Bot. 94, 481-495 (2004).

[40] Choi, K. et al. Nucleosomes and DNA methylation shape meiotic DSB frequency in Arabidopsis thaliana transposons and gene regulatory regions. Genome Res. 28, 532-546 (2018).

[41] Underwood, C. J. et al. Epigenetic activation of meiotic recombination near Arabidopsis thaliana centromeres via loss of H3K9me2 and non-CG DNA methylation. Genome Res. 28, 519-531 (2018).

[42] Esteller, M. Epigenetic lesions causing genetic lesions in human cancer: promoter hypermethylation of DNA repair genes. Eur. J. Cancer 36, 2294-2300 (2000).

[43] Gaudet, F. et al. Induction of tumors in mice by genomic hypomethylation. Science 300, 489-492 (2003).

[44] Kim, M. et al. Temporal and spatial downregulation of Arabidopsis MET1 activity results in global DNA hypomethylation and developmental defects. Mol. Cells 26, 611 (2008).

[45] Ehrlich, M. DNA hypomethylation in cancer cells. Epigenomics 1, 239-259 (2009).

[46] Roussel-Gervais, A. et al. Loss of the methyl-CpG-binding protein ZBTB4 alters mitotic checkpoint, increases aneuploidy, and promotes tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 77, 62-73 (2017).

[47] Kim, J. H. Chromatin remodeling and epigenetic regulation in plant DNA damage repair. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 4093 (2019).

[48] Li, Z., Pearlman, A. H. & Hsieh, P. DNA mismatch repair and the DNA damage response. DNA Repair 38, 94-101 (2016).

[49] Brosh, R. M. Jr DNA helicases involved in DNA repair and their roles in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 13, 542-558 (2013).

[50] Friedberg, E. C. DNA damage and repair. Nature 421, 436 (2003).

[51] Deleris, A., Halter, T. & Navarro, L. DNA methylation and demethylation in plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 54, 579-603 (2016).

[52] Wu, S. Y., Culligan, K., Lamers, M. & Hays, J. Dissimilar mispair‐recognition spectra of Arabidopsis DNA‐mismatch‐repair proteins MSH2·MSH6 (MutSα) and MSH2·MSH7 (MutSγ). Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 6027-6034 (2003).

[53] Virdi, K. S. et al. Arabidopsis MSH1 mutation alters the epigenome and produces heritable changes in plant growth. Nat. Commun. 6, 1-9 (2015).

[54] Shao, M. R., Raju, S. K. K., Laurie, J. D., Sanchez, R. & Mackenzie, S. A. Stress-responsive pathways and small RNA changes distinguish variable developmental phenotypes caused by MSH1 loss. BMC Plant Biol. 17, 47 (2017).

[55] Miyaki, M. et al. Germline mutation of MSH6 as the cause of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nat. Genet. 17, 271-272 (1997).

[56] Wijnen, J. et al. Familial endometrial cancer in female carriers of MSH6 germline mutations. Nat. Genet. 23, 142-144 (1999).

[57] Baglietto, L. et al. Risks of lynch syndrome cancers for MSH6 mutation carriers. JNCI-J. Natl Cancer I. 102, 193-201 (2010).

[58] Tiefenbach, T. & Junop, M. Pso2 (SNM1) is a DNA structure-specific endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 2131-2139 (2011).

[59] Williams, Jessica S. et al. Topoisomerase 1-mediated removal of ribonucleotides from nascent leading-strand DNA. Mol. Cell 49, 1010-1015 (2013).

[60] Wilson, T. E., Grawunder, U. & Lieber, M. R. Yeast DNA ligase IV mediates non-homologous DNA end joining. Nature 388, 495-498 (1997).

[61] Grawunder, U., Zimmer, D., Fugmann, S., Schwarz, K. & Lieber, M. R. DNA Ligase IV is essential for V(D)J recombination and DNA double-strand break repair in human precursor lymphocytes. Mol. Cell 2, 477-484 (1998).

[62] van Attikum, H. et al. The Arabidopsis AtLIG4 gene is required for the repair of DNA damage, but not for the integration of Agrobacterium T‐DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 4247-4255 (2003).

[63] Tauchi, H. et al. Nbs1 is essential for DNA repair by homologous recombination in higher vertebrate cells. Nature 420, 93-98 (2002).

[64] Waterworth, W. M. et al. NBS1 is involved in DNA repair and plays a synergistic role with ATM in mediating meiotic homologous recombination in plants. Plant J. 52, 41-52 (2007).

[65] Belfield, E. J. et al. DNA mismatch repair preferentially protects genes from mutation. Genome Res. 28, 66-74 (2018).

[66] Pogribny, I., Raiche, J., Slovack, M. & Kovalchuk, O. Dose-dependence, sex-and tissue-specificity, and persistence of radiation-induced genomic DNA methylation changes. Biochem. Bioph. Res. Co. 320, 1253-1261 (2004).

[67] Zang, H. et al. DNA adduct bypass polymerization by sulfolobus solfataricus DNA polymerase Dpo4: analysis and crystal structures of multiple base pair substitution and frameshift products with the adduct 1, N2-ethenoguanine. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 29750-29764 (2005).

[68] Silva, T. D. et al. DNA methylation as an epigenetic biomarker in colorectal cancer. Oncol. Lett. 6, 1687-1692 (2013).

[69] Langie, S. et al. The ageing brain: effects on DNA repair and DNA methylation in mice. Genes 8, 75 (2017).

[70] Fasano, C. et al. Transcriptome and metabolome of synthetic Solanum autotetraploids reveal key genomic stress events following polyploidization. N. Phytol. 210, 1382-1394 (2016).

[71] Mathews, C. K. DNA precursor metabolism and genomic stability. FASEB J. 20, 1300-1314 (2006).

[72] Hustedt, N. & Durocher, D. The control of DNA repair by the cell cycle. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 1-9 (2017).

[73] Wilson, A. S., Power, B. E. & Molloy, P. L. DNA hypomethylation and human diseases. BBA-Rev. Cancer 1775, 138-162 (2007).

[74] Kawano, H. et al. Chromosomal instability associated with global DNA hypomethylation is associated with the initiation and progression of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 21, 696-702 (2014).

[75] Raju, S. K. K., Ritter, E. J. & Niederhuth, C. E. Establishment, maintenance, and biological roles of non-CG methylation in plants. Essays Biochem. 63, 743-755 (2019).

[76] Domb, K. et al. Non-CG methylation is superior to CG methylation in genome regulation. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.04.971267 (2020).

[77] Takuno, S., Ran, J. H. & Gaut, B. S. Evolutionary patterns of genic DNA methylation vary across land plants. Nat. Plants 2, 15222 (2016).

[78] Boyko, A. & Kovalchuk, I. Epigenetic control of plant stress response. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 49, 61-72 (2008).

[79] Kim, J. E. et al. Characterization of non-CG genomic hypomethylation associated with gamma-ray-induced suppression of CMT3 transcription in Arabidopsis thaliana. Radiat. Res. 180, 638-648 (2013).

[80] Ou, X. et al. Transgenerational inheritance of modified DNA methylation patterns and enhanced tolerance induced by heavy metal stress in rice (Oryza sativa L.). PloS ONE 7, e41143 (2012).

[81] Zhang, J. et al. Autotetraploid rice methylome analysis reveals methylation variation of transposable elements and their effects on gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E7022-E7029 (2015).

[82] Fan, S. et al. Systematic analysis of the DNA methylase and demethylase gene families in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and their expression variations after salt and heat stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 953 (2020).

[83] Bewick, A. J. et al. On the origin and evolutionary consequences of gene body DNA methylation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9111-9116 (2016).

[84] Niederhuth, C. E. et al. Widespread natural variation of DNA methylation within angiosperms. Genome Biol. 17, 194 (2016).

[85] Bewick, A. J. et al. The evolution of CHROMOMETHYLASES and gene body DNA methylation in plants. Genome Biol. 18, 65 (2017).

[86] Zabet, N. R., Catoni, M., Prischi, F. & Paszkowski, J. Cytosine methylation at CpCpG sites triggers accumulation of non-CpG methylation in gene bodies. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 3777-3784 (2017).

[87] Yaari, R. et al. DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 is involved in mCG and mCCG DNA methylation and is essential for sporophyte development in Physcomitrella patens. Plant Mol. Biol. 88, 387-400 (2015).

[88] Gouil, Q. & Baulcombe, D. C. DNA methylation signatures of the plant chromomethyltransferases. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006526 (2016).

[89] Wendte, J. M. et al. Epimutations are associated with CHROMOMETHYLASE 3-induced de novo DNA methylation. eLife 8, e47891 (2019).

[90] Fu, S. et al. Maternal doubled haploid production in interploidy hybridization between Brassica napus and Brassica allooctoploids. Planta 247, 113-125 (2018).

[91] Yin, L. et al. Genome-wide duplication of allotetraploid Brassica napus produces novel characteristics and extensive ploidy variation in self-pollinated progeny. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 10, g3 (2020).

[92] Li, Z., Liu, H. & Luo, P. Production and cytogenetics of intergeneric hybrids between Brassica napus and Orychophragmus violaceus. Theor. Appl. Genet. 91, 131-136 (1995).

[93] Zhou, J., Tan, C., Cui, C., Ge, X. & Li, Z. Distinct subgenome stabilities in synthesized Brassica allohexaploids. Theor. Appl. Genet. 129, 1257-1271 (2016).

[94] Kobayashi, N., Horikoshi, T., Katsuyama, H., Handa, T. & Takayanagi, K. A simple and efficient DNA extraction method for plants, especially woody plants. Plant Tiss. Cult. Biotech. 4, 76-80 (1998).

[95] Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571-1572 (2011).

[96] Schultz, M. D., Schmitz, R. J. & Ecker, J. R. ‘Leveling’ the playing field for analyses of single-base resolution DNA methylomes. Trends Genet. 28, 583-585 (2012).

[97] Sun, D. et al. MOABS: model based analysis of bisulfite sequencing data. Genome Biol. 15, R38 (2014).

[98] Young, M. D., Wakefield, M. J., Smyth, G. K. & Oshlack, A. Gene ontology analysis for RNA-seq: accounting for selection bias. Genome Biol. 11, R14 (2010).

[99] Mao, X., Cai, T., Olyarchuk, J. G. & Wei, L. Automated genome annotation and pathway identification using the KEGG Orthology (KO) as a controlled vocabulary. Bioinformatics 21, 3787-3793 (2005).

[100] Tarailo-Graovac, M. & Chen, N. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 25, 4.10.1-4.10.14 (2009).

[101] Cheng, F. et al. Epigenetic regulation of subgenome dominance following whole genome triplication in Brassica rapa. N. Phytol. 211, 288-299 (2016).

[102] Chen, C. et al. TBtools: an integrative toolkit developed for interactive analyses of big biological data. Mol. Plant 13, 1194-1202 (2020).