Cargando…
Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region
BACKGROUND: Bisulfite sequencing has long been considered the gold standard for measuring DNA methylation at single CpG resolution. However, in recent years several new approaches like nanopore sequencing have been developed due to hints for a partial error-proneness of bisulfite sequencing. Since t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10591399/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-023-01694-6 |
_version_ | 1785124214635757568 |
---|---|
author | Gombert, Sara Jahn, Kirsten Pathak, Hansi Burkert, Alexandra Schmidt, Gunnar Wiehlmann, Lutz Davenport, Colin Brändl, Björn Müller, Franz-Josef Leffler, Andreas Deest, Maximilian Frieling, Helge |
author_facet | Gombert, Sara Jahn, Kirsten Pathak, Hansi Burkert, Alexandra Schmidt, Gunnar Wiehlmann, Lutz Davenport, Colin Brändl, Björn Müller, Franz-Josef Leffler, Andreas Deest, Maximilian Frieling, Helge |
author_sort | Gombert, Sara |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Bisulfite sequencing has long been considered the gold standard for measuring DNA methylation at single CpG resolution. However, in recent years several new approaches like nanopore sequencing have been developed due to hints for a partial error-proneness of bisulfite sequencing. Since these errors were shown to be sequence-specific, we aimed to verify the methylation data of a particular region of the TRPA1 promoter from our previous studies obtained by bisulfite sequencing. METHODS: We compared methylation rates determined by direct bisulfite sequencing and nanopore sequencing following Cas9-mediated PCR-free enrichment. RESULTS: We could show that CpG methylation levels above 20% corroborate well with our previous data. Within the range between 0 and 20% methylation, however, Sanger sequencing data have to be interpreted cautiously, at least in the investigated region of interest (TRPA1 promotor region). CONCLUSION: Based on the investigation of the TRPA1- region as an example, the present work can help in choosing the right method out of the two current main approaches for methylation analysis for different individual settings regarding many factors like cohort size, costs and prerequisites that should be fulfilled for each method. All in all, both methods have their raison d’être. Furthermore, the present paper contains and illustrates some important basic information and explanation of how guide RNAs should be located for an optimal outcome in Cas9 mediated PCR free target enrichment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-023-01694-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10591399 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105913992023-10-24 Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region Gombert, Sara Jahn, Kirsten Pathak, Hansi Burkert, Alexandra Schmidt, Gunnar Wiehlmann, Lutz Davenport, Colin Brändl, Björn Müller, Franz-Josef Leffler, Andreas Deest, Maximilian Frieling, Helge BMC Med Genomics Research BACKGROUND: Bisulfite sequencing has long been considered the gold standard for measuring DNA methylation at single CpG resolution. However, in recent years several new approaches like nanopore sequencing have been developed due to hints for a partial error-proneness of bisulfite sequencing. Since these errors were shown to be sequence-specific, we aimed to verify the methylation data of a particular region of the TRPA1 promoter from our previous studies obtained by bisulfite sequencing. METHODS: We compared methylation rates determined by direct bisulfite sequencing and nanopore sequencing following Cas9-mediated PCR-free enrichment. RESULTS: We could show that CpG methylation levels above 20% corroborate well with our previous data. Within the range between 0 and 20% methylation, however, Sanger sequencing data have to be interpreted cautiously, at least in the investigated region of interest (TRPA1 promotor region). CONCLUSION: Based on the investigation of the TRPA1- region as an example, the present work can help in choosing the right method out of the two current main approaches for methylation analysis for different individual settings regarding many factors like cohort size, costs and prerequisites that should be fulfilled for each method. All in all, both methods have their raison d’être. Furthermore, the present paper contains and illustrates some important basic information and explanation of how guide RNAs should be located for an optimal outcome in Cas9 mediated PCR free target enrichment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12920-023-01694-6. BioMed Central 2023-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10591399/ /pubmed/37872581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-023-01694-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Gombert, Sara Jahn, Kirsten Pathak, Hansi Burkert, Alexandra Schmidt, Gunnar Wiehlmann, Lutz Davenport, Colin Brändl, Björn Müller, Franz-Josef Leffler, Andreas Deest, Maximilian Frieling, Helge Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title | Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title_full | Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title_fullStr | Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title_short | Comparison of methylation estimates obtained via MinION nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the TRPA1 promoter region |
title_sort | comparison of methylation estimates obtained via minion nanopore sequencing and sanger bisulfite sequencing in the trpa1 promoter region |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10591399/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37872581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12920-023-01694-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gombertsara comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT jahnkirsten comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT pathakhansi comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT burkertalexandra comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT schmidtgunnar comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT wiehlmannlutz comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT davenportcolin comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT brandlbjorn comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT mullerfranzjosef comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT lefflerandreas comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT deestmaximilian comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion AT frielinghelge comparisonofmethylationestimatesobtainedviaminionnanoporesequencingandsangerbisulfitesequencinginthetrpa1promoterregion |