International Journal of
Molecular Sciences
Article
Inter-Strain Differences in LINE-1 DNA Methylation
in the Mouse Hematopoietic System in Response to
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
Isabelle R. Miousse 1 , Jianhui Chang 2 , Lijian Shao 2 , Rupak Pathak 2 ,
Étienne Nzabarushimana 3 , Kristy R. Kutanzi 1 , Reid D. Landes 4 , Alan J. Tackett 5 ,
Martin Hauer-Jensen 2 , Daohong Zhou 2 and Igor Koturbash 1, *
1
2
3
4
5
*
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
Little Rock, AR 72205, USA; iracinemiousse@uams.edu (I.R.M.); kristy.kutanzi@gmail.com (K.R.K.)
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division of Radiation Health, University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA; jchang@uams.edu (J.C.); lshao@uams.edu (L.S.);
rpathak@uams.edu (R.P.); mhjensen@uams.edu (M.H.-J.); dzhou@uams.edu (D.Z.)
Department of Bioinformatics, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN 47408, USA; enzabaru@indiana.edu
Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA;
rdlandes@uams.edu
Department of Biochemistry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA;
ajtackett@uams.edu
Correspondence: ikoturbash@uams.edu; Tel.: +1-501-526-6638
Received: 7 June 2017; Accepted: 30 June 2017; Published: 4 July 2017
Abstract: Long Interspersed Nuclear Element 1 (LINE-1) retrotransposons are the major repetitive
elements in mammalian genomes. LINE-1s are well-accepted as driving forces of evolution and
critical regulators of the expression of genetic information. Alterations in LINE-1 DNA methylation
may lead to its aberrant activity and are reported in virtually all human cancers and in experimental
carcinogenesis. In this study, we investigated the endogenous DNA methylation status of the 5′
untranslated region (UTR) of LINE-1 elements in the bone marrow hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs),
hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs), and mononuclear cells (MNCs) in radioresistant C57BL/6J
and radiosensitive CBA/J mice and in response to ionizing radiation (IR). We demonstrated that
basal levels of DNA methylation within the 5′ -UTRs of LINE-1 elements did not differ significantly
between the two mouse strains and were negatively correlated with the evolutionary age of LINE-1
elements. Meanwhile, the expression of LINE-1 elements was higher in CBA/J mice. At two
months after irradiation to 0.1 or 1 Gy of 137 Cs (dose rate 1.21 Gy/min), significant decreases in
LINE-1 DNA methylation in HSCs were observed in prone to radiation-induced carcinogenesis
CBA/J, but not C57BL/6J mice. At the same time, no residual DNA damage, increased ROS, or
changes in the cell cycle were detected in HSCs of CBA/J mice. These results suggest that epigenetic
alterations may potentially serve as driving forces of radiation-induced carcinogenesis; however,
future studies are needed to demonstrate the direct link between the LINE-1 DNA hypomethylation
and radiation carcinogenesis.
Keywords: DNA methylation; hematopoietic cells; ionizing radiation; retrotransposons
1. Introduction
DNA methylation is one of the key epigenetic mechanisms that regulate the expression of
genetic information [1]. One of the major functions of DNA methylation is the regulation of
transcriptional activity of the repetitive elements that comprise up to two-thirds of mammalian
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430; doi:10.3390/ijms18071430
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
2 of 16
genomes. Retrotransposon Long Interspersed Nuclear Element 1 (LINE-1) is the most abundant
repetitive element (covering ~20% of mammalian genomes) and is heavily methylated [2]. LINE-1
retrotransposons are driving forces of evolution and critical regulators of the expression of genetic
information [3–6]. The full-length LINE-1 elements consist of a 5′ untranslated region (UTR),
a bicistronic open reading frame that encodes two proteins—ORF1 and ORF2, and a 3′ -UTR with
a poly(A) tail [2,7]. The primate-specific ORF0—an antisense oriented open reading frame that
contributes to retrotransposon-mediated diversity—was also recently reported [8]. Evolutionary
patterns of LINE-1 are characterized by the continuous replacement of extinct families by more
recently evolved families, which predetermines substantial differences between the elements [9]. These
differences primarily stem from the 5′ -UTRs, and murine LINE-1s were recently classified according to
each family’s unique 5′ -UTR sequence and evolutionary age [10].
Exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) affects DNA methylation, and LINE-1 in particular [11].
While the effects of exposure to higher doses of IR is usually associated with the loss of LINE-1
DNA methylation [12], and its reactivation and retrotransposition [12,13], studies on exposures to
lower-doses of IR, especially at 1 Gy and below, are less conclusive [14,15]. This may be explained by
several factors, including the different approaches used to measure LINE-1 DNA methylation and the
sensitivity of those approaches to changes caused by IR, the functional units of LINE-1 used for the
analysis, and the analysis performed on the whole tissue lysates, while only certain subsets of cells
may be particularly sensitive to IR-induced epigenetic alterations [11].
In these regards, the hematopoietic system represents a valuable experimental tool in epigenetic
studies on the effects of IR. The hematopoietic system is highly sensitive to IR and is comprised of
cells of different lineages that can be isolated to high purity using multiparameter flow cytometry [16].
Some studies indicate that DNA methylation is also critical for the process of hematopoietic stem cell
self-renewal, as shown by serial transplantation in experimental mice [17,18]. Recently, epigenetic
alterations were proposed to be among the driving mechanisms in hematological malignancies and
serve as a causative factor for radiation-induced leukemogenesis [19–23]. It has to be acknowledged,
however, that the most recent study has shown that despite the CpG island hypermethylation observed
in virtually all cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with wild-type DNA methyltransferase 3A
(DNMT3A), this change was not associated with gene silencing and was essentially absent in AMLs
with DNMT3AR882 mutations [24].
It is generally accepted that hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) represent the compartment that
is the most susceptible to IR. HSCs reside at the top of the hematopoietic system hierarchy, serving
as precursors for all differentiated peripheral blood cells [25]. Therefore, radiation damage to HSCs
substantially affects subsequent generations of peripheral blood cells, with long-term consequences.
Earlier studies have demonstrated that IR negatively affects the genome and epigenome in
the hematopoietic system [22,26,27]. In a recent study from our group, we reported that a pool
of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) was more susceptible to epigenetic alterations
than mononuclear cells (MNCs) [22]. Furthermore, in the same study, we showed that exposures to
leukemogenic doses of IR, while not inducing any detectable long-term DNA damage to HSPCs, are
capable of causing long-term epigenetic alterations. The latter included aberrant DNA methylation
and expression of LINE-1 and DNA methylation machinery.
These studies experienced a number of limitations, since DNA methylation was measured only
within the ORF-1 of LINE-1 elements, while the majority of potential sites for DNA methylation are
located within the 5′ -UTR. Furthermore, these analyses were performed from the total pool of HSPCs,
while substantial differences between the epigenetic profiles of HSCs and hematopoietic progenitor
cells (HPCs) have been documented [17,28]. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the DNA
methylation status within the 5′ -UTR of LINE-1 elements in HSCs, HPCs, and MNCs of relatively
radioresistant C57BL/6J and radiosensitive CBA/J mice in response to IR.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
3 of 16
2. Results
2.1. Comparative Analysis of Hematopoietic Profiles in Non-Irradiated Mice
After cells were sorted by FACS based on their expression of membrane proteins, strain differences
were noted between C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice. In sham-irradiated animals, consistently lower
numbers of total bone marrow cells were collected from CBA/J animals than from C57BL/6J.
Additionally, bone marrows from sham-irradiated CBA/J mice yielded fewer HSPCs (bone marrow
cells depleted of differentiated cells) than bone marrows from C57BL/6J mice. Furthermore, there was
a lower percentage of HSCs in CBA/J (0.06% versus 0.1% in C57BL/6J; p < 0.01) (Figure 1A).
Figure 1. Comparative analysis of hematopoietic profiles of C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice. (A) Cell
distribution and frequency of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in hematopoietic stem and progenitor
cells (HSPCs) (B) intracellular levels of endogenous reactive oxygen species (ROS) as measured by
fluorescence intensity of 2′′ 7′′ -dichlorofluorescein (C) DNA strand breaks (as measured by fluorescence
γ
intensity of γH2AX).
Asterisks (*) denote significant (p < 0.05) and (***)—(p < 0.001) difference from
control. LSK: fraction of lineage negative, Sca1 positive, c-kit negative (LSK-) cells, from which HSCs
were sorted (n = 5/group).
The percentage of HSCs in G0 phase was not significantly different between the two strains
(p = 0.08), while the percentage of HPCs in G0 was significantly higher in CBA/J mice (p = 0.006)
(Figure S1). The basal levels of ROS, as expressed by DCF-DA fluorescence, were higher in HSCs of
γ
CBA/J mice compared to HSCs of C57BL/6J mice (p < 0.001) (Figure 1B). The endogenous levels of
γH2A.X were also considerably higher in CBA/J mice compared to C57BL/6J in both HSCs and HPCs
(p < 0.05) (Figure 1C).
2.2. Comparative Analysis of LINE-1 Methylation in the Hematopoietic System in Non-Irradiated Mice
Recent advances in computational biology have led to the classification of LINE-1 elements based
′
on their evolutionary age and 5′ -UTR sequences
[10]. However, analyses of repetitive sequences on the
global scale are challenging, given their copy-numbers and polymorphic features. Therefore, we have
recently developed a real-time PCR assay that allows for simultaneous analysis of DNA methylation
of all 29 currently known LINE-1 elements. Using this approach, we have recently reported changes in
the DNA methylation of selective LINE-1 elements after exposure to dense IR [29,30]. Considering
the high abundance of LINE-1 elements in the genome, we adapted this approach for this study to
perform LINE-1 DNA methylation analysis with a starting material of only 500 cells (described in
detail in the Materials and Methods section).
First, we analyzed the endogenous levels of DNA methylation in LINE-1 elements in HSCs and
MNCs of C57BL/6J mice. We identified a negative correlation between the basal methylation status
of LINE-1 elements and their evolutionary age (slope significantly non-zero, p < 0.0001) (Figure S2).
LINE-1 elements that were ~10 Myr of age or more were methylated at about one-third of the level
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
4 of 16
found in elements that were less than 1 Myr in age. Importantly, this trend was observed in all
evaluated cell types, suggesting it is universal across all the cell types within the hematopoietic system.
We then compared the levels of DNA methylation in C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice in HSCs, HPCs,
and MNCs (Figure 2, panels A, B, and C, respectively). We arbitrarily set the methylation levels to
1 in all elements from C57BL/6J to highlight strain differences. We did not identify any substantial
differences between CBA/J and C57BL/6J.
Figure 2. Comparative analysis of LINE-1 5′ -UTR
DNA methylation in C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice.
′
LINE-1 DNA methylation was measured in (A) hematopoietic stem cells (B) hematopoietic progenitor
cells, and (C) mononuclear cells using the adapted method for 500-cell methylation-sensitive real
time-PCR (RT-PCR). Data are presented as mean ±SEM (n = 5) and show the linear regression between
′
DNA methylation and evolutionary age of the element (Myr, million years). Values from C57BL6/J
animals were arbitrarily given a value of 1 for the purpose of comparison (n = 5/group).
2.3. Comparative Analysis of LINE-1 Expression and DNA Methylation Machinery Expression in the
Hematopoietic System in Non-Irradiated Mice
Differences were noted between the C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice in the expression of LINE-1
elements. Specifically, the expression of the youngest LINE-1 element in the mouse genome, L1MdA_I,
was 2.2-fold higher (p < 0.05) in HSCs of C57BL/6J mice compared to CBA/J mice (Figure 3A). At the
same time, L1MdTf_I and the ancient L1MdFanc_I were more highly expressed in HPCs and MNCs of
CBA/J mice (Figure 3B,C) compared to C57BL/6J mice: 4.1-fold (p < 0.05) for L1MdTf_I and 3.6-fold
(p < 0.05) for L1MdFanc_I in HPCs; 18.3-fold (p < 0.01) for L1MdTf_I and trending towards an increase
for L1MdFanc_I (4.6-fold, p = 0.09) in MNCs. No significant differences were detected in the expression
of Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, and Uhrf1—enzymes needed for the maintenance of normal patterns of DNA
methylation—between the two strains of mice (data not shown).
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of expression of three evolutionary distinct LINE-1 elements in the
hematopoietic system of C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice: L1MdA_I (0.21 Million years, Myr); L1MdTf_I
(0.25 Myr), an L1MdFanc_I (6.80 Myr). The differential expression of LINE-1 elements was determined
by quantitative RT-PCR for HSCs (A), HPCs (B), and MNCs (C). Data are presented as mean ± SEM
(n = 5). Asterisks (*) denote significant (p < 0.05), and (**)—(p < 0.01) difference from the control. Values
from C57BL6/J animals were arbitrarily given a value of 1 for the purpose of comparison (n = 5/group).
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
5 of 16
2.4. Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation on the Mouse Hematopoietic System
To investigate the long-term effects and possible inter-strain differences in response to IR, bone
marrows were harvested from C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice two months after total body irradiation
(TBI) with either 0.1 or 1 Gy of 137 Cs. Significant increases were observed in ROS in HSCs of
C57BL/6J, but not CBA/J mice, after exposure to 1 Gy (1.5-fold increase, p < 0.05) (Figure 4). No
significant radiation-induced changes in DNA damage or cell cycle were observed in either strain
(data not shown).
Figure 4. Comparative analysis of the levels of reactive oxygen species in response to low-dose
radiation. Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) for 2’,7’ –dichlorofluorescin diacetate (DCF-DA) in HSCs
of C57BL/6J (A) and CBA/J (B) mice. Asterisks (*) denote significant (p < 0.05) difference from control
(n = 5/group).
2.5. Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation on LINE-1 DNA Methylation in the
Hematopoietic System
Next, we analyzed the extent of DNA methylation in LINE-1 elements two months after TBI.
Exposure to both 0.1 and 1 Gy of 137 Cs led to a loss of LINE-1 DNA methylation in both mouse strains;
however, the hypomethylated phenotype was more evident in HSCs of CBA/J mice (Figure 5B). While
the loss of DNA methylation in LINE-1 elements of C57BL/6J mice was comparatively small (up
to 12%), LINE-1 DNA hypomethylation in CBA/J mice was much more substantial (up to ~60%
compared with basal levels) (Figure 5B). Furthermore, a significant difference in DNA methylation
(p < 0.0001) was observed between 0 Gy and 1 Gy of TBI in HSCs from CBA/J animals. The loss of
DNA methylation in HSCs was not promoter type-dependent or evolutionary age-dependent; however
the methylation status of the L1MdA_I—the youngest (0.21 Myr) and the most retrotranspositionally
active LINE-1 element—was two-fold lower (p < 0.001) after exposure to 1 Gy, compared to sham
irradiated mice.
In HPCs of C57BL/6J mice, TBI did not cause any detectable changes in DNA methylation
of LINE-1 elements (Figure 5C). In CBA/J mice, exposure to 0.1 Gy resulted in apparent DNA
hypermethylation, while exposure to 1 Gy led to DNA hypomethylation of LINE-1 elements. However,
intra- and inter-individual variability was larger than in HSCs or MNCs.
In MNCs, TBI led to an increase in the levels of LINE-1 DNA methylation. In CBA/J mice, LINE-1
DNA hypermethylation was noticeable after both 0.1 and 1 Gy of TBI. A significant difference in
LINE-1 DNA methylation between 0 Gy and 1 Gy of TBI in MNCs from CBA/J mice was observed
(p < 0.0001) (Figure 5B). The effect was not significant in C57BL/6J. None of the slopes were found to
be significantly different from zero, unsupportive of a role of the age of the element in response to TBI.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
6 of 16
Figure 5. Comparative analysis of LINE-1 DNA methylation in the hematopoietic system of C57BL/6J
and CBA/J mice in response to low-dose radiation. LINE-1 DNA methylation was analyzed in
(A,B) hematopoietic stem cells, (C,D) hematopoietic progenitor cells, and (E,F) mononuclear cells in
C57BL/6J (A,C,E) and CBA/J (B,D,F). Sham-irradiated samples (0 Gy) were arbitrarily given a value
of 1 for the purpose of comparison (n = 5/group). Myr: million years.
2.6. Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation on LINE-1 and DNA Methylation Machinery
Expression in the Hematopoietic System
The effects of exposure to IR on the expression of LINE-1 elements were less substantial
than on LINE-1 DNA methylation. We evaluated the transcript levels for three LINE-1 elements:
L1MdA_I, L1MdTf_I, and L1MdFanc_I. No significant changes were observed for either HSCs or
HPCs (Figure 6A–D). A significant 12.4-fold increase in the expression of L1MdTf_I (p < 0.05) was
observed in MNCs of C57BL6/J mice after exposure to 0.1 Gy of 137 Cs (Figure 6E). In the three analyzed
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
7 of 16
LINE-1 elements, there were no correlations between the levels of LINE-1 DNA methylation and their
expression. No significant changes in the expression of DNA methylation machinery were observed
(Figure S3).
Figure 6. Comparative analysis of expression of three evolutionary distinct LINE-1 elements in the
hematopoietic system of C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice in response to low-dose radiation. The differential
expression of LINE-1 elements was determined by quantitative RT-PCR in (A,B) hematopoietic stem
cells, (C,D) hematopoietic progenitor cells, and (E,F) mononuclear cells in C57BL/6J (A,C,E) and
CBA/J (B,D,F). Data are presented as mean ±SEM (n = 5). Asterisks (*) denote significant (p < 0.05)
difference from control. Sham-irradiated samples (0 Gy) were arbitrarily given a value of 1 for the
purpose of comparison (n = 5/group).
3. Discussion
In this study, we investigated the differences in the hematopoietic profiles of two mouse
strains—the relatively radioresistant C57BL/6J and relatively radiosensitive CBA/J—under normal
conditions and in response to IR. In sham-irradiated animals, consistently lower total bone marrow
cells were collected, and a smaller percentage of the sorted HSPCs displayed stem-specific cell surface
markers from CBA/J animals than those collected from C57BL/6J. These rarer, CBA/J-derived HSCs,
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
8 of 16
also displayed higher basal levels of markers for ROS and γH2AX, even without IR exposure. In fact,
the basal level of the ROS marker DCF-DA in HSCs from the CBA/J strain were comparable to the
levels of ROS found in C57BL/6J mice exposed to 1 Gy of radiation. At the same time, no significant
long-term increases in ROS levels were observed in CBA/J mice in response to either dose of IR. We
also assessed γH2AX as a measure of DNA damage. We did not observe any residual DNA damage
two months after exposure to IR, consistent with other studies on DNA double-strand break repair
kinetics [31,32].
DNA methylation is a key epigenetic mechanism regulating the expression of genetic
information. It is also crucial for the normal process of hematopoiesis [16–19]. Furthermore,
studies indicate that epigenetic alterations may play a driving role in radiation-induced experimental
carcinogenesis [21,22,33].
In addition, mutations in the DNA methyltransferases DNMT1
and DNMT3A resulted in alterations in the hematopoietic system and may lead to
malignant transformation, emphasizing the importance of DNA methylation in hematopoietic
malignancies [34,35].
The epigenetic effects of exposure to doses of IR above 1 Gy have been investigated
relatively well and are usually characterized by a loss of global and LINE-1-associated DNA
methylation [12,21,26]. At the same time, several studies reporting the effects of exposure at doses
below 1 Gy are less conclusive. Lacks of changes, as well as both DNA hypo- and hypermethylation,
have been reported [14,15,22,30,33,36–40]. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the DNA
methylation of LINE-1 elements in their 5′ -UTR in FAC-sorted HSCs, HPCs, and MNCs of two mouse
strains with different sensitivity to IR.
Because of the limited number of HSCs that can be obtained from the mouse bone marrow,
a methylation-sensitive quantitative real-time PCR (MS qRT-PCR) analysis of LINE-1 with 500 cells as
starting material was developed. There are several thousand copies of each family of LINE-1 elements
per cell, providing a strong initial signal. Although other techniques exist, such as tagmentation-based
whole-genome bisulfite sequencing, they usually require ~10,000 FAC-sorted cells, as well as timeand resource-consuming bioinformatic analysis [41]. Our approach allows for evaluation of repetitive
elements-associated DNA methylation from individual mice, substantially decreasing the number of
mice needed, as well as the overall time and cost of the experiment.
Consistent with previous findings in human embryonic cells [42] and mouse lungs [29], the degree
of LINE-1 element DNA methylation within the 5′ -UTR strongly correlated with their evolutionary age
in C57BL/6J mice. The 5′ -UTRs of the older LINE-1 elements were significantly less methylated when
compared to evolutionary younger LINE-1 elements. Importantly, these trends were observed in cells
of different lineages that, together with the results of previous studies [22,29], suggested the universal
nature of this effect. The differences in DNA methylation observed here for the same LINE-1 elements
between HSCs and MNCs were minimal, and suggested that the decrease in global DNA methylation
observed during differentiation [28] may stem from regions outside of repetitive elements. Similarly,
subtle differences were observed between LINE-1 elements in cells of the same lineage between the
two mouse strains—C57BL/6J and CBA/J.
The observed lower DNA methylation in older LINE-1 elements may partially be due to the higher
number of acquired mutations in evolutionary older elements compared to evolutionary younger
elements. It is known that 5-methylcytosine is prone to spontaneous deamination, resulting in the
loss of the methyl group due to its conversion into thymine. Another possible explanation is that only
young LINE-1 elements are capable of retrotransposition, therefore, DNA methylation of 5′ -UTR as a
key mechanism of regulation is necessary primarily in these elements, as opposed to inactivated and
truncated older LINE-1 elements.
Differences were detected in the expression of LINE-1 elements between the two mouse strains.
The expression level of the youngest (0.21 Myr) and most transcriptionally active L1MdA_I element in
HSCs of C57BL/6J mice was two-fold higher than that of CBA/J mice. The expression of yet another
young (0.25 Myr) and potentially retrotranspositionally active L1MdTf_I element was also higher
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
9 of 16
in HPCs and MNCs from CBA/J mice compared to C57BL/6J mice. These differences were DNA
methylation-independent and could be mediated by histone modifications or non-coding RNAs [43].
Differential expression of specific LINE-1 elements may predetermine the cellular plasticity of HSCs
and their differentiation/proliferation status. Therefore, future studies will be needed to pinpoint
genes located in proximity to LINE-1 elements and their influence on HSC commitment.
Our results also indicate that IR induces lineage-specific changes in LINE-1 DNA methylation
of hematopoietic cells. The most pronounced effects were observed in HSCs, reported as the most
sensitive to IR [44]. In this regard, the results of our study highlight several important facts. First,
in HSCs of CBA/J mice, epigenetic alterations that are characterized by increased susceptibility to
radiation-induced leukemia [45] were detected long after exposure to IR (2 months), suggesting the
persistent nature of the effect. Persistence is a prerequisite for epigenetic alterations to be considered as
driving forces of radiation-induced carcinogenesis [46,47]. Second, the loss of LINE-1 DNA methylation
observed in HSCs two months after irradiation was independent of DNA damage, induction of
ROS, or cellular senescence. Similar findings were observed in HSPCs 22 weeks after exposure to
a leukemogenic dose of 56 Fe [22]. This suggests that epigenetic alterations in radiation-induced
carcinogenesis may arise without persistent genetic damage, particularly at low doses. Third,
these changes were observed in a strain that is recognized for its sensitivity to radiation-induced
leukemogenesis (CBA/J), but not in a reference strain (C57BL/6J).
Loss of epigenetic control over LINE-1 is linked to its aberrant transcriptional activity, insertional
mutagenesis, development of genomic instability, and carcinogenesis [48]. Indeed, alterations in
LINE-1 DNA methylation are reported in most clinical and experimental cancers [2]. The role of
LINE-1 in hematopoietic malignancies has also been recognized [49].
Numerous studies have reported radiation-induced alterations in DNA methylation and
expression of LINE-1 [29,30,37,38]. In this study, we identified few significant changes in the expression
of the three tested LINE-1 elements two months after exposure to IR. However, because of the
large number of copies and long evolutionary history of retrotransposons, numerous genes acquired
LINE-1 insertions within their coding sequence and regulatory units. Therefore, alterations in DNA
methylation within the LINE-1 elements may have affected the expression of their host genes [50,51].
In this regard, more studies are needed to investigate the relationship between the methylation status
of LINE-1 insertions and the expression status of host genes.
This study has several limitations. The starting material of 500 cells provided enough material to
analyze the DNA methylation of most of the reported LINE-1 families. However, their expression was
relatively low and we were only able to investigate a subset for transcript levels. We selected three
LINE-1 elements that belong to structurally different promoter types: A (L1MdA_I), Tf (L1MdTf_I),
and Fanc (L1MdFanc_I), and are strikingly different by age—from the 0.21 Myr old L1MdA_I to
6.8 Myr old L1MdFanc_I. We cannot exclude that some other LINE-1 elements not included in the
analysis could be more responsive to IR; therefore, further studies will be needed to investigate the
effects of IR on the transcription status of other LINE-1 elements. Also, both DNA methylation and
the expression of LINE-1 are characterized by a high degree of inter-individual variability that often
failed to reach statistical significance. Future studies would benefit from a higher sample size in order
to address this issue. Another goal of future studies will be to confirm the causative role of LINE-1
DNA hypomethylation in radiation-induced carcinogenesis. These studies will require development
of in vivo models of the hypomethylated LINE-1 phenotype, a functional characterization of genes
that evolutionary acquired LINE-1 insertions, and whole-genome sequencing analysis, to identify
radiation-induced LINE-1 de novo insertional mutagenesis.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that DNA methylation within the 5′ -UTRs of LINE-1 elements
significantly differed between the two mouse strains in response to exposure to IR. The most
pronounced effects in response to TBI were observed in HSCs, the cells characterized by the highest
sensitivity to IR in CBA/J mice prone to radiation-induced leukemogenesis. These effects were
characterized by a loss of LINE-1 DNA methylation in HSCs, were persistent in nature, and were
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
10 of 16
maintained without detectable DNA damage. Altogether, these findings suggest that epigenetic
alterations are among the driving forces of IR-induced carcinogenesis. Given the considerable plasticity
of epigenetic alterations and the potential for DNA methylation modulation by dietary interventions,
these findings suggest a potential strategy for the mitigation and possible prevention of negative effects
exerted by IR. In this regard, the essential amino acid methionine is of particular interest. It serves as a
substrate for synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM)—the major donor of methyl groups for DNA
methylation. Dietary supplementation with methyl donors may aid in sustaining the normal levels
of DNA methylation post exposure [52]. For instance, it has been shown that dietary L-methionine
supplementation mitigated the radiation-induced loss of DNA methylation in the mouse liver [53].
Future studies will be needed to confirm the beneficial effects of dietary modulation of normal tissue
response to IR.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Animals and Irradiation
Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J and CBA/J mice were purchased from Jackson Laboratory
(Bar Harbor, ME, USA). Animals were housed at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
(UAMS). After a one-week acclimation period, the mice were randomly divided into three groups
(n = 5): Sham irradiated or whole-body irradiated to 0.1 or 1 Gy of 137 Cs. Irradiation was performed
with a J. L. Shepherd Mark I (model 25 137 Cs irradiator (J. L. Shepherd & Associates, San Fernando,
CA, USA)). Un-anesthetized mice were placed in well-ventilated cylindrical Plexiglas chambers
(J. L. Shepherd & Associates) divided into six 60◦ “pie slice” compartments by vertical dividers made
of machinable grade T-6061 aluminum with a gold anodized coating. Two chambers were stacked on
top of each other and placed on a turntable rotating at 5 rpm in the position furthest from the radiation
source, allowing all five mice belonging to the same exposure regimen to be irradiated simultaneously.
The average dose rate was 1.21 Gy/min. During the entire experiment, sham-irradiated mice were
housed in the same room, but in separate cages from the irradiated mice.
In order to investigate the persistent nature of radiation-induced epigenetic alterations and
to minimize the effects of the hematopoietic system recovery, the experiment was terminated two
months after irradiation. All animals were killed by cervical dislocation. Hind limbs were collected
immediately and stored in 1× PBS supplemented with 2% FBS on ice for further bone marrow
cell isolation. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
at UAMS.
4.2. Cell Collection
The bone marrow from each femora and tibia specimen was flushed with 2% FBS-PBS and pooled.
The bone marrow suspension was carefully overlaid on a Ficoll solution and centrifuged to exclude
multinucleated cells. An aliquot of the total pool of bone marrow mononucleated cells was set aside
for Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) and referred to as MNCs in the results. Twenty million
of the remaining cells from this pool were incubated with primary rat anti-mouse antibodies against
the markers of various differentiated mature hematopoietic cell lineages, including CD3e, B220, Ter119,
CD11b, and Gr-1. Differentiated cells were depleted using anti-rat antibody-coated magnetic beads
(Dynabeads, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Each resulting depleted pool containing both
stem and progenitor cells (referred to as HSPCs) was counted and one million cells per mouse were
used for cell frequency analysis and nucleic acid isolation, and another million cells for ROS, γH2AX,
and cell cycle analysis, respectively.
4.3. LINE-1 Families Consensus Sequences
LINE-1 families’ consensus sequences were obtained from the Genetic Information Research
Institute (GIRI) Database: http://www.girinst.org/ [54,55].
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
11 of 16
4.4. Construction of LINE-1 Phylogenetic Tree
Molecular phylogenetic analysis was conducted in MEGA6 [56] and based on the consensus
sequences of the 29 LINE-1 families we analyzed. First, the consensus sequences were aligned using
MUSCLE 3.8.31 software with default settings [57]. Next, the evolutionary history of the 29 LINE-1
families was inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method based on the Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano
model [58]. Original trees were obtained by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix
of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach, and then
selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. The phylogenetic analysis included 1st +
2nd + 3rd + Noncoding codon positions with a complete deletion option. The final dataset included
4494 positions. The consensus representative phylogenetic tree was obtained using the bootstrap
method [59] with 1000 replicates where branches whose partitions are reproduced in less than 50% of
bootstrap replicates are collapsed (Figure S4).
4.5. Nucleic Acid Isolation and Digestion
RNA and DNA were isolated simultaneously from the 500 FAC-sorted HSCs, HPCs, and MNCs
using the AllPrep micro kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.
DNA concentrations and integrity were analyzed by the Nanodrop 2000 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham,
MA, USA).
4.6. Analysis of DNA Methylation within the 5′ -UTR of Selective LINE-1 Elements
First, the 5′ -UTRs of twenty nine LINE-1 elements were analyzed using NEBcutter® (http:
//nc2.neb.com/NEBcutter2/). The five most frequent CpG sites that could be cleaved by the
methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes (AciI, BstUI, HhaI, HpaII, and SmaI) were identified. Analysis
of DNA methylation was performed as follows: genomic DNA extracted from 500 sorted cells was
digested with 1 U of SmaI in 1× CutSmart buffer at 25 ◦ C for 2 h. This was followed by a 16 h digestion
at 37 ◦ C in the presence of 1 U of the HpaII, HhaI, and AciI in 1× CutSmart buffer. The digestion was
finalized by adding 0.5 U of BstUI in 1× CutSmart buffer for 4 h at 60 ◦ C (New England Biolabs).
Digested DNA was then analyzed by qRT-PCR on a ViiA 7 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems,
Foster City, CA, USA) for 29 LINE-1 families. DNA samples not digested with the restriction enzyme
mix served as a positive control, while samples lacking the specific primers for DNA amplification
or DNA template served as negative controls. The Ct was defined as the fractional cycle number
that passes the fixed threshold. The Ct values were converted into the absolute amount of input
DNA using the absolute standard curve method, and further normalized towards readings from the
respective to each LINE-1 element ORF1 region that lacked CpG sites. We successfully validated
assays for 27 out of 29 tested LINE-1 elements. Forward and reverse primers for determination of
5′ -UTR LINE-1 DNA methylation are provided in Table S1. Forward and reverse primers for LINE-1
DNA targets and control regions were mixed and aliquoted in a 96-well qPCR plate, so that three
samples could be loaded side-by-side on each plate. The total volume of primer solution per well
was 3 µL, containing a total of 2.5 µM each of forward and reverse primer (Table S1). The digested
DNA was mixed with SYBR Select master mix (Life Technologies) and 7 µL was added to each well.
Reactions were performed on a ViiA-7 instrument according to the protocol suggested for the master
mix (Applied Biosystems). In order to validate the methylation-sensitive digestion protocol, DNA
digested with a cocktail of five methylation-sensitive enzymes was compared to sonicated DNA in
HSC and MNCs from C57BL/6J mice. This allowed for the normalization of possible differences in
copy numbers, unrelated to DNA methylation.
4.7. Gene Expression Analysis
cDNA was synthesized from total RNA sample using the SuperScript ViLO reverse transcriptase
kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
12 of 16
was performed with Taqman Universal Master Mix (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. Primers were added at a final concentration of 5 µM (Tables S1 and S2). Expression of Dnmt1,
Dnmt3a, Uhrf1, and three LINE-1 elements (L1MdA_I, L1MdTf_I, and L1MdFanc_I) was normalized to
the internal control gene Hprt and expressed as fold change according to the ∆∆Ct method.
4.8. Analysis of the Frequencies and Numbers of Different Hematopoietic Cell Populations by Flow Cytometry
Bone marrow HSPCs were stained with biotin-conjugated anti- CD3e, B220, Ter119, CD11b, and
Gr-1 antibodies and then with streptavidin-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and anti-Sca1-PE-Cy7
(clone E13-161.7), c-Kit-APC-Cy7 (clone 2B8), CD150-APC, and CD48-Pacific blue (BD Biosciences,
San Diego, CA, USA) fluorescently labeled antibodies. The frequencies of each cell type were analyzed
with an Aria II cell sorter. For each sample, approximately 5 × 105 to 1 × 106 HSPCs were acquired
and the data were analyzed using BD FACSDiva 6.0 (BD Biosciences) and FlowJo (FlowJo, Ashland,
OR, USA) software. Five hundred HSCs, HPCs, and MNCs were sorted for nucleic acid extraction.
An additional 500 mononuclear cells were sorted from the pool of cells set aside before depletion.
4.9. Analysis of the Levels of Intracellular ROS
After staining with the appropriate cell surface marker antibodies as described above, cells
(1 × 106 /mL) were suspended in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Mediatech Inc., Manassas, VA, USA)
supplemented with 5 mM glucose, 1 mM CaCl2 , 0.5 mM MgSO4 , and 5 mg/mL bovine serum albumin
(BSA), and then incubated with 10 µM 2′ ,7′ -dichlorofluorescin diacetate (DC-FDA) (Life Technologies)
for 30 min at 37 ◦ C. The levels of ROS were analyzed by measuring the mean fluorescence intensity
(MFI) of 2′ ,7′ -dichlorofluorescein (DCF) with an Aria II cell sorter (Becton-Dickinson, San Jose, CA,
USA). For each sample, a minimum of 200,000 cells was acquired, and the data were analyzed using
CellQuest software (Becton-Dickinson). R-phycoerythrin (PE) and Allophycocyanin (APC) isotype
controls were included, as appropriate.
4.10. DNA Damage Analysis
After approximately 4000 sorted cells were first stained with antibodies against specific cell-surface
markers as described above, they were fixed and permeabilized using the Fixation/Permeabilization
Solution from BD Biosciences (San Diego, CA, USA), followed by 0.2% Triton-X-100 incubation for
10 min. Cells were then stained with Alexa Fluor 488 conjugated anti-phospho-Histone H2AX (Ser139)
for 1.5 h at 4 ◦ C and analyzed by flow cytometry. The levels of DNA damage were expressed by the
mean fluorescence intensity of γH2AX with an Aria II cell sorter (BD Biosciences).
4.11. Statistical Analysis
All animal experiments were performed once. All data are presented as mean ±standard error
of mean of five animals per radiation dose. With five animals per comparison group, there was 80%
power to detect effect sizes of approximately two standard deviations in a two-tailed t-test with a
5% significance level. All assessed parameters were measured within the same batch of animals.
Statistically significant differences for each treatment compared to the control were assessed using
one-way ANOVAs followed by Dunnett’s or Tukey’s post hoc tests. Statistical analyses were performed
using GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software Inc., LaJolla, CA, USA). For DNA methylation analysis,
we performed random coefficient regression to account for multiple observations of LINE-1 DNA
methylation (recorded by the LINE-1’s evolutionary age) within a mouse using the MIXED procedure
in SAS/STAT software, version 9.3, SAS System for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Supplementary Materials: Supplementary materials can be found at www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/7/1430/s1.
Acknowledgments: Research reported in this publication was supported by an Institutional Development Award
(IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant
number 1P20GM109005; Clinical and Translational Science Awards UL1TR000039 and KL2TR000063; National
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
13 of 16
Space Biomedical Research Institute [RE03701 through NCC 9-58]; the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium through
National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NNX15AK32A; and the Arkansas Biosciences Institute.
The authors are thankful to Cellular and Molecular Analytic, and to Irradiation and Animal Core Facilities within
the COBRE under the grant number 1P20GM109005. The authors are thankful to Joeline Brown for assistance
with bone marrow collection procedures and to Chris Fettes for editing the manuscript. The authors would like to
thank Christy Simecka, Bianca Schutte, and Erica Nicholson for providing excellent animal care at the UAMS
Animal Facility.
Author Contributions: Igor Koturbash and Isabelle R. Miousse conceived and designed the experiments;
Isabelle R. Miousse, Jianhui Chang, Lijian Shao, and Rupak Pathak performed the experiments; Isabelle R. Miousse,
Lijian Shao, Étienne Nzabarushimana, Reid D. Landes, Alan J. Tackett, Rupak Pathak, Martin Hauer-Jensen,
Daohong Zhou, and Igor Koturbash analyzed the data; Igor Koturbash, Kristy R. Kutanzi, and Isabelle R. Miousse
wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
FACS
HPC
HSC
HSPC
IR
LINE-1
MNC
Myr
ORF
ROS
SEM
TBI
UTR
Fluorescence activated cell sorting
Hematopoietic progenitor cell
Hematopoietic stem cell
Hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell
Ionizing radiation
Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element 1
Mononuclear cell
Million years
Open reading frame
Reactive oxygen species
Standard error of mean
Total body irradiation
Untranslated region
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Jones, P.A. Functions of DNA methylation: Islands, start sites, gene bodies and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet.
2012, 13, 484–492. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miousse, I.R.; Koturbash, I. The Fine LINE: Methylation Drawing the Cancer Landscape. BioMed Res. Int.
2015, 2015, 131547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chénais, B.; Caruso, A.; Hiard, S.; Casse, N. The impact of transposable elements on eukaryotic genomes:
From genome size increase to genetic adaptation to stressful environments. Gene 2012, 509, 7–15. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Rebollo, R.; Romanish, M.T.; Mager, D.L. Transposable elements: An abundant and natural source of
regulatory sequences for host genes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2012, 46, 21–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Belan, E. LINEs of evidence: Noncanonical DNA replication as an epigenetic determinant. Biol. Direct 2013,
8, 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cowley, M.; Oakey, R.J. Transposable elements re-wire and fine-tune the transcriptome. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9,
e1003234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cost, G.J.; Feng, Q.; Jacquier, A.; Boeke, J.D. Human L1 element target-primed reverse transcription in vitro.
EMBO. J. 2002, 21, 5899–5910. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Denli, A.M.; Narvaiza, I.; Kerman, B.E.; Pena, M.; Benner, C.; Marchetto, M.C.N.; Diedrich, J.K.; Aslanian, A.;
Ma, J.; Moresco, J.J.; et al. Primate-specific ORF0 contributes to retrotransposon-mediated diversity. Cell
2015, 163, 583–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Khan, H.; Smit, A.; Boissinot, S. Molecular evolution and tempo of amplification of human LINE-1
retrotransposons since the origin of primates. Genome Res. 2006, 16, 78–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sookdeo, A.; Hepp, C.M.; McClure, M.A.; Boissinot, S. Revisiting the evolution of mouse LINE-1 in the
genomic era. Mob. DNA 2013, 4, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miousse, I.R.; Kutanzi, K.R.; Koturbash, I. Effects of ionizing radiation on DNA methylation: From
experimental biology to clinical applications. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2017, 93, 457–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
14 of 16
Koturbash, I.; Boyko, A.; Rodriguez-Juarez, R.; McDonald, R.J.; Tryndyak, V.P.; Kovalchuk, I.; Pogribny, I.P.;
Kovalchuk, O. Role of epigenetic effectors in maintenance of the long-term persistent bystander effect in
spleen in vivo. Carcinogenesis 2007, 28, 1831–1838. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miousse, I.R.; Chalbot, M.-C.G.; Lumen, A.; Ferguson, A.; Kavouras, I.G.; Koturbash, I. Response of
transposable elements to environmental stressors. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2015, 765, 19–39. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Newman, M.R.; Sykes, P.J.; Blyth, B.J.; Bezak, E.; Lawrence, M.D.; Morel, K.L.; Ormsby, R.J. The methylation of
DNA repeat elements is sex-dependent and temporally different in response to X radiation in radiosensitive
and radioresistant mouse strains. Radiat. Res. 2014, 181, 65–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Newman, M.R.; Sykes, P.J.; Blyth, B.J.; Bezak, E.; Lawrence, M.D.; Morel, K.L.; Ormsby, R.J. A single
whole-body low dose X-irradiation does not affect L1, B1 and IAP repeat element DNA methylation
longitudinally. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93016. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shao, L.; Luo, Y.; Zhou, D. Hematopoietic stem cell injury induced by ionizing radiation. Antioxid. Redox
Signal. 2014, 20, 1447–1462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Challen, G.A.; Sun, D.; Mayle, A.; Jeong, M.; Luo, M.; Rodriguez, B.; Mallaney, C.; Celik, H.; Yang, L.;
Xia, Z.; et al. DNMT3A and DNMT3B have overlapping and distinct functions in hematopoietic stem cells.
Cell Stem Cell 2014, 15, 350–364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beerman, I.; Bock, C.; Garrison, B.S.; Smith, Z.D.; Gu, H.; Meissner, A.; Rossi, D.J. Proliferation-dependent
alterations of the DNA methylation landscape underlie hematopoietic stem cell aging. Cell Stem Cell 2013,
12, 413–425. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Woods, B.A.; Levine, R.L. The role of mutations in epigenetic regulators in myeloid malignancies.
Immunol. Rev. 2015, 263, 22–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shih, A.H.; Abdel-Wahab, O.; Patel, J.P.; Levine, R.L. The role of mutations in epigenetic regulators in
myeloid malignancies. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 599–612. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Koturbash, I.; Pogribny, I.; Kovalchuk, O. Stable loss of global DNA methylation in the radiation-target
tissue—A possible mechanism contributing to radiation carcinogenesis? Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
2005, 337, 526–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miousse, I.R.; Shao, L.; Chang, J.; Feng, W.; Wang, Y.; Allen, A.R.; Turner, J.; Stewart, B.; Raber, J.; Zhou, D.;
et al. Exposure to low-dose 56 Fe-ion radiation induces long-term epigenetic alterations in mouse bone
marrow hematopoietic progenitor and stem cells. Radiat. Res. 2014, 182, 92–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Scholz, B.; Marschalek, R. Epigenetics and blood disorders. Br. J. Haematol. 2012, 158, 307–322. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Spencer, D.H.; Russler-Germain, D.A.; Ketkar, S.; Helton, N.M.; Lamprecht, T.L.; Fulton, R.S.; Fronick, C.C.;
O’Laughlin, M.; Heath, S.E.; Shinawi, M.; et al. CpG Island Hypermethylation Mediated by DNMT3A Is a
Consequence of AML Progression. Cell 2017, 168, 801–816. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weissman, I.L.; Anderson, D.J.; Gage, F. Stem and progenitor cells: Origins, phenotypes, lineage
commitments, and transdifferentiations. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2001, 17, 387–403. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Giotopoulos, G.; McCormick, C.; Cole, C.; Zanker, A.; Jawad, M.; Brown, R.; Plumb, M. DNA methylation
during mouse hemopoietic differentiation and radiation-induced leukemia. Exp. Hematol. 2006, 34,
1462–1470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tamminga, J.; Koturbash, I.; Baker, M.; Kutanzi, K.; Kathiria, P.; Pogribny, I.P.; Sutherland, R.J.; Kovalchuk, O.
Paternal cranial irradiation induces distant bystander DNA damage in the germline and leads to epigenetic
alterations in the offspring. Cell Cycle Georget. Tex 2008, 7, 1238–1245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ji, H.; Ehrlich, L.I.R.; Seita, J.; Murakami, P.; Doi, A.; Lindau, P.; Lee, H.; Aryee, M.J.; Irizarry, R.A.; Kim, K.;
et al. Comprehensive methylome map of lineage commitment from haematopoietic progenitors. Nature
2010, 467, 338–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Prior, S.; Miousse, I.R.; Nzabarushimana, E.; Pathak, R.; Skinner, C.; Kutanzi, K.R.; Allen, A.R.; Raber, J.;
Tackett, A.J.; Hauer-Jensen, M.; et al. Densely ionizing radiation affects DNA methylation of selective LINE-1
elements. Environ. Res. 2016, 150, 470–481. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Koturbash, I.; Miousse, I.R.; Sridharan, V.; Nzabarushimana, E.; Skinner, C.M.; Melnyk, S.B.; Pavliv, O.;
Hauer-Jensen, M.; Nelson, G.A.; Boerma, M. Radiation-induced changes in DNA methylation of repetitive
elements in the mouse heart. Mutat. Res. 2016, 787, 43–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
15 of 16
Rübe, C.E.; Grudzenski, S.; Kühne, M.; Dong, X.; Rief, N.; Löbrich, M.; Rübe, C. DNA double-strand break
repair of blood lymphocytes and normal tissues analysed in a preclinical mouse model: Implications for
radiosensitivity testing. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14, 6546–6555. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sedelnikova, O.A.; Nakamura, A.; Kovalchuk, O.; Koturbash, I.; Mitchell, S.A.; Marino, S.A.; Brenner, D.J.;
Bonner, W.M. DNA double-strand breaks form in bystander cells after microbeam irradiation of
three-dimensional human tissue models. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 4295–4302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rithidech, K.N.; Honikel, L.M.; Reungpathanaphong, P.; Tungjai, M.; Jangiam, W.; Whorton, E.B.
Late-occurring chromosome aberrations and global DNA methylation in hematopoietic stem/progenitor
cells of CBA/CaJ mice exposed to silicon (28 Si) ions. Mutat. Res. 2015, 781, 22–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hájková, H.; Marková, J.; Haškovec, C.; Sárová, I.; Fuchs, O.; Kostečka, A.; Cetkovský, P.; Michalová, K.;
Schwarz, J. Decreased DNA methylation in acute myeloid leukemia patients with DNMT3A mutations and
prognostic implications of DNA methylation. Leuk. Res. 2012, 36, 1128–1133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Holz-Schietinger, C.; Matje, D.M.; Reich, N.O. Mutations in DNA methyltransferase (DNMT3A) observed
in acute myeloid leukemia patients disrupt processive methylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 30941–30951.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nzabarushimana, E.; Prior, S.; Miousse, I.R.; Pathak, R.; Allen, A.R.; Latendresse, J.; Olsen, R.H.J.; Raber, J.;
Hauer-Jensen, M.; Nelson, G.A.; et al. Combined exposure to protons and 56 Fe leads to overexpression of
Il13 and reactivation of repetitive elements in the mouse lung. Life Sci. Space Res. 2015, 7, 1–8. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Aypar, U.; Morgan, W.F.; Baulch, J.E. Radiation-induced epigenetic alterations after low and high LET
irradiations. Mutat. Res. 2011, 707, 24–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goetz, W.; Morgan, M.N.M.; Baulch, J.E. The effect of radiation quality on genomic DNA methylation profiles
in irradiated human cell lines. Radiat. Res. 2011, 175, 575–587. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nzabarushimana, E.; Miousse, I.R.; Shao, L.; Chang, J.; Allen, A.R.; Turner, J.; Stewart, B.; Raber, J.;
Koturbash, I. Long-term epigenetic effects of exposure to low doses of 56 Fe in the mouse lung. J. Radiat. Res.
2014, 55, 823–828. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lima, F.; Ding, D.; Goetz, W.; Yang, A.J.; Baulch, J.E. High LET 56Fe ion irradiation induces tissue-specific
changes in DNA methylation in the mouse. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2014, 55, 266–277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, Q.; Gu, L.; Adey, A.; Radlwimmer, B.; Wang, W.; Hovestadt, V.; Bähr, M.; Wolf, S.; Shendure, J.; Eils, R.;
et al. Tagmentation-based whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. Nat. Protoc. 2013, 8, 2022–2032. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Guo, H.; Zhu, P.; Yan, L.; Li, R.; Hu, B.; Lian, Y.; Yan, J.; Ren, X.; Lin, S.; Li, J. The DNA methylation landscape
of human early embryos. Nature 2014, 511, 606–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Richardson, S.R.; Doucet, A.J.; Kopera, H.C.; Moldovan, J.B.; Garcia-Perez, J.L.; Moran, J.V. The Influence
of LINE-1 and SINE Retrotransposons on Mammalian Genomes. Microbiol. Spectr. 2015, 3. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Shao, L.; Wang, Y.; Chang, J.; Luo, Y.; Meng, A.; Zhou, D. Hematopoietic stem cell senescence and cancer
therapy-induced long-term bone marrow injury. Transl. Cancer Res. 2013, 2, 397–411. [PubMed]
Laznicka, M.; Libansky, J.; Svoboda, M. Post-Irradiation Leukaemia in CBA Mice. Neoplasma 1964, 11,
385–388. [PubMed]
Koturbash, I.; Beland, F.A.; Pogribny, I.P. Role of epigenetic events in chemical carcinogenesis–a justification
for incorporating epigenetic evaluations in cancer risk assessment. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2011, 21, 289–297.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Herceg, Z.; Lambert, M.P.; van, V.K.; Demetriou, C.; Vineis, P.; Smith, M.T.; Straif, K.; Wild, C.P. Towards
incorporating epigenetic mechanisms into carcinogen identification and evaluation. Carcinogenesis 2013, 34,
1955–1967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kazazian, H.H.; Moran, J.V. The impact of L1 retrotransposons on the human genome. Nat. Genet. 1998, 19,
19–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schneider, A.M.; Duffield, A.S.; Symer, D.E.; Burns, K.H. Roles of retrotransposons in benign and malignant
hematologic disease. Cellscience 2009, 6, 121–145. [PubMed]
Hur, K.; Cejas, P.; Feliu, J.; Moreno-Rubio, J.; Burgos, E.; Boland, C.R.; Goel, A. Hypomethylation of long
interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) leads to activation of proto-oncogenes in human colorectal cancer
metastasis. Gut 2014, 63, 635–646. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1430
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
16 of 16
Wolff, E.M.; Byun, H.-M.; Han, H.F.; Sharma, S.; Nichols, P.W.; Siegmund, K.D.; Yang, A.S.; Jones, P.A.;
Liang, G. Hypomethylation of a LINE-1 promoter activates an alternate transcript of the MET oncogene in
bladders with cancer. PLoS Genet. 2010, 6, e1000917. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miousse, I.R.; Tobacyk, J.; Melnyk, S.; James, S.J.; Cheema, A.K.; Boerma, M.; Hauer-Jensen, M.; Koturbash, I.
One-carbon metabolism and ionizing radiation: A multifaceted interaction. Biomol. Concepts 2017, 8, 83–92.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Batra, V.; Verma, P. Dietary l-methionine supplementation mitigates gamma-radiation induced global DNA
hypomethylation: Enhanced metabolic flux towards S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAM) biosynthesis increases
genomic methylation potential. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2014, 69, 46–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bao, W.; Kojima, K.K.; Kohany, O. Repbase Update, a database of repetitive elements in eukaryotic genomes.
Mob. DNA 2015, 6, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jurka, J.; Kapitonov, V.V.; Pavlicek, A.; Klonowski, P.; Kohany, O.; Walichiewicz, J. Repbase Update, a
database of eukaryotic repetitive elements. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2005, 110, 462–467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Peterson, D.; Filipski, A.; Kumar, S. MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics
analysis version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 2725–2729. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Edgar, R.C. MUSCLE: A multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity.
BMC Bioinform. 2004, 5, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hasegawa, M.; Kishino, H.; Yano, T. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial
DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 1985, 22, 160–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Felsenstein, J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol.
1985, 39, 783–791. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).