Advertisement

Current Diabetes Reports

, 19:91 | Cite as

Cytosine Methylation Studies in Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease

  • Tamas Aranyi
  • Katalin SusztakEmail author
Pathogenesis of Type 2 Diabetes and Insulin Resistance (M-E Patti, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Pathogenesis of Type 2 Diabetes and Insulin Resistance

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

Kidney disease is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes. Poor glycemic control shows the strongest correlation with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) development. A period of poor glycemia increases kidney disease risk even after an extended period of improved glucose control—a phenomenon called metabolic memory. Changes in the epigenome have been proposed to mediate the metabolic memory effect, as epigenome editing enzymes are regulated by substrates of intermediate metabolism and changes in the epigenome can be maintained after cell division.

Recent Findings

Epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) have reported differentially methylated cytosines in blood and kidney samples of DKD subjects when compared with controls. Differentially methylated cytosines were enriched on regulatory regions and some correlated with gene expression. Methylation changes predicted the speed of kidney function decline. Site-specific methylome editing tools now can be used to interrogate the functional role of differentially methylated regions.

Summary

Methylome changes can be detected in blood and kidneys of patients with DKD. Methylation changes can predict future kidney function changes. Future studies shall determine their role in disease development.

Keywords

Epigenetics Cytosine methylation Diabetic kidney disease Epigenome editing Epigenome-wide association analysis (EWAS) Metabolic memory 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Tamas Aranyi declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Katalin Susztak reports grant support from GSK, Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bayer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Gilead; and consulting for Chemocentryx, Janssen, and Maze Bio. However, the work is not related to any of the studies supported by industry.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Gluck C, Ko YA, Susztak K. Precision medicine approaches to diabetic kidney disease: tissue as an issue. Curr Diabetes Rep. 2017;17:30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reidy K, Kang HM, Hostetter T, Susztak K. Molecular mechanisms of diabetic kidney disease. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:2333–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breyer MD, Susztak K. The next generation of therapeutics for chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15:568–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pattaro C, et al. Genetic associations at 53 loci highlight cell types and biological pathways relevant for kidney function. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10023.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qiu C, Huang S, Park J, Park YS, Ko YA, Seasock MJ, et al. Renal compartment-specific genetic variation analyses identify new pathways in chronic kidney disease. Nat Med. 2018;24:1721–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. E. R. Group, et al. Intensive diabetes therapy and glomerular filtration rate in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2366–76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker DJ, et al. Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (syndrome X): relation to reduced fetal growth. Diabetologia. 1993;36:62–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jimenez-Chillaron JC, Isganaitis E, Charalambous M, Gesta S, Pentinat-Pelegrin T, Faucette RR, et al. Intergenerational transmission of glucose intolerance and obesity by in utero undernutrition in mice. Diabetes. 2009;58:460–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oge A, Isganaitis E, Jimenez-Chillaron J, Reamer C, Faucette R, Barry K, et al. In utero undernutrition reduces diabetes incidence in non-obese diabetic mice. Diabetologia. 2007;50:1099–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radford EJ, et al. In utero effects. In utero undernourishment perturbs the adult sperm methylome and intergenerational metabolism. Science. 2014;345:1255903.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seki Y, Suzuki M, Guo X, Glenn AS, Vuguin PM, Fiallo A, et al. In utero exposure to a high-fat diet programs hepatic hypermethylation and gene dysregulation and development of metabolic syndrome in male mice. Endocrinology. 2017;158:2860–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Chen Z, et al. Epigenomic profiling reveals an association between persistence of DNA methylation and metabolic memory in the DCCT/EDIC type 1 diabetes cohort. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:E3002–11. This study analyzed methylome changes in blood samples from the well-characterized DCCT cohort and identified methylation changes correlating with metabolic memory. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooper ME, El-Osta A. Epigenetics: mechanisms and implications for diabetic complications. Circ Res. 2010;107:1403–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper ME, el-Osta A, Allen TJ, Watson AMD, Thomas MC, Jandeleit-Dahm KAM. Metabolic karma-the atherogenic legacy of diabetes: the 2017 Edwin Bierman Award Lecture. Diabetes. 2018;67:785–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ko YA, Susztak K. Epigenomics: the science of no-longer-junk DNA. Why study it in chronic kidney disease? Semin Nephrol. 2013;33:354–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pagliaroli L, Vető B, Arányi T, Barta C. From genetics to epigenetics: new perspectives in Tourette syndrome research. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:277.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kato M, Natarajan R. Epigenetics and epigenomics in diabetic kidney disease and metabolic memory. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2019;15:327–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deaton AM, Bird A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev. 2011;25:1010–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arányi T, et al. The tissue-specific methylation of the human tyrosine hydroxylase gene reveals new regulatory elements in the first exon. J Neurochem. 2005;94:129–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohtat D, Susztak K. Fine tuning gene expression: the epigenome. Semin Nephrol. 2010;30:468–76.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li SY, Park J, Guan Y, Chung K, Shrestha R, Palmer MB, et al. DNMT1 in Six2 progenitor cells is essential for transposable element silencing and kidney development. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30:594–609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosen ED, Kaestner KH, Natarajan R, Patti ME, Sallari R, Sander M, et al. Epigenetics and epigenomics: implications for diabetes and obesity. Diabetes. 2018;67:1923–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jenuwein T, Allis CD. Translating the histone code. Science. 2001;293:1074–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buenrostro JD, Wu B, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ. ATAC-seq: a method for assaying chromatin accessibility genome-wide. Curr Protocols Mol Biol. 2015;109:21 29 21–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Susztak K. Understanding the epigenetic syntax for the genetic alphabet in the kidney. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25:10–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brind'Amour J, et al. An ultra-low-input native ChIP-seq protocol for genome-wide profiling of rare cell populations. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6033.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hyun BR, McElwee JL, Soloway PD. Single molecule and single cell epigenomics. Methods. 2015;72:41–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang F, Barbacioru C, Nordman E, Li B, Xu N, Bashkirov VI, et al. RNA-Seq analysis to capture the transcriptome landscape of a single cell. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:516–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clark SJ, Harrison J, Paul CL, Frommer M. High sensitivity mapping of methylated cytosines. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:2990–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feng L, Lou J. DNA methylation analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1894:181–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schutsky EK, DeNizio JE, Hu P, Liu MY, Nabel CS, Fabyanic EB, et al. Nondestructive, base-resolution sequencing of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine using a DNA deaminase. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:1083–90.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vető B, Szabó P, Bacquet C, Apró A, Hathy E, Kiss J, et al. Inhibition of DNA methyltransferase leads to increased genomic 5-hydroxymethylcytosine levels in hematopoietic cells. FEBS Open Bio. 2018;8:584–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bibikova M, Barnes B, Tsan C, Ho V, Klotzle B, le JM, et al. High density DNA methylation array with single CpG site resolution. Genomics. 2011;98:288–95.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pidsley R, Zotenko E, Peters TJ, Lawrence MG, Risbridger GP, Molloy P, et al. Critical evaluation of the Illumina MethylationEPIC BeadChip microarray for whole-genome DNA methylation profiling. Genome Biol. 2016;17:208.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bell CG, Teschendorff AE, Rakyan VK, Maxwell AP, Beck S, Savage DA. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis for diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. BMC Med Genet. 2010;3:33.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swan EJ, Maxwell AP, McKnight AJ. Distinct methylation patterns in genes that affect mitochondrial function are associated with kidney disease in blood-derived DNA from individuals with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2015;32:1110–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Qiu C, Hanson RL, Fufaa G, Kobes S, Gluck C, Huang J, et al. Cytosine methylation predicts renal function decline in American Indians. Kidney Int. 2018;93:1417–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chu AY, Tin A, Schlosser P, Ko YA, Qiu C, Yao C, et al. Epigenome-wide association studies identify DNA methylation associated with kidney function. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1286.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ko YA, Mohtat D, Suzuki M, Park A, Izquierdo M, Han S, et al. Cytosine methylation changes in enhancer regions of core pro-fibrotic genes characterize kidney fibrosis development. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R108.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    •• Gluck C, et al. Kidney cytosine methylation changes improve renal function decline estimation in patients with diabetic kidney disease. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2461. The authors identified DNA methylation changes in kidneys of patients with DKD. Methylation levels predicted kidney function deline. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    •• J. Park et al., Functional methylome analysis of human diabetic kidney disease. JCI Insight, (2019). The authors reported whole genome base-resolution methylation changes in microdissected human DKD kidney samples. The authors demonstrated that dCAS9-based methylation editing of the TNF alpha locus leads to changes in gene expression. Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Park J, Shrestha R, Qiu C, Kondo A, Huang S, Werth M, et al. Single-cell transcriptomics of the mouse kidney reveals potential cellular targets of kidney disease. Science. 2018;360:758–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vojta A, Dobrinić P, Tadić V, Bočkor L, Korać P, Julg B, et al. Repurposing the CRISPR-Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:5615–28.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Inoue K, Gan G, Ciarleglio M, Zhang Y, Tian X, Pedigo CE, et al. Podocyte histone deacetylase activity regulates murine and human glomerular diseases. J Clin Invest. 2019;129:1295–313.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Renal Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine and Genetics, Perelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations