Next Article in Journal
On the Identification of Body Fluids and Tissues: A Crucial Link in the Investigation and Solution of Crime
Previous Article in Journal
Ultrasound-Based Method for the Identification of Novel MicroRNA Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/genes12111727
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Whole Genome DNA Methylation Variations in Mammary Gland Tissues from Holstein Cattle Producing Milk with Various Fat and Protein Contents

by
Mengqi Wang
1,
Nathalie Bissonnette
1,
Pier-Luc Dudemaine
1,
Xin Zhao
2 and
Eveline M. Ibeagha-Awemu
1,*
1
Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 0C8, Canada
2
Department of Animal Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2021, 12(11), 1727; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111727
Submission received: 4 October 2021 / Revised: 22 October 2021 / Accepted: 22 October 2021 / Published: 28 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Genetics and Genomics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Milk fat and protein contents are among key elements of milk quality, and they are attracting more attention in response to consumers′ demand for high-quality dairy products. To investigate the potential regulatory roles of DNA methylation underlying milk component yield, whole genome bisulfite sequencing was employed to profile the global DNA methylation patterns of mammary gland tissues from 17 Canada Holstein cows with various milk fat and protein contents. A total of 706, 2420 and 1645 differentially methylated CpG sites (DMCs) were found between high vs. low milk fat (HMF vs. LMF), high vs. low milk protein (HMP vs. LMP), and high vs. low milk fat and protein (HMFP vs. LMFP) groups, respectively (q value < 0.1). Twenty-seven, 56 and 67 genes harboring DMCs in gene regions (denoted DMC genes) were identified for HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP, respectively. DMC genes from HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons were significantly overrepresented in GO terms related to aerobic electron transport chain and/or mitochondrial ATP (adenosine triphosphate) synthesis coupled electron transport. A total of 83 (HMF vs. LMF), 708 (HMP vs. LMP) and 408 (HMFP vs. LMFP) DMCs were co-located with 87, 147 and 158 quantitative trait loci (QTL) for milk component and yield traits, respectively. In conclusion, the identified methylation changes are potentially involved in the regulation of milk fat and protein yields, as well as the variation in reported co-located QTLs.

1. Introduction

Genetic selection for milk production up to the end of the last century principally focused on increasing milk yield, but with the dawn of the 21st century, the focus has broadened to include milk quality, health, welfare, fitness and environmental sustainability traits [1]. In addition to consumer preferences, attention on improving milk component yield, especially milk fat/fatty acids and protein yields, has been precipitated by its influence on the nutritional, physical and flavor properties of milk products. Over the past decades, implementation of genetic selection led to increased genetic gain for milk fat and protein content [2,3,4,5,6]. In recent times, implementation of genomic selection has revolutionized dairy cow breeding with increased gains realized in all traits being targeted for selection, including fat and protein yields [7]. Genomic selection, however, relies on sequence variations such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that do not account for all the phenotypic variance in traits, thereby opening up the possibility that other processes such as epigenetic mechanisms also contribute to phenotypic variation in livestock traits [8,9].
Epigenetic mechanisms including DNA methylation alteration have been identified as important regulatory mechanisms of mammary gland development and health [10,11,12,13]. Associations between DNA methylation alterations and milk production in cattle have been reported [13,14,15] leading to the prediction of DNA methylation as an insightful molecular mechanism underlying the phenotypic changes of milk production traits [9,15]. Specifically, genome-wide DNA methylation changes were reported between dairy cattle with different milk yields, revealing potential association between DNA methylation and milk yield [16,17]. Recently, negative association between global DNA methylation rates and milk protein yield were identified in lactating dairy cows, revealing that DNA methylation may play a role in milk protein production [16]. Moreover, unusual DNA methylation around the STAT5-binding enhancer in the αS1-casein promoter negatively regulated αS1-casein synthesis in milk during lactation [18,19,20]. Furthermore, increased DNA methylation of some lipid-related genes, such as ACACA, SCD, FASN, and PPARG, regulated their gene expression and thereby affected fatty acid synthesis and milk fat content of goat milk [21,22].
Despite recent research attention to explore the potential influence of DNA methylation on cattle production and health traits, the contribution of DNA methylation to milk production, especially the content of milk fat and protein, is still poorly understood. Therefore, this study profiled the genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of mammary gland tissues from Holstein cattle with various milk fat and protein content as well as examined potential association between DNA methylation alterations and milk composition.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Animals and Sample Collection

Experimental cows were from the dairy herd of the Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre (SRDC) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Animals were managed according to routine farm management practices. A composite milk sample (30 mL) was collected once monthly from all lactating cows (N = 96) over a period of 12 months and the components quantified to identify cows producing milk with very high or very low fat and protein contents for four consecutive months.

2.2. Milk Component Analysis

Milk component analysis including test day milk fat and protein yields was determined with MilkoScan FT 6000 Series mid-range infrared Fourier Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) based spectrometers by Lactanet (lactanet.ca; Ste-Anne de Bellevue, QC, Canada). Test day milk fat and protein yields were determined by multiplying the respective percentages with the total test day milk production.
Cows with consistently highest milk fat (HMF, MF > 4.80%, N = 7) or protein (HMP, MP > 3.60%, N = 5) content over a four-month period consecutively were selected. Similarly, cows with consistently lowest milk fat (LMF, MF ≤ 3.7%, N = 5) or protein (LMP, MP ≤ 3.15%, N = 7) contents over the same period were selected. Among them, some cows were qualified in more than one group, including three cows producing milk with both high fat and high protein contents (HMFP, MF > 4.80% and MP > 3.6%) as well as three cows producing milk with low fat and low protein contents (LMFP, MF ≤ 3.7% and MP ≤ 3.15%). The parities of cows ranged from 1 to 7 and day in milk ranged from 48 to 352 (Table 1). Mammary gland tissue samples or biopsies were aseptically collected from the 17 cows through surgery by a professional veterinarian and following standard procedures at the SRDC dairy barn. Mammary gland tissues were cut into small pieces, immediately snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until used.
Animal use procedures were approved in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and ethical approval to conduct the study was provided by the Animal Care and Ethics Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (approval #571).

2.3. DNA Isolation, WGBS Library Construction and Sequencing

Genomic DNA was isolated from mammary gland tissues using DNeasy® Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada) following manufacturer’s instructions. The Qubit dsDNA high-sensitivity (HS) assay (Invitrogen by ThermoFisher Scientific, Mississauga, ON, Canada) was used to quantify DNA. Genomic DNA was sheared into short fragments (about 200–500 bp), and size selected using SPRIselect beads (Beckman Coulter, Mississauga, ON, Canada). Fragmented DNA was bisulfite converted using EZ DNA Methylation Lightning Kit (Zymo Research, Tustin, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Five hundred ng bisulfite converted DNA per sample was used for library preparation with the Accel-NGS Methyl-Seq DNA library kit (Swift Biosciences, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) following manufacturer′s instructions. Then, dual-indexed adapters were added followed by 6 cycles of polymerase chain reaction. After checking the size and absence of primer dimers with Bioanalyzer 2100 DNA High Sensitivity chip (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), the libraries were quantified by qPCR using Kapa Library Quantification Illumina/ABI Prism Kit protocol (KAPA Biosystems, Wilmington, MA, USA). Qualified libraries were then pooled in equimolar quantities and loaded with 15% Illumina PhiX control DNA library on a NovaSeq6000 instrument (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) to generate paired-end reads (150 bp). Library preparation and whole genome bisulfate sequencing (WGBS) were performed by The Centre for Applied Genomics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada (http://www.tcag.ca/, accessed on 22 November 2020).

2.4. Identification of Methyl-Cytosine

FastQC v0.11.9 [23] was used to generate initial quality report of the raw WGBS reads, followed by trimming of adapters and low-quality sequences (reads with Phred quality score less than 30 and reads with N content greater than 8% removed) with Trim Galore (v0.6.4_dev) [24]. The cleaned pair reads of each sample were merged and mapped to the bovine reference genome (ARS-UCD1.2) using BWA v0.7.17-r1188 [25] and Samtools v1.9 under Bismark (v0.22.3). Duplicate reads were removed with Picard MarkDuplicates (v1.5) program. Methylation information was extracted with Bismark methylation extractor. The analysis workflow was coordinated with the nf-core/methylseq pipeline (v1.5) [26]. In order to decrease the possible impact of severe bias towards non-methylation at the end of reads caused by end repairing, the first 2 bp at the paired-end reads were removed.

2.5. Global Comparison of Methylated Sites between Different Groups

The methylation sites with coverage depth ≥ 10 × among all samples were used for global comparison. Detection of differentially methylated sites (DMCs) was accomplished with the R package, methykit v 3.12, based on three comparisons: HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP, and HMFP vs. LMFP. Parity and days in milk (DIM) were included as factors for batch effect control during analysis. Significant DMCs were defined as having a q value < 0.1 after Bonferroni correction for false discovery rate [27].
Hypermethylation and hypomethylation were defined as DMCs having more than 20% difference in methylation levels between groups. The genome structure annotation files containing information about genes and genomic elements, including promoter, exon, intron, 3′UTR, 5′UTR, downstream and intergenic regions were downloaded from the NCBI database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term = ARS-UCD1.2, accessed on 22 November 2020) [28]. Promoters were defined as the two kb region upstream of the transcription start site (TSS) of genes while the downstream was defined as the two kb region downstream of the transcription termination site (TTS).

2.6. DMCs and Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Co-Location Analysis

DMCs identified as significant were used for co-localization analysis with QTLs related to bovine milk production. QTL data were downloaded from the cattle QTLdb (https://www.animalgenome.org/cgi-bin/QTLdb/BT/index, accessed on 11 December 2020).

2.7. Statistical Overrepresentation Analysis for DMC Genes

Genes harboring DMCs, here referred to as DMC genes were submitted for statistical overrepresentation in gene ontology (GO) terms and Reactome pathways using PANTHER (Protein Analysis Through Evolutionary Relationships, http://pantherdb.org/, accessed on 3 March 2021) [29]. The p values from the statistical overrepresentation tests were adjusted by Bonferroni correction for false discovery rate [27]. GO terms, including biological process (BP), molecular function (MF) and cellular component (CC), and Reactome pathways were considered to have a significant over- and underrepresentation at adjusted p value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Landscape of Mammary Gland Tissue

The genome-wide DNA methylation analysis by WGBS generated about 192,255,638 clean reads per sample with aligned rate ranging from 48.98% to 53.61% (Table S1). Only the uniquely aligned reads (92.84% of total aligned reads on average) were kept for the identification of methylated sites, including CpG (cytosine-phosphate-guanosine or 5′-C-phosphate-G-3′), CHG (5′-C-phosphate-H-G-3′, H represents A, T, or C [adenine, thymine or cytosine, respectively]) and CHH (5′-C-phosphate-H-H-3′) (Figure S1, Table S1). The number of identified cytosine (C) sites in the CpG sense were the least (4.76% of all identified C) compared with cytosine sites in the CHG (21.93%) or CHH (73.31%) sense (Figure S1). However, methylated sites were highest in the CpG sense (71.81%) compared with 1.3% and 2.18% in the CHG and CHH sense, respectively.
Methylated sites with at least 10× coverage were selected for the construction of genome-wide DNA methylation landscape, such as distribution in genic features and methylation levels (Figure 1A, Table S2a). CpG, CHG, and CHH methylated sites showed similar tendencies with higher abundance in intergenic (~55%) and intronic (~39%) regions (Figure 1C, Table S2b–d). Higher methylation levels were recorded for CpG sites than CHG and CHH sites (Figure S2). The number of methylated sites identified in genic regions was highly diverse between samples (Figure 1C). The methylation sites identified in all the samples were 87,096 CpG, 284,900 CHG and 818,760 CHH sites. Among them, approximately 90% of CpG (92.11%), CHG (90.88%) and CHH (89.61%) sites were in the intergenic regions (Figure 1B). Considering genic regions, CpG sites were more abundant in the promoter regions (2.35%) than CHG (1.46%) and CHH (1.47%) sites, meanwhile CHG (6.49%) and CHH (7.86%) sites were more abundant in introns than CpG (4.11%) sites (Figure 1B, Table S2e). Moreover, CpG sites had higher methylation levels and densities, as compared to CHG and CHH sites with low methylation levels and densities (Figure 1D,E, Figures S2 and S3, Table S2f). The 5‘UTR region had the highest CpG methylation level (62.33 ± 12.44%), followed by the 3′UTR and introns, while the promoter and downstream regions had relatively lower CpG methylation levels (Table S2f). Furthermore, the methylation level of CpG sites in introns and exons were relatively stable (59.32 ± 10.40%), while CpG methylation levels in the promoter (51.28 ± 20.36%) and downstream regions (47.43 ± 20.46%) fluctuated slightly around 50% (Figure 1F, Table S2f).

3.2. Differential Methylation between High and Low Milk Fat Producing Cows

The comparison of methylation levels between methylated sites in mammary gland tissues of HMF and LMF group revealed 706 significant DMCs (q value < 0.1), including 379 and 327 DMCs having higher and lower methylation levels in HMF group compared with LMF group, respectively (Table S3a, Figure 2A). The annotation of DMCs to genic regions revealed that majority of DMCs (about 50%) were in intergenic regions, followed by promoter, intron and exon regions (Figure 2B). The DMCs were not only distributed in chromosomes (Chr) but also in unplaced genomic scaffolds. Chr2 had the most DMCs (N = 116), followed by Leftover_ScbfJmS_792 (N = 37) and Chr27 (N = 36) (Table S4a). On most Chr (e.g., Chr 2, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29, X and mitochondria), many DMCs were concentrated in the same region. The clusters were similarly distributed amongst the three comparisons (Figure 2C–E). A total of 27 DMC genes harboring DMCs in their promoters and gene bodies, including four DMC genes harboring ≥ 3 DMCs are listed in Table 2 and Table S5a. LOC112442278, a basic proline-rich protein-like located in Chr2, harbored the most DMCs (N = 112) including 96 DMCs with increased methylation levels in HMF group. MIR2887-1 located downstream to LOC112442278 harbored four DMCs (Table 2, Figure S4). Following LOC112444653, a 5.8S ribosomal RNA gene located in Chr27 harbored 13 DMCs including 12 DMCs with increased methylation levels in mammary gland tissues of HMF group compared to LMF group (Table 2). In addition, phosphodiesterase 5A (PDE5A) harbored six DMCs. Overall, more hypomethylated DMC sites (31) were found compared to hypermethylated DMC sites (20) considering sites with more than 20% difference between HMF and LMF (Table S6a).

3.3. Differential Methylation between High and Low Milk Protein Producing Cows

In total, 2420 DMCs were identified between mammary gland tissues of cows producing milk with high and low protein contents (q value < 0.1) (Table S3b). There were 1842 DMCs with increased methylation levels and 578 DMCs with decreased methylation levels in HMP group compared with LMP group (Table S3b) (Figure 2A). The most DMCs were annotated to intergenic regions (51.54%) followed by the promoter regions of genes (28.06%) (Figure 2B). Moreover, more DMCs were located in Chr27 (N = 535), followed by Leftover_ScbfJmS_792 (N = 371) and Chr2 (N = 347) (Table S4b, Figure 2D). DMCs in a region of Leftover_ScbfJmS_792 with generally low methylation levels is located between three new uncharacterized genes (LOC112445759, LOC112445760 and LOC112445761) (Figure 3A). Fifty-six genes, including 23 novel genes, harbored at least one DMC (Table S5b). Seven DMC genes (each harbored three or more DMCs) between HMP and LMP producing cows are listed in Table 2. LOC112442278 harbored the most DMCs (N = 328) followed by LOC112444653 (211 DMCs), RN18S1 (60 DMCs) and two miRNAs- MIR2887-1 with 84 DMCs and MIR2887-2 with14 DMCs; and all having higher methylation levels in HMP group. Overall, more hypomethylated DMC sites (35) were found compared to hypermethylated DMCs (18) considering sites with more than 20% difference between HMP and LMP (Table S6b).

3.4. Differential Methylation between Cows Producing Milk with High Fat/Protein and Low Fat/Protein Contents

A total of 1645 CpG sites were differentially methylated between HMFP and LMFP groups (q value < 0.1) (Figure 2A, Table S3c). Majority of DMCs (56.59%) were annotated to intergenic regions, followed by promoter regions (21.17%) and introns (15.18%) (Figure 2B). Most of the DMCs were distributed on Chr27, Chr2 and Leftover_ScbfJmS_792, containing 302, 191 and 143 DMCs, respectively (Figure 2E, Table S4c). Sixty-seven genes, including 26 novel genes, were identified with at least one DMC (Table S5c). LOC112442278, LOC112444653, RN18S1 and MIR2887-1 had more DMCs than other genes. LOC112442278 harbored the most DMCs, including 168 DMCs with increased methylation levels and six DMCs with decreased methylation levels in HMFP group compared with LMFP group (Table 2). MIR2887-1, located in the downstream region of LOC112442278 (Figure 3B), harbored 30 DMCs and had increased methylation levels. LOC112444653, a 5.8S ribosomal RNA identified in Chr27, harbored 108 DMCs and with higher methylation levels in HMFP group compared with LMFP group. MIR2887-2 located at the downstream of LOC112444653, harbored five DMCs with high methylation levels (Figure 3C). In addition, RN18S1, a ribosome RNA gene, located in the upstream of LOC112444653 harbored 35 DMCs with higher methylation level in HMFP group. Overall, there were also more hypomethylated DMC sites (186) compared to hypermethylated DMCs sites (122) considering sites with more than 20% difference between HMFP and LMFP (Table S6c).

3.5. Overrepresented Gene Ontology Terms and Pathways by DMC Genes

The statistical overrepresentation test results of the three comparisons are listed in Table 3. For HMF vs. LMF, no GO term was significantly overrepresented by DMC genes and no reactome pathway was significantly over- or underrepresented by DMC genes from all three comparisons. Five GO-BP terms were significantly overrepresented by DMC genes from HMP vs. LMP, including four with aerobic electron transport related functions (aerobic electron transport chain (GO:0019646, adjusted p value = 0.0355), aerobic respiration (GO:0009060, adjusted p value = 0.0335), oxidative phosphorylation (GO:0006119, adjusted p value = 0.0085), and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) metabolic process (GO:0046034, adjusted p value = 0.0068)). Another significantly overrepresented GO-BP term was mitochondrial ATP synthesis coupled electron transport (GO:0042775, adjusted p value = 0.0355). In addition, electron transfer activity (GO:0009055, adjusted p value = 0.0046) and respirasome (GO:0070469, adjusted p value = 0.0062) were the only significantly overrepresented GO-MF and GO-CC terms, respectively.
Besides, a total of eight GO-BP, one GO-MF and five GO-CC terms were overrepresented by DMC genes from HMFP vs. LMFP. All nine GO-BP terms were related to ATP synthesis, transport and metabolic process, such as the most significantly overrepresented oxidative phosphorylation (GO:0006119, adjusted p value = 0.0007) and energy derivation by oxidation of organic compounds (GO:0015980, adjusted p value = 0.0010) terms. Same as with HMP vs. LMP, electron transfer activity (GO:0009055, adjusted p value = 0.0004) was the only significantly overrepresented GO-MF term for HMFP vs. LMFP. The top three significantly overrepresented GO-CC terms were related to respirasome, including respirasome (GO:0070469, adjusted p value = 0.0000), respiratory chain complex (GO:0098803, adjusted p value = 0.0003) and mitochondrial respirasome (GO:0005746, adjusted p value = 0.0066).

3.6. Overlapping or Co-Located DMCs with QTLs Related to Milk Production Traits

A total of 242 milk production related QTLs were found to overlap with at least one DMC. Specifically, 87, 147 and 158 QTLs overlapped with DMCs from HMF vs. LMF (N = 83), HMP vs. LMP (N = 708) and HMFP vs. LMFP (N = 408), respectively, comparisons (Figure 4A, Table S7). Approximately half of the co-located QTLs (N = 122) are related to milk-composition-protein, followed by milk yield (N = 68), fatty acid content (N = 44) and milk-composition-other (N = 8) (Figure 4B). Forty-nine QTLs overlapped with DMCs from all three comparisons, and 10 QTLs overlapped with more than three DMCs from each comparison (three QTLs in Chr27, six QTLs in Chr6 and one QTL in Chr3) (Table 4). Moreover, a cluster of DMCs in Chr27 overlapped with QTLs related to milk-composition-protein (Figure 4C). The three QTLs on Chr27 (QTL-2611, QTL-10104 and QTL-2592) were co-located with a higher number of DMC sites than other QTLs (Table 4). For example, QTL-10104, a QTL for milk protein yield in Chr27, overlapped with the most DMCs, including 36 from HMF vs. LMF, 534 from HMP vs. LMP and 299 from HMFP vs. LMFP. Following, QTL-2611 (milk protein yield) and QTL-2592 (milk yield), located at the same position in Chr27 and also overlapped with QTL-10104, are co-located with 35 DMCs from HMF vs. LMF, 533 DMCs from HMP vs. LMP and 297 DMCs from HMFP vs. LMFP. In addition, three QTLS, QTL-12232 (stearic aldehyde content), QTL-12233 (docosahexaenoic acid content) and QTL-12234 (omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio) located at the same position in Chr6 overlapped with 11 DMCs from HMF vs. LMF, 11 DMCs from HMP vs. LMP and 10 DMCs from HMFP vs. LMFP (Figure 4D).
To further understand the potential functions of DMC genes, we identified DMC genes that were overlapped or co-located with QTLs. A total of 7, 20 and 17 genes were identified that harbored DMCs and also located in the same regions as QTLs from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP, respectively (Table S8). Six DMC genes harbored ≥ 3 DMCs from at least one comparison (Table 5), including two ribosomal RNA genes (RN18S1 and LOC112444653), phosphodiesterase 5A (PDE5S), F-box protein 16 (FBXO16), defensin β 7 (DEFB7) and one uncharacterized gene (LOC101907803). RN18S1 harbored one DMC located at position 6224783 of Chr27, whose methylation level was significantly different in all three comparisons. It also harbored additional 59 DMCs from HMP vs. LMP and 34 DMCs from HMFP vs. LMFP that were also differentially methylated when comparing HMP with LMP. Similarly, LOC112444653 harbored one DMC (Chr27:622688) that was differently methylated in all three comparisons, and another 15 DMCs that were common to the comparisons HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP. Furthermore, DMCs in RN18S1 and LOC112444653 overlapped with QTL-10104 for milk protein yield (Figure 3C). Besides, PDE5A harbored six DMCs (HMF vs. LMF), four DMCs (HMP vs. LMP) and five DMCs (HMFP vs. LMFP) with one DMC (Chr6:5790277) common to all three comparisons. These DMCs were overlapped with QTLs for fatty-acid-content (QTL-12232, QTL-12233 and QTL-12234) and milk-composition-protein (QTL-10148 for milk protein yield and QTL-10208 for milk protein percentage).

4. Discussion

During the last century, milk yield was the focus point of genetic selection in dairy cattle which today has led to doubling of the average milk produced by a Holstein cow compared to the 1950s [7,30,31]. Recently, milk composition, especially protein and fat contents, is attracting increased attention due to consumer demands for healthier milk products. With the knowledge that epigenetic factors are important regulatory mechanisms of mammary gland productivity (reviewed by [15]), quantifying the associated epigenetic variations will provide additional information underlying phenotype diversity and will complement genomic information to drive-up improve gain in genetic selection for enhanced milk components [8,31]. In this study, we focused on quantifying the DNA methylation alterations in mammary gland tissues where milk components are synthesized and/or collated and secreted. Understanding the DNA methylation variations across tissues, which is crucial for cell differentiation, is important for investigating the potential regulatory roles of epigenetic factors in complex traits, such as diseases and milk production [15,32]. Therefore, compared with other tissues, for example peripheral blood, quantifying DNA methylation marks in mammary gland is more direct and convincing to understand its roles in milk production. It should be noted that the mammary gland is a complex organ and that total DNA isolated from this complex tissue was used in this study therefore, it is possible that the DNA methylation patterns could be coming from different cell types. More research is therefore needed to characterize the DNA methylation patterns of the diverse cell populations constituting mammary gland tissue and their roles in milk fat and/or protein production. Such an approach will provide further in-depth and comprehensive understanding of DNA methylation roles in milk fat and/or protein production.
The cattle methylome has been reported in different tissues, such as muscle, mammary gland, and peripheral blood, revealing consistent features that are shared with other mammals [32,33,34,35]. The methylation landscape of mammary gland tissue in this study also found some consistent features. For example, more methylated sites, including CpG, CHG and CHH, were identified in introns than exons, which may be due to the longer lengths of introns than exons, as previously noted by Dechow and Liu [17]. The downstream region had lower methylation level, which is similar to observations in human, rat and sheep [36,37,38]. In addition, lower methylation level and higher density of methylation sites in the promoter region than in exons and introns observed in this study (Figure 1F), confirms observations in other species [33,39]. This is because more than two-thirds of promoter regions contain CpG islands, which are rich in CpG sites, but which are also rarely methylated [40]. DNA methylation in promoter regions has shown important interactions with transcriptional activities, such as the inhibition of the binding of transcription factors, and thereby affect gene expression in response to internal or external environmental changes [41,42].
The genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of mammary glands producing milk with various fat/protein contents were compared to identify DMCs that may influence the synthesis of milk protein or fat. Approximately half of the DMCs out of 706, 2420, and 1645 DMCs identified from the comparisons of HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP, and HMFP vs. LMFP, respectively, are located in intergenic regions, while only about 20% are located in promoter regions, thereby corroborating previous reports in dairy and goat mammary gland tissues [36,43]. This report also corroborates data on single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mapping in cattle and humans [44,45,46]. The HMF vs. LMF comparison revealed the least DNA methylation difference compared with HMP vs. LMP, and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons while HMP vs. LMP comparison revealed the most DMCs. DMC genes from HMP vs. LMP comparison were significantly overrepresented in GO terms for electron transfer activity, ATP synthesis and metabolic process. Similarly, DMC genes from HMFP vs. LMFP comparison showed significant overrepresentation of GO terms for ATP synthesis coupled electron transport, while no GO terms were enriched by genes from HMF vs. LMF. The energy level in cow’s diet has been found to affect the yield of protein in milk [47,48]. During lactation, the protein and energy needs of cows are increased about five times to support increased mRNA translation activities and milk protein synthesis [49]. Our data suggest that DNA methylation may affect milk protein production by regulating energy availability, such as biological processes related to ATP synthesis and metabolism. In addition to the increased energy requirements for protein synthesis during milk production, the process of milk protein and fat synthesis may have possible competition for energy in the mammary gland [50]. The mitochondrial functions include ATP production, metal homeostasis, regulation of cellular metabolism, and cellular respiration. The main modifications that regulate gene expression (gene activation or silencing) within the mitochondria include DNA methylation (5 mC and 6 mA methylation, where 5 mC is 5-methyl cytosine and 6 mA is 6-methyl adenine), noncoding RNAs, and post-translational modifications of nucleoid proteins [51]. Because mitochondria are key organelles in the cell that carry out many important functions necessary for cell survival, and given its important role of energy supply regulation in the mammary gland, it is thus not surprising that epigenetic modifications of mitochondrial functions were affected in this study.
DMC genes with the most DMCs from the three comparisons were all ribosome RNA genes (rRNA), such as LOC112444653 and RN18S1 (Table 2). The DNA methylation alterations in rRNAs is less well-studied, and its potential roles in milk production is still unclear. However, studies in human and other model animals revealed some potential roles of DNA methylation in rRNAs, such as in silencing of the nucleolar chromatin and suppression of rRNA gene expression, amongst others [52]. For example, it was found that lack of suppression maintained by CpG methylation promotes cryptic RNA polymerase II transcription and disruption of rRNA processing, which partially explains the negative effects of losing CpG methylation frequently found in most disease conditions [53,54,55]. The DMCs in the rRNA genes had increased methylation levels, including LOC112444653 with 12, 211 and 108 DMCs from the HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons, respectively, and having increased methylation levels in the HMF, HMP and HMFP groups. Hypermethylation in rRNA has been correlated with aging and Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting the potential involvement of rRNA methylation in the regulation of gene expression and the various phenotypes that occur during a lifetime [56,57,58]. Besides, rRNA is the most abundant mRNA transcript in cells, whose transcriptional processing is crucial for keeping energy homeostasis and which could be affected by diverse environmental factors, such as nutrition and stress factors [59]. Because ribosome is a key component in protein synthesis, the altered expression of rRNA may influence the translation of mRNAs into proteins and consequently the content of milk proteins. Therefore, the DNA methylation alterations of rRNA genes could be a possible layer of regulation of rRNA synthesis, and in turn, altered ribosomal biogenesis and protein synthesis during milk production.
MIR2287 also harbored a high number of DMCs (Table 2). MIR2287 has been previously reported in bovine skeletal muscle satellite cells [60], but its potential regulatory roles are currently unknown. MiRNA, another epigenetic factor that regulates gene expression, may interact with DNA methylation in its functions [61]. DNA methylation in miRNA can inhibit the expression of miRNAs, while miRNAs can directly target DNA methyltransferases causing inhibition of DNA methylation and influencing global methylation pattern [62]. The interaction between DNA methylation and miRNA has been observed in mammary glands of dairy cows with the potential involvement in mammary gland development and lactation [63]. Therefore, the DNA methylation alterations in MIR2287 identified in this study suggest its possible effects on regulating the expression of its target genes, and possibly milk fat/protein synthesis and secretion. Immediately upstream of miR-2287-1 is LOC112442278, a basic proline-rich protein-like, that also harbored 96, 328 and 168 DMCs with increased methylation levels in HMF, HMP and HMFP groups respectively. Similarly, MIR2287-2 is located upstream of two rRNAs (LOC112444653 and RN18S1), and the methylation levels of their DMCs were all increased in mammary glands producing higher contents of milk fat/protein, suggesting their potential roles in milk fat and protein synthesis. Associations between DNA methylation alterations and genetic mutations, such as SNPs, have been observed in diverse tissues of mammals [64,65]. Moreover, the overlap between altered CpG sites and QTLs generated using SNP data suggest one possible mechanism that genetic polymorphism impacts gene expression by the altered epigenetic patterns [66,67], thereby supporting potential regulatory roles of epigenetic alterations in milk fat/protein production.
Some DMCs reported in this study clustered in the same genomic region and chromosome (Figure 2C–E) in the same manner observed with SNP data in genome wide association studies for milk production traits [46,68,69] suggesting potential interaction between SNP and DNA methylation to influence milk production traits in cattle. Moreover, DMC and QTL co-location analysis placed some identified DMCs in the same genomic regions with reported QTLs for several milk production traits (Figure 4C,D, Table 5). Eleven DMCs in Chr6 from HMF vs. LMF comparison were co-located with three QTLs (QTL-12232, QTL-12233 and QTL-12234) for fatty acid content, suggesting the possible involvement of these DMCs in regulating milk fat synthesis. Ten QTLs for milk protein were found to harbor more than 10 DMCs from HMP vs. LMP comparison, represented by QTL-10104 and QTL-2611 co-located with 534 and 533 DMCs, respectively. This suggests that DNA methylation may play regulatory roles during milk protein production. Noteworthy is QTL-10104 for milk protein that is located on a region (1.1–32.9 Mbp) of chromosome 27 with the most DMCs from all three comparisons, indicating possible interactions between genetic polymorphisms and DNA methylation alterations during milk fat and/or protein production. QTL-2611 (milk protein yield) and QTL-2592 (milk yield) are also located within this region of chromosome 27, suggesting the potential involvement of DMCs in this region in the regulation of milk protein content and milk yield. Moreover, the rRNA genes (RN18S1 and LOC112444653) harboring the most DMCs overlapped with these three QTLs, further supporting the notion that, potential interaction between DNA methylation changes, rRNA expression and SNPs (QTLs) may be a possible regulatory mechanism underlying milk protein production. Another example worthy of attention is PDE5A, previously reported as involved in the regulation of milk production [70], harbored more than three DMCs from each of the three comparisons and overlapped with six QTLs in this study. The QTLs included three QTLs for milk protein (QTL-10148, QTL-10208 and QTL-6065) and another three for milk fatty acid content, such as stearic aldehyde content (QTL-12232), docosahexaenoic acid content (QTL-12233), and omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio (QTL-12234). This reveals the possibility that, DNA methylation alterations in this gene may interact with SNPs (QTLs) to affect milk fat and protein production. Our data is supported by reported associations between SNP and differential DNA methylation in humans [64,65], and indication that DNA methylation alteration due to SNPs cause variable expression of related genes and differential phenotype expression.

5. Conclusions

Differential DNA methylation patterns were detected in mammary gland tissues from Canadian Holstein cows producing milk with various fat and protein contents. Some identified DMCs were co-located with QTLs for milk production traits, including QTLs for milk protein and milk fat, suggesting potential involvement of DNA methylation alterations in the genetic variation underlying milk fat and protein yields, and mammary gland biological processes. Considering cell type differences in mammary gland tissue and the small number of samples analyzed, more studies and a higher sample size are needed for more in-depth and comprehensive understanding of DNA methylation involvement in milk fat and protein production.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes12111727/s1, Figure S1: Identified methylation sites (including CpG, CHG and CHH sites) based on all the uniquely aligned reads. The inside pie represents the proportion of the three types of methylation sites (CpG, CHG and CHH) among all the identified putative methylation sites. The outer circle represents the status of methylation sites (percentage of methylated or not methylated sites) of each type of methylation site to all the identified methylation sites. Figure S2: The methylation level distribution of methylated sites with ≥ 10 × coverage according to type of methylation and sample. Figure S3: The density distribution of methylation sites according to type of methylation and sample. Figure S4: Methylation comparison between mammary gland tissues producing milk with high milk fat compared with mammary gland tissues producing milk with low milk fat content (HMF vs. LMF) in Chromosome 2 (12,1570–12,1575 kb). Table S1: Generated reads and mapping statistics of WGBS data for each sample. Table S2: Methylation sites with ≥ 10 coverage depth per samples and their annotation to genic regions. Table S3: Differentially methylated CpG sites identified from the three comparisons. Table S4: Distribution of differentially methylated sites in chromosomes and scaffolds. Table S5: Genes harboring differentially methylated CpG sites. Table S6: hyper- and hypo-methylated sites with more than 20% difference in CpG methylation. Table S7: QTLs co-located with differentially methylated CpG sites. Table S8: Genes harboring differentially methylated CpG sites and co-located with QTLs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.I.-A. with inputs from N.B., and X.Z.; methodology, E.M.I.-A.; software, P.-L.D. and M.W.; validation, E.M.I.-A., N.B., and X.Z.; formal analysis, P.-L.D. and M.W.; investigation, M.W.; resources, E.M.I.-A. and N.B.; data curation, M.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.W.; writing—review and editing, E.M.I.-A., N.B., and X.Z.; visualization, M.W.; supervision, E.M.I.-A.; project administration, E.M.I.-A.; funding acquisition, E.M.I.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, grant number J002223.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the animal use procedures of the Canadian Council on Animal Care and approved by the Animal Care and Ethics Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (protocol #571, approved on 14 May 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets reported in this study have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the BioProject PRJNA749752.

Acknowledgments

Financial support of the PhD study of Mengqi Wang in Canada from the China Scholarship Council (no. 202008880009) is acknowledged. Bioinformatics support by the Canadian Centre for Computational Genomics (C3G) (computationalgenomics.ca)—Montréal Node is gratefully acknowledged. Copyright: © 2021 by Her Majesty, the Queen in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the contribution of Mengqi Wang, Nathalie Bissonnette, Pier-Luc Dudemaine and Eveline M. Ibeagha-Awemu, employees of the government of Canada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Miglior:, F.; Fleming, A.; Malchiodi, F.; Brito, L.F.; Martin, P.; Baes, C. A 100-Year Review: Identification and genetic selection of economically important traits in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10251–10271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Soyeurt, H.; Dardenne, P.; Gillon, A.; Croquet, C.; Vanderick, S.; Mayeres, P.; Bertozzi, C.; Gengler, N. Variation in Fatty Acid Contents of Milk and Milk Fat Within and Across Breeds. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4858–4865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bobe, G.; Beitz, D.; Freeman, A.; Lindberg, G. Effect of Milk Protein Genotypes on Milk Protein Composition and Its Genetic Parameter Estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 2797–2804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Analla, M.; Jiménez-Gamero, I.; Muñoz-Serrano, A.; Serradilla, J.; Falagán, A. Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Milk Yield and Fat and Protein Contents of Milk from Murciano-Granadina Goats. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 1895–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dillon, P.; Berry, D.; Evans, R.; Buckley, F.; Horan, B. Consequences of genetic selection for increased milk production in European seasonal pasture based systems of milk production. Livest. Sci. 2006, 99, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rahayu, A.P.; Johari, S.; Kurnianto, E. Genetic gains of milk yield and milk composition as realized response to dairy cow selection in bbptu-hpt baturraden, indonesia. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 2015, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wiggans, G.R.; Cole, J.B.; Hubbard, S.M.; Sonstegard, T.S. Genomic Selection in Dairy Cattle: The USDA Experience. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2017, 5, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Khatib, H. Epigenetics of livestock breeding. In Handbook of Epigenetics, The New Molecular and Medical Genetics, 2nd ed.; Tollefsbol, T.O., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Zhao, X. Epigenetic marks: Regulators of livestock phenotypes and conceivable sources of missing variation in livestock improvement programs. Front. Genet. 2015, 6, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mao, Y.; Zhu, X.; Li, R.; Chen, D.; Xin, S.; Zhu, Y.; Liao, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Z.; et al. Methylation analysis of CXCR1 in mammary gland tissue of cows with mastitis induced by Staphylococcus aureus. Genet. Mol. Res. 2015, 14, 12606–12615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Dong, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Dong, G. Bacterial Lipopolysaccharide Induced Alterations of Genome-Wide DNA Methylation and Promoter Methylation of Lactation-Related Genes in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells. Toxins 2019, 11, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Rijnkels, M.; Freeman-Zadrowski, C.; Hernandez, J.; Potluri, V.; Wang, L.; Li, W.; Lemay, D. Epigenetic Modifications Unlock the Milk Protein Gene Loci during Mouse Mammary Gland Development and Differentiation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e53270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Singh, K.; Molenaar, A.J.; Swanson, K.M.; Gudex, B.; Arias, J.A.; Erdman, R.A.; Stelwagen, K. Epigenetics: A possible role in acute and transgenerational regulation of dairy cow milk production. Animal 2012, 6, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Osorio, J.; Jacometo, C.; Zhou, Z.; Luchini, D.; Cardoso, F.; Loor, J.J. Hepatic global DNA and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha promoter methylation are altered in peripartal dairy cows fed rumen-protected methionine. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wang, M.; Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M. Impacts of Epigenetic Processes on the Health and Productivity of Livestock. Front. Genet. 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, L.; Sun, H.; Guan, L.; Liu, J. Short communication: Relationship of blood DNA methylation rate and milk performance in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 5208–5211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dechow, C.D.; Liu, W.-S. DNA methylation patterns in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from Holstein cattle with variable milk yield. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Platenburg, G.J.; Vollebregt, E.J.; Karatzas, C.N.; Kootwijk, E.P.; De Boer, H.A.; Strijker, R. Mammary gland-specific hypomethylation ofhpa ii sites flanking the bovine αs1-casein gene. Transgenic Res. 1996, 5, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vanselow, J.; Yang, W.; Herrmann, J.; Zerbe, H.; Schuberth, H.-J.; Petzl, W.; Tomek, W.; Seyfert, H.-M. DNA-remethylation around a STAT5-binding enhancer in the αS1-casein promoter is associated with abrupt shutdown of αS1-casein synthesis during acute mastitis. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 2006, 37, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nguyen, M.; Boutinaud, M.; Petridou, B.; Gabory, A.; Pannetier, M.; Chat, S.; Bouet, S.; Jouneau, L.; Jaffrezic, F.; Laloë, D.; et al. DNA Methylation and Transcription in a Distal Region Upstream from the Bovine AlphaS1 Casein Gene after Once or Twice Daily Milking. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, H.; Shi, H.; Luo, J.; Yi, Y.; Yao, D.; Zhang, X.; Ma, G.; Loor, J.J. MiR-145 Regulates Lipogenesis in Goat Mammary Cells Via TargetingINSIG1and Epigenetic Regulation of Lipid-Related Genes. J. Cell. Physiol. 2016, 232, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tian, P.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Tian, J.; Tao, S.; Hua, C.; Geng, Y.; Ni, Y.; Zhao, R. Negative effects of long-term feeding of high-grain diets to lactating goats on milk fat production and composition by regulating gene expression and DNA methylation in the mammary gland. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Andrews, S. FastQC: A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham bioinformatics. 2010. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (accessed on 22 November 2020).
  24. Krueger, F. Trim Galore: A Wrapper Tool around Cutadapt and FastQC to Consistently Apply Quality and Adapter Trimming to FastQ Files. Babraham Bioinformatics. 2015. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/ (accessed on 22 November 2020).
  25. Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with bwa-mem. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1303.3997. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ewels, P.A.; Peltzer, A.; Fillinger, S.; Patel, H.; Alneberg, J.; Wilm, A.; Garcia, M.U.; Di Tommaso, P.; Nahnsen, S. The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sedgwick, P. Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni correction. BMJ 2011, 344, e509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rosen, B.D.; Bickhart, D.M.; Schnabel, R.D.; Koren, S.; Elsik, C.G.; Tseng, E.; Rowan, T.N.; Low, W.Y.; Zimin, A.; Couldrey, C.; et al. De novo assembly of the cattle reference genome with single-molecule sequencing. GigaScience 2020, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Mi, H.; Muruganujan, A.; Ebert, D.; Huang, X.; Thomas, P.D. Panther version 14: More genomes, a new PANTHER GO-slim and improvements in enrichment analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 47, D419–D426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-Ruiz, A.; Cole, J.B.; VanRaden, P.M.; Wiggans, G.R.; Ruiz-López, F.J.; Van Tassell, C.P. Changes in genetic selection differentials and generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle as a result of genomic selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E3995–E4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Yu, Y. Consequence of epigenetic processes on animal health and productivity: Is additional level of regulation of relevance? Anim. Front. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhou, Y.; Liu, S.; Hu, Y.; Fang, L.; Gao, Y.; Xia, H.; Schroeder, S.G.; Rosen, B.D.; Connor, E.E.; Li, C.-J.; et al. Comparative whole genome DNA methylation profiling across cattle tissues reveals global and tissue-specific methylation patterns. BMC Biol. 2020, 18, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hao, Y.; Cui, Y.; Gu, X. Genome-wide DNA methylation profiles changes associated with constant heat stress in pigs as measured by bisulfite sequencing. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Cao, Y.; Jin, H.-G.; Ma, H.-H.; Zhao, Z.-H. Comparative analysis on genome-wide DNA methylation in longissimus dorsi muscle between Small Tailed Han and Dorper×Small Tailed Han crossbred sheep. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 30, 1529–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Schmitz, R.; Lewis, Z.A.; Goll, M.G. DNA Methylation: Shared and Divergent Features across Eukaryotes. Trends Genet. 2019, 35, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, L.; Jiang, E.; Xu, H.; Chen, R.; Yang, Q.; Chen, H.; Li, Z.; Lan, X. Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) of dairy goat mammary glands reveals DNA methylation profiles of integrated genome-wide and critical milk-related genes. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 115326–115344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Laurent, L.; Wong, E.; Li, G.; Huynh, T.; Tsirigos, A.; Ong, C.T.; Low, H.M.; Sung, W.-K.; Rigoutsos, I.; Loring, J.; et al. Dynamic changes in the human methylome during differentiation. Genome Res. 2010, 20, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Sati, S.; Tanwar, V.S.; Kumar, K.A.; Patowary, A.; Jain, V.; Ghosh, S.; Ahmad, S.; Singh, M.; Reddy, S.U.; Chandak, G.R.; et al. High Resolution Methylome Map of Rat Indicates Role of Intragenic DNA Methylation in Identification of Coding Region. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, Y.; Yanli, Z.; FengZhe, L.; Yang, H.; Zhu, A.; Pang, J.; Han, L.; Zhang, T.; Yao, X.; Wang, F. Genome-wide analysis of DNA Methylation profiles on sheep ovaries associated with prolificacy using whole-genome Bisulfite sequencing. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Greenberg, M.; Bourc’His, D. The diverse roles of DNA methylation in mammalian development and disease. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Razin, A.; Kantor, B. DNA Methylation in Epigenetic Control of Gene Expression. In Epigenetics and Chromatin; Jeanteur, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 38, pp. 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Deaton, A.; Bird, A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev. 2011, 25, 1010–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wang, M.; Liang, Y.; Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Li, M.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Z.; Sun, Y.; Karrow, N.A.; Yang, Z.; Mao, Y. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of mammary gland tissues from chinese holstein cows with staphylococcus aureus induced mastitis. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhao, Z.; Fu, Y.-X.; Hewett-Emmett, D.; Boerwinkle, E. Investigating single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) density in the human genome and its implications for molecular evolution. Gene 2003, 312, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Mukiibi, R.; Chen, L.; Vinsky, M.; Plastow, G.; Basarab, J.; Stothard, P.; Li, C. Genetic architecture of quantitative traits in beef cattle revealed by genome wide association studies of imputed whole genome sequence variants: I: Feed efficiency and component traits. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M.; Peters, S.O.; Akwanji, K.A.; Imumorin, I.G.; Zhao, X. High density genome wide genotyping-by-sequencing and association identifies common and low frequency snps, and novel candidate genes influencing cow milk traits. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Osorio, J.S.; Lohakare, J.; Bionaz, M. Biosynthesis of milk fat, protein, and lactose: Roles of transcriptional and posttran-scriptional regulation. Physiol. Genom. 2016, 48, 231–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Emery, R. Feeding For Increased Milk Protein. J. Dairy Sci. 1978, 61, 825–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bionaz, M.; Hurley, W.; Loor, J. Milk Protein Synthesis in the Lactating Mammary Gland: Insights from Transcriptomics Analyses. Milk Protein 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Lock, A.; Teles, B.; Perfield, J., II; Bauman, D.; Sinclair, L. A conjugated linoleic acid supplement containing trans-10, cis-12 reduces milk fat synthesis in lactating sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 1525–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Fardi, Masoumeh, Saeed Solali, and Majid Farshdousti Hagh. "Epigenetic mechanisms as a new approach in cancer treatment: An updated review. Genes Dis. 2018, 5, 304–311. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ghoshal, K.; Majumder, S.; Datta, J.; Motiwala, T.; Bai, S.; Sharma, S.M.; Frankel, W.; Jacob, S.T. Role of human ribosomal rna (rrna) promoter methylation and of methyl-cpg-binding protein mbd2 in the suppression of rrna gene expression. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 6783–6793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Gagnon-Kugler, T.; Langlois, F.; Stefanovsky, V.; Lessard, F.; Moss, T. Loss of human ribosomal gene cpg methylation en-hances cryptic rna polymerase ii transcription and disrupts ribosomal rna processing. Mol. Cell 2009, 35, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lawrence, R.J.; Pikaard, C. Chromatin Turn Ons and Turn Offs of Ribosomal RNA Genes. Cell Cycle 2004, 3, 878–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Espada, J.; Ballestar, E.; Santoro, R.; Fraga, M.; Garea, A.V.; Németh, A.; Lopez-Serra, L.; Ropero, S.; Aranda, A.; Orozco, H.; et al. Epigenetic disruption of ribosomal RNA genes and nucleolar architecture in DNA methyltransferase 1 (Dnmt1) deficient cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 2191–2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gensous, N.; Ravaioli, F.; Pirazzini, C.; Gramignoli, R.; Ellis, E.; Storci, G.; Capri, M.; Strom, S.; Laconi, E.; Franceschi, C.; et al. Aging and Caloric Restriction Modulate the DNA Methylation Profile of the Ribosomal RNA Locus in Human and Rat Liver. Nutrients 2020, 12, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. D’Aquila, P.; Montesanto, A.; Mandalà, M.; Garasto, S.; Mari, V.; Corsonello, A.; Bellizzi, D.; Passarino, G. Methylation of the ribosomal RNA gene promoter is associated with aging and age-related decline. Aging Cell 2017, 16, 966–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Pietrzak, M.; Rempala, G.; Nelson, P.T.; Zheng, J.-J.; Hetman, M. Epigenetic silencing of nucleolar rrna genes in alzheimer’s disease. PloS ONE 2011, 6, e22585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tanaka, Y.; Tsuneoka, M. Control of ribosomal rna transcription by nutrients. In Gene Expression and Regulation in Mammalian cells—Transcription toward the Establishment of Novel Therapeutics; Fumiaki, U., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Shi, M.-Y.; Yan, X.-L.; Han, P.-P.; Tang, Y.-J.; Li, H.-X. Microarray and Bioinformatics Analysis of Differentially-Expressed MicroRNAs in Wnt/Β-Catenin Signaling-Activated Bovine Skeletal Muscle Satellite Cells. Pak. J. Zool. 2020, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yakovlev, A.F. Epigenetic Effects in Livestock Breeding. Russ. J. Genet. 2018, 54, 897–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chhabra, R. miRNA and Methylation: A Multifaceted Liaison. ChemBioChem 2014, 16, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wang, J.; Bian, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Wang, C.; Li, Q.; Gao, X. Microrna-152 regulates DNA methyltransferase 1 and is involved in the development and lactation of mammary glands in dairy cows. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Imgenberg-Kreuz, J.; Almlöf, J.C.; Leonard, D.; Alexsson, A.; Nordmark, G.; Eloranta, M.-L.; Rantapää-Dahlqvist, S.; A Bengtsson, A.; Jönsen, A.; Padyukov, L.; et al. DNA methylation mapping identifies gene regulatory effects in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2018, 77, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Banovich, N.; Lan, X.; McVicker, G.; Van De Geijn, B.; Degner, J.F.; Blischak, J.; Roux, J.; Pritchard, J.K.; Gilad, Y. Methylation QTLs Are Associated with Coordinated Changes in Transcription Factor Binding, Histone Modifications, and Gene Expression Levels. PLoS Genet. 2014, 10, e1004663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Maldonado, M.B.C.; Neto, N.B.D.R.; Nagamatsu, S.T.; Carazzolle, M.F.; Hoff, J.L.; Whitacre, L.K.; Schnabel, R.D.; Behura, S.K.; McKay, S.D.; Taylor, J.F.; et al. Identification of bovine CpG SNPs as potential targets for epigenetic regulation via DNA methylation. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhi, D.; Aslibekyan, S.; Irvin, M.R.; Claas, S.A.; Borecki, I.B.; Ordovas, J.M.; Absher, D.M.; Arnett, D.K. SNPs located at CpG sites modulate genome-epigenome interaction. Epigenetics 2013, 8, 802–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Cai, Z.; Dusza, M.; Guldbrandtsen, B.; Lund, M.S.; Sahana, G. Distinguishing pleiotropy from linked QTL between milk production traits and mastitis resistance in Nordic Holstein cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2020, 52, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Atashi, H.; Salavati, M.; De Koster, J.; Ehrlich, J.; Crowe, M.; Opsomer, G.; Hostens, M. Genome-wide association for milk production and lactation curve parameters in Holstein dairy cows. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2020, 137, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Choi, J.-W.; Lee, K.-T.; Liao, X.; Stothard, P.; An, H.-S.; Ahn, S.; Lee, S.; Lee, S.-Y.; Moore, S.S.; Kim, T.-H. Genome-wide copy number variation in Hanwoo, Black Angus, and Holstein cattle. Mamm. Genome 2013, 24, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Genes 12 01727 g001 550
Figure 1. The genome-wide DNA methylation profiles of mammary gland tissues: (A) the number of methylated sites with ≥10 × coverage for each sample. (B) Distribution of methylated sites identified in all the samples in genic regions, including intergenic, promoter, intron and exon regions. (C) Distribution of methylated sites with ≥ 10 × coverage in genic regions for each sample. (D) Methylation level distribution of CpG, CHG and CHH sites; ordinate represents the count of methylated sites while abscissa represents the methylation level (percentage). (E) Density distribution of methylated sites. The ordinate represents coverage depth, the background color represents the normalized density while the abscissa represents the methylation level. D and E are based on one randomly selected sample (MG_729) as an example. The other samples showed similar patterns and are shown in Figures S2 and S3. (F) The fluctuating trends of methylation levels in genic regions, including the promoter (2 kb), 5′UTR, exon, intron, 3′UTR and downstream (2 kb) regions. The fluctuating line represents the methylation level (ordinate) of relative position in the corresponding genic regions (abscissa), and the background color represents the normalized density.
Figure 1. The genome-wide DNA methylation profiles of mammary gland tissues: (A) the number of methylated sites with ≥10 × coverage for each sample. (B) Distribution of methylated sites identified in all the samples in genic regions, including intergenic, promoter, intron and exon regions. (C) Distribution of methylated sites with ≥ 10 × coverage in genic regions for each sample. (D) Methylation level distribution of CpG, CHG and CHH sites; ordinate represents the count of methylated sites while abscissa represents the methylation level (percentage). (E) Density distribution of methylated sites. The ordinate represents coverage depth, the background color represents the normalized density while the abscissa represents the methylation level. D and E are based on one randomly selected sample (MG_729) as an example. The other samples showed similar patterns and are shown in Figures S2 and S3. (F) The fluctuating trends of methylation levels in genic regions, including the promoter (2 kb), 5′UTR, exon, intron, 3′UTR and downstream (2 kb) regions. The fluctuating line represents the methylation level (ordinate) of relative position in the corresponding genic regions (abscissa), and the background color represents the normalized density.
Genes 12 01727 g001
Genes 12 01727 g002 550
Figure 2. Differentially methylated CpG sites (DMC) in studied tissues. (A) General count of differentially methylated cytosines (DMCs) identified between mammary gland tissues producing milk with high and low fat contents (HMF vs. LMF), high or low milk protein and fat contents (HMFP vs. LMFP), as well as high and low milk protein contents (HMP vs. LMP). DMCs whose methylation levels were higher or increased by ≥ 20% in the high milk fat and/or protein groups than the low milk fat and/or protein groups were defined as hypermethylated sites. While DMCs having lower or decreased methylation levels of ≥ 20% in the high milk fat and/or protein groups were defined as hypomethylated sites. (B) The distribution of DMCs identified from the three comparisons in genic regions. (C–E) Manhattan plots showing genome-wide distribution of DMCs identified from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP, respectively. Dots above the pink line represent DMCs at q value < 0.1. Many DMCs were clustered on several regions of chromosomes with similar distribution patterns in the three comparisons. The pink arrow shows one example of a DMC cluster on chromosome 2.
Figure 2. Differentially methylated CpG sites (DMC) in studied tissues. (A) General count of differentially methylated cytosines (DMCs) identified between mammary gland tissues producing milk with high and low fat contents (HMF vs. LMF), high or low milk protein and fat contents (HMFP vs. LMFP), as well as high and low milk protein contents (HMP vs. LMP). DMCs whose methylation levels were higher or increased by ≥ 20% in the high milk fat and/or protein groups than the low milk fat and/or protein groups were defined as hypermethylated sites. While DMCs having lower or decreased methylation levels of ≥ 20% in the high milk fat and/or protein groups were defined as hypomethylated sites. (B) The distribution of DMCs identified from the three comparisons in genic regions. (C–E) Manhattan plots showing genome-wide distribution of DMCs identified from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP, respectively. Dots above the pink line represent DMCs at q value < 0.1. Many DMCs were clustered on several regions of chromosomes with similar distribution patterns in the three comparisons. The pink arrow shows one example of a DMC cluster on chromosome 2.
Genes 12 01727 g002
Genes 12 01727 g003 550
Figure 3. The DNA methylation states of selected regions. (A) CpG methylation comparison between mammary gland tissues producing milk with high and low protein contents (HMP vs. LMP) in Leftover_ScbfJmS_972 (50–100 kb). (B) methylation comparison between HMFP vs. LMFP in Chromosome 2 (12,1570–12,1575 kb). In A and B, the upper part shows the position of genes, and the lower part shows the methylation status of DMCs, including the methylation level and the methylation difference between the two groups. (C) A view of chromosome 27 (6217–6227 kb) showing the location of a QTL related to milk protein yield (upper), genes (middle) and the methylation status of DMCs identified from HMP vs. LMP comparison (lower).
Figure 3. The DNA methylation states of selected regions. (A) CpG methylation comparison between mammary gland tissues producing milk with high and low protein contents (HMP vs. LMP) in Leftover_ScbfJmS_972 (50–100 kb). (B) methylation comparison between HMFP vs. LMFP in Chromosome 2 (12,1570–12,1575 kb). In A and B, the upper part shows the position of genes, and the lower part shows the methylation status of DMCs, including the methylation level and the methylation difference between the two groups. (C) A view of chromosome 27 (6217–6227 kb) showing the location of a QTL related to milk protein yield (upper), genes (middle) and the methylation status of DMCs identified from HMP vs. LMP comparison (lower).
Genes 12 01727 g003
Genes 12 01727 g004 550
Figure 4. QTLs overlapped or co-located with DMCs. (A) Venn diagram showing the number of QTLs uniquely and commonly overlapped with DMCs identified from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons. MP: milk protein, MF: milk fat, MFP: milk fat and protein. (B) The number of QTLs co-located with DMCs from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons. (C) A view of a region of chromosome 27 with a cluster of DMCs identified from the three comparisons. (D) A view of a region of chromosome 6 with a cluster of DMCs identified from the three comparisons. The upper parts of C and D show QTL locations catalogued in the animal genome database (www.animalgenome.org, accessed on 11 December 2020) and filtered to include only loci marked as “significant” and the lower parts are annotated CpG sites (blue dots).
Figure 4. QTLs overlapped or co-located with DMCs. (A) Venn diagram showing the number of QTLs uniquely and commonly overlapped with DMCs identified from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons. MP: milk protein, MF: milk fat, MFP: milk fat and protein. (B) The number of QTLs co-located with DMCs from HMF vs. LMF, HMP vs. LMP and HMFP vs. LMFP comparisons. (C) A view of a region of chromosome 27 with a cluster of DMCs identified from the three comparisons. (D) A view of a region of chromosome 6 with a cluster of DMCs identified from the three comparisons. The upper parts of C and D show QTL locations catalogued in the animal genome database (www.animalgenome.org, accessed on 11 December 2020) and filtered to include only loci marked as “significant” and the lower parts are annotated CpG sites (blue dots).
Genes 12 01727 g004
Table
Table 1. Test day milk fat and protein composition (mean of four consecutive months values) of experimental animals.
Table 1. Test day milk fat and protein composition (mean of four consecutive months values) of experimental animals.
Animal IDPhenotype/Analysis Group 1ParityDIM 2Fat (%) 2Protein (%) 2
High milk fat (HMF) Group
241HMF-HMP32625.55 ± 0.384.1 ± 0.22
194HMF-HMP42165.20 ± 0.183.83 ± 0.22
184HMF52645.09 ± 0.293.40 ± 0.14
215HMF4895.05 ± 0.072.98 ± 0.21
524HMF31454.93 ± 0.663.28 ± 0.35
222HMF42304.90 ± 0.6553.39 ± 0.096
700HMF-HMP13184.83 ± 1.183.83 ± 0.29
Low milk fat (LMF) group
618LMF-LMP21553.40 ± 0.223.15 ± 0.13
729LMF-LMP1993.55 ± 0.372.93 ± 0.22
243LMF-LMP32053.64 ± 0.153.11± 0.13
634LMF2583.70 ± 0.313.3 ± 0.377
107LMF72033.70 ± 2.053.28 ± 0.28
High milk protein (HMP)group
241HMF-HMP32625.55 ± 0.384.1 ± 0.22
194HMF-HMP42165.20 ± 0.183.83 ± 0.22
700HMF-HMP13184.83 ± 1.183.83 ± 0.29
9002HMP3484.58 ± 0.493.70 ± 0.848
710HMP13524.38 ± 0.0963.63 ± 0.08
Low milk protein (LMP) group
720LMP11114.7 ± 0.652.9 ± 0.32
729LMF-LMP1993.55 ± 0.372.93 ± 0.22
215HMF-LMP4895.05 ± 0.072.98 ± 0.21
510LMP31924.58 ± 0.633.00 ± 0.19
485LMP41324.33 ± 0.323.00 ± 0.43
243LMF-LMP32053.64 ± 0.153.11 ± 0.13
618LMF-LMP21553.40 ± 0.223.15 ± 0.13
High milk fat and protein (HMFP) group
241HMF-HMP32625.55 ± 0.384.1 ± 0.22
194HMF-HMP42165.20 ± 0.183.83 ± 0.22
700HMF-HMP13184.83 ± 1.183.83 ± 0.29
Low milk fat and protein (LMFP) group
618LMF-LMP21553.40 ± 0.223.15 ± 0.13
729LMF-LMP1993.55 ± 0.372.93 ± 0.22
243LMF-LMP32053.64 ± 0.153.11 ± 0.13
1 HMP: high milk protein (>3.60%); LMP: low milk protein (≤3.15%); HMF: high milk fat > 4.80%); LMF: low milk fat (≤3.70%). Some cows belonged to more than one group. The bold font shows the group and the corresponding milk fat or protein contents on which the analysis is based. 2 DIM: days in milk. 2 fat % and protein %: mean ± SD.
Table
Table 2. DMC genes with at least three differentially methylated CpG (DMC) sites.
Table 2. DMC genes with at least three differentially methylated CpG (DMC) sites.
Comparison 1Gene NameGene DescriptionChr 2DMCs with Increased Methylation LevelDMCs with Decreased Methylation Level
HMF vs. LMFLOC112442278Basic proline-rich protein-likechr2966
LOC1124446535.8S ribosomal RNAchr27121
PDE5APhosphodiesterase 5Achr633
MIR2887-1MicroRNA mir-2887-1chr213
HMP vs. LMPLOC112442278Basic proline-rich protein-likechr23280
LOC1124446535.8S ribosomal RNAchr272110
MIR2887-1MicroRNA mir-2887-1chr2840
RN18S118S ribosomal RNAchr27600
MIR2887-2MicroRNA mir-2887-2chr27140
LOC1124432505S ribosomal RNAchr2191
PDE5APhosphodiesterase 5Achr631
HMFP vs. LMFPLOC112442278Basic proline-rich protein-likechr21686
LOC1124446535.8S ribosomal RNAchr271080
RN18S118S ribosomal RNAchr27350
MIR2887-1MicroRNA mir-2887-1chr2300
ENSBTAG00000052622.1Novel gene (protein coding)chr1419
PDE5APhosphodiesterase 5Achr623
MIR2887-2MicroRNA mir-2887-2chr2750
FBXO16F-box protein 16chr813
DEFB7Befensin β 7chr2703
COX1Cytochrome c oxidase subunit IchrM21
ENSBTAG00000043565.1Novel gene (Mt tRNA)chrM21
1 HMF vs. LMF: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low fat contents. HMP vs. LMP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low protein contents. HMFP vs. LMFP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with both high fat/high protein and low fat/low protein contents. 2 chr: chromosome.
Table
Table 3. Significantly overrepresented gene ontology (GO) terms by DMC genes.
Table 3. Significantly overrepresented gene ontology (GO) terms by DMC genes.
Comparison 1GO IdentificationGO Term NameGO Category 2Fold Enrichment+ 3Adjust
p Value
HMP vs. LMPGO:0019646Aerobic electron transport chainBP37.81+0.0355
GO:0009060Aerobic respirationBP20.97+0.0335
GO:0006119Oxidative phosphorylationBP28.02+0.0085
GO:0046034ATP metabolic process BP18.53+0.0066
GO:0042775Mitochondrial ATP synthesis coupled electron transportBP35.18+0.0466
GO:0009055Electron transfer activityMF25.33+0.0046
GO:0070469RespirasomeCC20.56+0.0062
HMFP vs. LMFPGO:0042773ATP synthesis coupled electron transportBP34.88+0.0032
GO:0006119Oxidative phosphorylationBP28.15+0.0007
GO:0022904Respiratory electron transport chainBP26.25+0.0124
GO:0009060Aerobic respirationBP21.07+0.0036
GO:0022900Electron transport chainBP18.71+0.0070
GO:0046034ATP metabolic process BP18.1+0.0010
GO:0045333Cellular respirationBP17.58+0.0100
GO:0015980Energy derivation by oxidation of organic compounds BP13.65+0.0411
GO:0009055Electron transfer activityMF25.45+0.0004
GO:0098803Respiratory chain complexCC23.56+0.0003
GO:0070469RespirasomeCC24.1+0.0000
GO:0005746Mitochondrial respirasomeCC20.55+0.0066
GO:1990204Oxidoreductase complexCC17.56+0.0138
GO:0098800Inner mitochondrial membrane protein complexCC13.88+0.0415
1 HMF vs. LMF: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low fat contents. HMP vs. LMP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low protein contents. HMFP vs. LMFP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with both high fat/high protein and low fat/low protein contents. DMC: differentially methylated cytosine (CpG) sites. 2 BP: biological process; MF: molecular function; CC: cellular component; + 3: overrepresentation, i.e., more present in high vs. low.
Table
Table 4. Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) co-located with more than three differentially methylated CpG sites per comparison.
Table 4. Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) co-located with more than three differentially methylated CpG sites per comparison.
QTL
ID		QTL
Symbol 1		QTL Trait
Name		Chr 2Start PositionEnd PositionQTL Trait ClassDMC (HMF vs. LMF) 3DMC (HMP vs. LMP) 4 DMC (HMFP vs. LMFP) 5
10104PYMilk protein yieldchr27109908132912109milk-composition-protein36534299
2611PYMilk protein yieldchr27548464221801052milk-composition-protein35533297
2592MYMilk yieldchr27548464221801052milk-yield35533297
12232ALD-C18:0Stearic aldehyde contentchr66128949283340fatty-acid-content111110
12233FA-C22:6Docosahexaenoic acid contentchr66128949283340fatty-acid-content111110
12234N6N3ROmega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratiochr66128949283340fatty-acid-content111110
10208PPMilk protein percentagechr6502329318528012milk-composition-protein111110
6065PYMilk protein yieldchr676721313254392milk-composition-protein111110
10148PYMilk protein yieldchr657477325928842milk-composition-protein645
2443PPMilk protein percentagechr31299320744877667milk-composition-protein334
1 PY: Protein yield; MY: Milk yield; ALD: Aldehyde; FA: Fatty acid; PP: Protein percentage. 2 chr: chromosome. 3 DMC: differentially methylated cytosine (CpG) site. HMF vs. LMF: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low fat contents. 4 HMP vs. LMP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low protein contents. 5 HMFP vs. LMFP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with both high fat/high protein and low fat/ low protein contents.
Table
Table 5. Genes harboring three or more differentially methylated cytosine (CpG) sites and co-located with QTLs.
Table 5. Genes harboring three or more differentially methylated cytosine (CpG) sites and co-located with QTLs.
Gene IDGene NameChr 1DMCs 2QTL Trait ClassQTL TraitQTL IDGene Function
HMF vs. LMFLMP vs. HMPHMFP vs. LMFP
RN18S118S ribosomal RNAChr2716035Milk-composition-proteinMilk protein yield10104; 2611Structural constituent of ribosome
Milk yield2592
LOC1124446535.8S ribosomal RNAChr2711716Milk-composition-proteinMilk protein yield10104; 2611Structural constituent of ribosome
Milk yield2592
PDE5APhosphodiesterase 5AChr6645fatty-acid-contentStearic aldehyde content12232Implicated in 3′,5′-cyclic-GMP phosphodiesterase activity;
Involved in cGMP binding;
Involved in cyclic-nucleotide phosphodiesterase activity; Involved in metal ion binding
Docosahexaenoic acid content12233
Omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio12234
Milk-composition-proteinMilk protein yield10148; 6065
Milk protein percentage10208
FBXO16F-box protein 16Chr8114Milk-yieldMilking speed3438Involved in protein binding
DEFB7defensin β 7Chr27013Milk-composition-proteinMilk protein yield10104; 2611Involved in positive chemotaxis
Milk yield2592
ENSBTAG00000052622.1Novel gene (protein coding) Chr14019Milk-composition-protein; milk-yieldMilk protein percentage2604; 3413None
Milk protein yield10099, 10100, 10101
Milk yield3608
1 chr: chromosome. 2 DMC: differentially methylated cytosine (CpG) sites. HMF vs. LMF: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low fat contents. HMP vs. LMP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with high and low protein contents. HMFP vs. LMFP: comparison between mammary gland tissues from cows producing milk with both high fat/high protein and low fat/low protein contents.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, M.; Bissonnette, N.; Dudemaine, P.-L.; Zhao, X.; Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M. Whole Genome DNA Methylation Variations in Mammary Gland Tissues from Holstein Cattle Producing Milk with Various Fat and Protein Contents. Genes 2021, 12, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111727

AMA Style

Wang M, Bissonnette N, Dudemaine P-L, Zhao X, Ibeagha-Awemu EM. Whole Genome DNA Methylation Variations in Mammary Gland Tissues from Holstein Cattle Producing Milk with Various Fat and Protein Contents. Genes. 2021; 12(11):1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111727

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Mengqi, Nathalie Bissonnette, Pier-Luc Dudemaine, Xin Zhao, and Eveline M. Ibeagha-Awemu. 2021. "Whole Genome DNA Methylation Variations in Mammary Gland Tissues from Holstein Cattle Producing Milk with Various Fat and Protein Contents" Genes 12, no. 11: 1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111727

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop