Next Article in Journal
The Value of the Stemness Index in Ovarian Cancer Prognosis
Previous Article in Journal
Origin and Global Expansion of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Lineage 3
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/genes13060992
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:
Review

Plant DNA Methylation Responds to Nutrient Stress

by
Xiaoru Fan
1,†,
Lirun Peng
2,† and
Yong Zhang
3,*
1
School of Chemistry and Life Science, Anshan Normal University, Anshan 114007, China
2
College of Resource and Environmental Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210014, China
3
Institute of Food Crops, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing 210014, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Genes 2022, 13(6), 992; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13060992
Submission received: 26 April 2022 / Revised: 23 May 2022 / Accepted: 30 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Genetics and Genomics)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nutrient stress as abiotic stress has become one of the important factors restricting crop yield and quality. DNA methylation is an essential epigenetic modification that can effectively regulate genome stability. Exploring DNA methylation responses to nutrient stress could lay the foundation for improving plant tolerance to nutrient stress. This article summarizes the plant DNA methylation patterns, the effects of nutrient stress, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, zinc and sulfur stress, on plant DNA methylation and research techniques for plant DNA methylation, etc. Our discussion provides insight for further research on epigenetics response to nutrient stress in the future.

1. Introduction

The adversity stresses of plants are usually divided into two types: biotic stresses, including pathogenic bacteria, insect pests and weed damage, and abiotic stresses, such as water, temperature and nutrient elements [1]. During the growth and development of crops, 17 essential nutrients are required to maintain their growth, including macronutrients, mesonutrients and micronutrients [1]. As a common abiotic stress, low or excessive levels of nutrients could cause the loss of crop yield and quality [2]. In order to cope with the effects of nutrient stress on their growth and development, plants have evolved complex mechanisms to adapt to fluctuations in the nutrients in the soil [3,4,5]. Over the past decade, the core abiotic stress signaling pathways have been gradually elucidated [1]. More studies demonstrate the vital involvement of epigenetic mechanisms in abiotic stress responses [6,7,8].
Epigenetic mechanisms play a crucial role in forming adversity-responsive memory and can be inherited by future generations [9]. Plants are often subjected to adverse environmental stress conditions due to their sessile nature. If plants have experienced stress, they can respond more quickly and have a greater chance of survival than plants that have never encountered environmental stress [10]. Resistance to stress conditions enhances plant resistance to abiotic conditions [11]. Mild exposure to stress results in a new cellular state in comparison to that of plants that have never been exposed to stress [12,13]. If the stress persists for a period, the plant can generate stressful memories [9,10,12,14]. This stress memory is usually regulated by DNA methylation, histone modifications and the accumulation of signaling proteins [15,16,17]. It has already been proven that the stress-induced changes in DNA methylation could be partially inherited by the next generation, which preferentially occurs through the female germ line [18,19]. Such heredity was considered a source of diversity which could be utilized in breeding programs [20]. Therefore, the study of plant epigenetic mechanisms has great significance for crop cultivation [21]. However, persistent stress is vital for establishing DNA methylation-dependent stress memory in plants [22]. If the progeny were not continuously stressed, the inherited epigenetic status is gradually reset [19], but how many generations are needed to establish an epigenetic memory is still unclear.
Epigenetics is the study of DNA sequence-independent changes in gene function that are mitotically and/or meiotically heritable. It plays an important role in maintaining the cellular memory of gene expression states [6,23]. Epigenetics includes chromosome configuration recombination, histone modification, DNA methylation, non-coding RNA-mediated regulation, etc. [24]. DNA methylation is one of the most thoroughly studied mechanisms in epigenetic research [25]. The dynamic regulation of DNA methylation in response to environmental changes reduces plants’ survival pressure in harsh environments and helps plants respond to stress [26,27,28,29]. The reversibility of DNA methylation could rapidly and reversibly modify plant genomic DNA, which avoids excessive gene recombination and population diversity [30]. Its heritability provides new ideas for plant breeding [31]. This review determined the mechanism of plant DNA methylation, the effects of different nutrient stresses on DNA methylation and related research techniques. Our review helps breed new plant varieties with stronger nutrient stress resistance for genome-based breeding.

2. Plant DNA Methylation Patterns

DNA methylation is one of the earliest discovered and most studied regulatory mechanisms in epigenetics [32]. Studies have shown that tissue-specific DNA methylation patterns in plants can be stably transmitted asexually through the complex process of regenerating intact plants from a single source tissue [33].
DNA methylation includes C5-methylcytosine (5mC), N6-methyladenine (N6-mA) and N7-methylguanine. 5mC, the fifth position of the cytosine residue, is the most widely studied DNA methylation [34]. 5mC is the fifth carbon of a cytosine residue that receives methyl from S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM) by the catalysis of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) [34,35]. The 5mC in mammals is mainly found at CG sites, but in plants, it can occur in the three cytosine environments of CG, CHG and CHH (H stands for A, T or C), and they are catalyzed by different DNMTs [35,36]. Different DNMTs are involved in two DNA methylation processes in plants: DNA methylation maintenance and de novo DNA methylation (Figure 1).
Methyltransferase 1 (MET1), one of the DNMTs, mainly maintains symmetric CG site methylation, which is an ortholog of mammalian DNMT1. MET1 recognizes double-stranded DNA with hemimethylated CG and induces unmodified cytosine methylation during DNA replication [35,37]. The symmetrical CHG site methylation is primarily maintained by chromosomal methylase 3 (CMT3), which binds to the inhibitory H3K9me2 and induces unmodified CHG sites methylation [38,39]. Additionally, CHG methylation is catalyzed by CMT2 [40,41]. The suppressor of the variegation homolog protein, SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6 binds to the methylated CHG site and promotes the function of CMT3/CMT2 [42,43]. During asymmetric de novo DNA methylation, CHH methylation is performed by domain-rearranged methyltransferase 2 (DRM2) or CMT2, depending on the genomic region. DRM2 causes CHH methylation through a plant-specific mechanism, the RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway, which depends on the 24 nt small interfering RNA (siRNA) [20,35,44].
Most of the RdDM pathway research has studied Arabidopsis thaliana [20,35,45]. RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV), as the template for RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 2 (RDR2), mediates the generation of double-stranded RNAs (dsRNA) [20,44]. Then, the DICER-like protein (DCL2/3/4) cleaves the dsRNAs to generate 24 nt siRNAs. siRNA is loaded onto the ARGONAUTE proteins (AGO), mainly AGO4 and AGO6, which interact with DRM2 to catalyze de novo DNA methylation [35,38,46] (Figure 1). This process is assisted by RNA-DIRECTED DNA METHYLATION 1 (RDM1), which may bind single-stranded methylated DNA [47]. At some RdDM loci, Pol II produces 24 nt siRNAs and scaffold RNAs [48]. Furthermore, at some transposons, POL II and RDR6 produce precursors of 21 nt or 22 nt siRNAs [49,50,51].
On the other hand, replacing 5mC with unmethylated cytosine is equally important in regulating gene expression as cytosine methylated. DNA demethylation includes passive demethylation and active demethylation [52,53]. In passive demethylation, 5mC loses its methyl during DNA replication, and in active demethylation, 5mC losses are catalyzed by DNA glycosylases [54]. Passive demethylation is a nuclear factor (NF) that adheres to the 5mC during DNA replication and blocks the maintenance of DNA methylation, which leads to the loss of DNA methylation in the newly synthesized strand [52,54]. Active demethylation balances the methylation level of the genome and maintains gene expression. The excision of C5-methylcytosine achieves the active demethylation of 5mC by the DNA glycosylase and then repairs the cytosine by the base excision through the base-excision repair (BER) pathway [54]. There are four DNA glycosylases that are identified, including the repressor of silencing 1 (ROS1) [55], Demeter (DME) and Demeter-like 2 and 3 (DML2/3) [56,57] (Figure 1). These four glycosylases can remove 5-mC from any sequence context (mCG, mCHH and mCHG) [58]. ROS1 was the first plant-specific DNA demethylase to be identified. ROS1 demethylates TEs and could influence transposon activity and the transcriptional silencing of nearby genes [59]. ROS1 also induces demethylation in the RdDM-independent regions [60]. DME prefers to be demethylated on the AT-rich transposable elements (TEs), which leads to the expression of the nearby gene changes [61]. The main function of ROS1 is to restrict DNA methylation to its target regions to avoid DNA methylation proliferation and adjacent gene silencing [59]. DME, DML2 and DML3 ensure genomic imprinting in the endosperm, which is essential for seed development [55]. Furthermore, in mammals, 5mC could be actively demethylated through the ten-eleven translocation (TET) dioxygenase-mediated oxidation of 5mC to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC), 5-formylcytosine (5fC) and 5-carboxylcytosine (5caC), which is followed by replication-dependent dilution or thymine DNA lycosylase-dependent base excision repair [62].
Reports have characterized the proteins and enzymes of plants that are involved in DNA (de)methylation. However, there is little knowledge about the components controlling targeted DNA (de)methylation during the developmental process [20]. Furthermore, the RdDM model is still not comprehensive; reports showed that RdDM involves allelic interactions. However, these allelic interactions cannot be explained by the existing RdDM model, suggesting that radical changes may be needed in the RdDM model [63]. Additionally, Arabidopsis thaliana has been used as a model system to study the basic mechanisms of DNA (de)methylation. One of the reasons for this is that DNA (de)methylation mutants are generally not lethal in Arabidopsis thaliana [44]. In recent years, DNA methylation has been found to have regulated many more essential genes for growth and stress responses in plants with more complex genomes, such as rice, maize, tomato and barley [64,65,66], which could reveal new roles for DNA methylation in different plants.

3. Effects of Nutrient Stress on Plant DNA Methylation

Nutrient limitation is major environmental stress that reduces plant growth, productivity and quality [67]. Globally, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) limitations are ubiquitous in soil [68]. Therefore, N and P deficiencies are the main constraints of food production under low-fertilization conditions, while under high-fertilization conditions, large amounts of N and P fertilization can cause large-scale environmental pollution [69]. In addition to N and P, breeding crops with more iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) is also one of the priorities, since large numbers of people eat grains due to Fe and Zn deficiencies [70,71]. Furthermore, there are essential nutrients for plants, such as sulfur (S), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) [69,72].
DNA methylation in plants plays a vital role in the response to nutrient changes and is involved in controlling nutrient homeostasis [73]. The study of DNA methylation responses to nutrient stress helps breed new nutrient-efficient crops, which help improve food security while reducing environmental impacts [69].

3.1. Effects of Nitrogen Stress on Plant DNA Methylation

Nitrogen (N) is one of the crucial macronutrients affecting plant growth and crop yield [74]. When nitrogen is deficient, due to the influence of protein, nucleic acid and phospholipid synthesis in the plant, the plant will grow slowly and dwarf [75]. Epigenetic factors are considered to be among the essential mechanisms for plants in adapting to nitrogen deficiency [76]. Meyer et al. proved that RNA-dependent RNA polymerase2 (RDR2) was involved in the accumulation of biomass under N deficiency in Arabidopsis thaliana, which indicated that RdDM could be involved in the regulation of N deficiency [76]. Kou et al. reported that nitrogen deficiency could change DNA methylation in rice. The variation could be inherited by offspring and enhance their tolerance to nitrogen deficiency. Low nitrogen treatment induces the expression of some methylases, such as MET1, DRM1 and DRM2 [64]. Kuhlmann et al. reported that low nitrogen treatment in Arabidopsis thaliana affected eight shoot growth-related SNPs on chromosome 1, resulting in changes in the methylation of their recognition gene regions. They suggested that epigenetic regulation was involved in the nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) expression of related traits. They also found RdDM-mediated asymmetric cytosine methylation changes, which affected the transcription [77]. Yu et al. reported that nitrogen deficiency resulted in altered methylation patterns in Leymus chinensis. They suggested that the cytosine methylation changes around transposable elements were higher than those in other genomic regions [78]. Our previous research reported that the knockdown of the high-affinity nitrate transporter partner protein OsNAR2.1 caused a decrease in nitrogen content in rice and induced DNA methylation reduction [79]. We also found that low nitrogen treatment causes low seed N content, which leads to DNA methylation changes in filial rice [80].

3.2. Effects of Phosphorus Stress on Plant DNA Methylation

Phosphorus (P) is an essential macronutrient for plant growth and development [81]. Secco et al. reported that mC changes induced by phosphate starvation occurred preferentially in transposable elements (TEs). They suggested that, during prolonged P deprivation, TEs close to high expression stress-induced genes are hypermethylated without DCL3a, thus preventing their transcription via RNA polymerase II. Furthermore, they found that partial methylation can propagate through mitosis [82]. Yong-Villalobos et al. showed that phosphorus starvation leads to gene-wide methylation changes in Arabidopsis thaliana, which are accompanied by changes in gene expression. They found that phosphorus deficiency induced 20% of up-regulated differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in the shoots and 86% of up-regulated DMRs underground. They concluded that DNA methylation changes were required to regulate P sensitive genes, and DNA methylation was necessary for establishing physiological and morphological P starvation responses [83]. Yen et al. showed P deficiency-induced changes in the methylome. They identified over 160 DMRs between low-Pi and Pi-replete conditions. They found that the deubiquitinating enzyme OTU5 is critical for establishing DNA methylation patterns [84]. Tian et al. reported that phosphorus starvation caused an increase in the global methylation level, with millions of differentially methylated cytosines (DmCs) and a few hundred DMRs in tomato. They suggested that methylation changes on P might largely be shaped by TE distributions [65]. Schönberger et al. showed that differential methylation was associated with different P treatments with site-dependent microRNAs (miRNA). Furthermore, some miRNA sequences were directly targeted by differential methylation [85]. Chu et al. reported that low P induced differential methylation, and gene expression showed that the transcriptional alterations of a small part of genes were associated with methylation changes in soybean. They also found that siRNAs modulated TE activity by guiding CHH methylation in TE regions [86].

3.3. Effects of Other Nutrient Stresses on Plant DNA Methylation

Zn is an essential micronutrient of all organisms in plants. Mager et al. showed that low Zn treatment could lead to massively reduced DNA methylation, and the enzymes involved in DNA maintenance methylation were repressed. They found that Zn deficiency induced a tremendous reduction in small RNA associated with DNA methylation [87]. Fe is an essential micronutrient in plants. Fe limitation significantly affects plant growth [88]. Sun et al. reported that there is widespread hypermethylation in rice after Fe deficiency, especially in the CHH context. They also found that the transcript abundance of Fe deficiency-induced genes was positive with the 24 nt siRNAs, suggesting that the alteration of methylation patterns is directed by siRNAs, which play an important role in Fe deficiency [88]. Bocchini et al. found that 11 DNA bands were differently methylated in Fe deficiency barleys. Furthermore, their results showed DNA methylation/demethylation patterns very similar to those of barley grown under Fe deprivation in resupplied barley, which indicated that the DNA modifications were heritable [89]. S is an essential element for plant organisms [73]. Huang et al. found that the sulfur accumulation1 (MSA1) mutant msa1 had a strong S-deficiency response compared with WT. The sulfate transporter genes SULTR1;1 and SULTR1;2 were shown to be differentially methylated in msa1 compared with WT. The results indicated that MSA1 maintained S homeostasis epigenetically via DNA methylation [73]. We summarized the effects of different nutrient stresses on plant methylation in Table 1.

4. Methodology of Plant DNA Methylation

DNA methylation research has made significant progress in plants in recent years, and the detection methods have been continuously updated. We summarize the detection methods in plant DNA methylation studies that respond to nutrient stress and other biotic and abiotic stress. The detection of DNA methylation first started in the 1980s. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used as the earliest detection method of DNA methylation to measure genomic DNA methylation [90,91]. HPLC is widely used to detect the DNA methylation level of the whole genome of plants, including cotton, tea tree, taxus, etc. [92,93,94,95]. The advantage of this method is that it can measure the DNA methylation level of the whole genome of plants without a reference genome, but the operating system is complicated [96].
Specific-sequence amplified polymorphism (SSAP) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) were initially two efficient marker systems for evaluating genetic variation and assessing genetic relationships and were later used for the detection of epigenetic variation [97]. Methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAP) is a PCR technology that detects DNA methylation based on amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) technology [98,99]. Reports showed that the epigenetic diversity differed slightly from that of MSAP, AFLP and SSAP [78,97]. As one of the standard methods used in detecting cytosine methylation [64,78,89], the MSAP method uses the restriction enzymes MspI and HpaII to recognize cytosine methylation on the CCGG sequence. The two enzymes have different sensitivities to specific cytosine methylation. HpaII can only recognize mCCGG, the outer methylation site of single-stranded DNA. In contrast, MspI can recognize CmCGG, the inner methylation site of double-stranded or single-stranded DNA. Different bands were amplified from the same DNA sequence to determine the cytosine methylation level at the 5′-CCGG site [100]. The technology is widely used to detect the methylation levels of watermelon, salvia, loquat, poplar, Viola cazorlensis, potatoes, cotton, etc. [92,101,102,103]. MSAP technology has high economic efficiency and a low cost. It helps study non-model organisms that lack genome sequencing, and it can screen for mutations and differentiation in the studied genomes [104]. This technology also has certain limitations. Due to the selectivity of the restriction enzymes, some methylation states could be missed [105].
Bisulfite genomic sequencing (BGS) determined the exact positions of 5-methylcytosine on a single strand of DNA [106,107]. By conversing cytosine but not 5mC to uracil, followed by PCR and the sequencing of cloned amplicon DNA, BGS could detect the presence of 5mC at single-nucleotide resolution accurately in a region of interest [106,108].
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology is the most effective method to identify epigenetic modifications occurring at the DNA level and has been widely used in DNA methylation studies in recent years [109]. Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) technology, also known as MethylC-seq [82,110,111], combines NGS technology with bisulfite conversion methods. It can perform the single-base analysis and genome-wide distribution analysis of DNA methylation in animals and plants [109]. With the development of sequencing technology, WGBS has been performed in many plants, including Arabidopsis thaliana, rice, tomato, cucumber and oilseed rape [65,73,77,79,80,83,85,112,113,114]. This method has a high sensitivity to DNA, identifying genome-wide DNA methylation sites with a small number of samples [80]. However, due to its high price, it is primarily use in species with high-quality reference genomes. Compared with WGBS, the reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) method is mainly used for the differential analysis of multiple samples with less sequencing. The RRBS method sequences DNA methylation on high-density and representative genes efficiently and accurately. Nevertheless, it is limited by the restriction of enzyme cleavage sites [115].
Methylated DNA co-immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeDIP-seq) pre-treats DNA by co-immunoprecipitation and by enriching methylated DNA fragments with anti-methylcytosine nucleoside antibodies. Then, through the high-throughput sequencing of CpG methylated regions, it detects the methylation status and distribution characteristics of the whole genome rapidly and accurately [116,117]. The method has been used in rice, switchgrass, black cottonwood, citrus, etc. [79,118,119,120]. Methyl-CpG-binding domain sequencing (MBD-seq) locates double-stranded methylated DNA fragments using the methyl-binding domain [121]. Both MeDIP and MBD-Seq detected 5mC exclusively, unlike bisulfite conversion, which could not distinguish between 5mC and 5hmC [122]. Moreover, the MeDIP-Seq and Methyl-CpG-binding domain sequencing (MBD-Seq) methods both efficiently detect DNA methylation levels in the whole genome, and their results are generally concordant but non-identical [123,124]. MeDIP-Seq can only find high methylated regions in the genome, such as CpG islands, rather than analyze the single base, and it needs correction with different densities of CpG. MBD-Seq can be separated by different DNA methylations according to the CpG density [125,126].
There are methods that are used less, such as methylation-sensitive single nucleotide primer extension (Ms-SNuPE) [127], methylation-sensitive single-strand conformation analysis (MS-SSCA) [128] and EpiTYPER™ [129]. We list all the methods in Table 2.

5. Issues and Prospects

DNA methylation is a reversible epigenetic modification. DNA methylation is involved in multiple cellular and biological processes and plays a critical role in genome stability [24]. In plants, the dynamic regulation of DNA methylation responds to environmental changes and helps plants respond to stress [28,29]. In recent years, there have been many reports about plant DNA methylation, but the signaling and transduction mechanisms involved in DNA methylation are still unclear. Most studies have focused on the DNA methylation expression levels in plants but have focused less on its specific mechanism. It is necessary to conduct further research on how it controls replication initiation. Furthermore, the reports on DNA methylation responses to nutrient stress lack specific sites and specific response mechanisms. Compared with those on 5mC, there are fewer studies on N6-mA in the plant. 6mA DNA methylation is a new epigenetic marker in eukaryotes which has been proven to be a conserved DNA modification that is positively associated with gene expression and contributes to key agronomic traits in plants [130,131]. However, the 6mA changes that respond to nutrient stress remain unclear. Moreover, as we conclude that DNA methylation responds to N, P, Zn, Fe and S, there are rarely reports about DNA methylation responding to other essential elements such as K, Ca, Mg, etc. Therefore, there is still a long way to go in studying the influence of nutrient deficiencies on DNA methylation.
It is necessary to combine DNA methylation modification with histone modification, chromatin remodeling and RNA interference to study the formation and maintenance mechanism of DNA methylation under nutrient stress. This would help to reveal the dynamic changes of methylation during growth and development and to find tissue-specific differences under nutrient stress conditions. The study of DNA methylation responses to nutrient stress could stabilize and improve the yield and quality of crops.

Author Contributions

X.F. and L.P. wrote the first draft of the manuscript and organized the tables and figures; Y.Z. conceived and supervised the ideas. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Liaoning Provincial Department of Education Fundamental Research Youth Project (LJKQZ2021180) and the Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Anshan Normal University (21b04).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, J. Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 2016, 167, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Chen, J.; Qi, T.; Hu, Z.; Fan, X.; Zhu, L.; Iqbal, M.F.; Yin, X.; Xu, G.; Fan, X. OsNAR2.1 Positively Regulates Drought Tolerance and Grain Yield Under Drought Stress Conditions in Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Xu, Z.-S.; Chen, M.; Li, L.-C.; Ma, Y.-Z. Functions and Application of the AP2/ERF Transcription Factor Family in Crop ImprovementF. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2011, 53, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gojon, A.; Nacry, P.; Davidian, J.C. Root uptake regulation: A central process for NPS homeostasis in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Davidian, J.; Kopriva, S. Regulation of sulfate uptake and assimilation-the same or not the same. Mol. Plant 2010, 3, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sahu, P.P.; Pandey, G.; Sharma, N.; Puranik, S.; Muthamilarasan, M.; Prasad, M. Epigenetic mechanisms of plant stress responses and adaptation. Plant Cell Rep. 2013, 32, 1151–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chang, Y.N.; Zhu, C.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J.K.; Duan, C.G. Epigenetic regulation in plant abiotic stress responses. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2019, 62, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Miryeganeh, M. Plants’ Epigenetic Mechanisms and Abiotic Stress. Genes 2021, 12, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Friedrich, T.; Faivre, L.; Baurle, I.; Schubert, D. Chromatin-based mechanisms of temperature memory in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 762–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hilker, M.; Schwachtje, J.; Baier, M.; Balazadeh, S.; Bäurle, I.; Geiselhardt, S.; Hincha, D.K.; Kunze, R.; Mueller-Roeber, B.; Rillig, M.C.; et al. Priming and memory of stress responses in organisms lacking a nervous system. Biol. Rev. 2016, 91, 1118–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ramirez-Prado, J.S.; Abulfaraj, A.A.; Rayapuram, N.; Benhamed, M.; Hirt, H. Plant Immunity: From Signaling to Epigenetic Control of Defense. Trends. Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bruce, T.J.A.; Matthes, M.C.; Napier, J.A.; Pickett, J.A. Stressful “memories” of plants: Evidence and possible mechanisms. Plant Sci. 2007, 173, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ling, Y.; Serrano, N.; Gao, G.; Atia, M.; Mokhtar, M.; Woo, Y.H.; Bazin, J.; Veluchamy, A.; Benhamed, M.; Crespi, M.; et al. Hermopriming Triggers Splicing Memory in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 2659–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Conrath, U.; Beckers, G.J.M.; Flors, V.; García-Agustín, P.; Jakab, G.; Mauch, F.; Newman, M.-A.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Poinssot, B.; Pozo, M.J.; et al. Priming: Getting Ready for Battle. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2006, 19, 1062–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Feil, R.; Fraga, M.F. Epigenetics and the environment: Emerging patterns and implications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Czajka, K.; Mehes-Smith, M.; Nkongolo, K. DNA methylation and histone modifications induced by abiotic stressors in plants. Genes Genom. 2021, 44, 279–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mercé, C.; Bayer, P.E.; Tay Fernandez, C.; Batley, J.; Edwards, D. Induced Methylation in Plants as a Crop Improvement Tool: Progress and Perspectives. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jiang, C.; Mithani, A.; Belfield, E.J.; Mott, R.; Hurst, L.D.; Harberd, N.P. Environmentally responsive genome-wide accumulation of de novo Arabidopsis thaliana mutations and epimutations. Genome Res. 2014, 24, 1821–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wibowo, A.; Becker, C.; Marconi, G.; Durr, J.; Price, J.; Hagmann, J.; Papareddy, R.; Putra, H.; Kageyama, J.; Becker, J.; et al. Hyperosmotic stress memory in Arabidopsis is mediated by distinct epigenetically labile sites in the genome and is restricted in the male germline by DNA glycosylase activity. eLife 2016, 5, e13546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kumar, S.; Mohapatra, T. Dynamics of DNA Methylation and Its Functions in Plant Growth and Development. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vafadarshamasbi, U.; Mace, E.; Jordan, D.; Crisp, P.A. Decoding the sorghum methylome: Understanding epigenetic contributions to agronomic traits. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2022, 50, 583–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gehring, M.; Sanchez, D.H.; Paszkowski, J. Heat-Induced Release of Epigenetic Silencing Reveals the Concealed Role of an Imprinted Plant Gene. PLoS Genet. 2014, 10, e1004806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Coleman-Derr, D.; Zilberman, D. DNA Methylation, H2A.Z, and the Regulation of Constitutive Expression. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2012, 77, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Slotkin, R.; Martienssen, R. Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Harris, C.J.; Scheibe, M.; Wongpalee, S.P.; Liu, W.; Cornett, E.M.; Vaughan, R.M.; Li, X.; Chen, W.; Xue, Y.; Zhong, Z.; et al. A DNA methylation reader complex that enhances gene transcription. Science 2018, 362, 1182–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wang, X.M.; Moazed, D. DNA sequence-dependent epigenetic inheritance of gene silencing and histone H3K9 methylation. Science 2017, 356, 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, M.; Han, D.; Qiu, C.; Han, Z. Dynamics of phytohormone and DNA methylation patterns changes during dormancy induction in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Plant Cell Rep. 2011, 31, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Deleris, A.; Halter, T.; Navarro, L. DNA methylation and demethylation in plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2016, 54, 579–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Migicovsky, Z.; Kovalchuk, I. Changes to DNA methylation and homologous recombination frequency in the progeny of stressed plants. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2013, 91, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peng, H.; Zhang, J. Plant genomic DNA methylation in response to stresses: Potential applications and challenges in plant breeding. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2009, 19, 1037–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boyko, A.; Kovalchuk, I. Epigenetic control of plant stress response. Environ. Mol. Mutagenesis 2008, 49, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Holliday, R.; Pugh, J. DNA modification mechanisms and gene activity during development. Science 1975, 187, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wibowo, A.; Becker, C.; Durr, J.; Price, J.; Spaepen, S.; Hilton, S.; Putra, H.; Papareddy, R.; Saintain, Q.; Harvey, S.; et al. Partial maintenance of organ-specific epigenetic marks during plant asexual reproduction leads to heritable phenotypic variation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E9145–E9152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Duan, C.; Zhu, J.; Cao, X. Retrospective and perspective of plant epigenetics in China. J. Genet. Genom. 2018, 45, 621–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Law, J.A.; Jacobsen, S.E. Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 204–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cokus, S.J.; Feng, S.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Z.; Merriman, B.; Haudenschild, C.D.; Pradhan, S.; Nelson, S.F.; Pellegrini, M.; Jacobsen, S.E. Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 2008, 452, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kankel, M.W.; Ramsey, D.E.; Stokes, T.L.; Flowers, S.K.; Haag, J.R.; Jeddeloh, J.A.; Riddle, N.C.; Verbsky, M.L.; Richards, E.J. Arabidopsis MET1 cytosine methyltransferase mutants. Genetics 2003, 163, 1109–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cao, X.; Jacobsen, S.E. Locus-specific control of asymmetric and CpNpG methylation by the DRM and CMT3 methyltransferase genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16491–16498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ritter, E.J.; Niederhuth, C.E. Intertwined evolution of plant epigenomes and genomes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2021, 61, 101990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stroud, H.; Do, T.; Du, J.; Zhong, X.; Feng, S.; Johnson, L.; Patel, D.J.; Jacobsen, S.E. Non-CG methylation patterns shape the epigenetic landscape in Arabidopsis. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2014, 21, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Lindroth, A.M. Requirement of CHROMOMETHYLASE3 for Maintenance of CpXpG Methylation. Science 2001, 292, 2077–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Du, J.; Zhong, X.; Bernatavichute, Y.V.; Stroud, H.; Feng, S.; Caro, E.; Vashisht, A.A.; Terragni, J.; Chin, H.G.; Tu, A.; et al. Dual Binding of Chromomethylase Domains to H3K9me2-Containing Nucleosomes Directs DNA Methylation in Plants. Cell 2012, 151, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Du, J.; Johnson, L.M.; Groth, M.; Feng, S.; Hale, C.J.; Li, S.; Vashisht, A.A.; Gallego-Bartolome, J.; Wohlschlegel, J.A.; Patel, D.J.; et al. Mechanism of DNA Methylation-Directed Histone Methylation by KRYPTONITE. Mol. Cell 2014, 55, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Zhang, H.; Lang, Z.; Zhu, J.K. Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 489–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Matzke, M.A.; Mosher, R.A. RNA-directed DNA methylation: An epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2014, 15, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhong, X.; Du, J.; Hale, C.J.; Gallego-Bartolome, J.; Feng, S.; Vashisht, A.A.; Chory, J.; Wohlschlegel, J.A.; Patel, D.J.; Jacobsen, S.E. Molecular mechanism of action of plant DRM de novo DNA methyltransferases. Cell 2014, 157, 1050–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Gao, Z.; Liu, H.-L.; Daxinger, L.; Pontes, O.; He, X.; Qian, W.; Lin, H.; Xie, M.; Lorkovic, Z.J.; Zhang, S.; et al. An RNA polymerase II- and AGO4-associated protein acts in RNA-directed DNA methylation. Nature 2010, 465, 106–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Zheng, B.; Wang, Z.; Li, S.; Yu, B.; Liu, J.-Y.; Chen, X. Intergenic transcription by RNA Polymerase II coordinates Pol IV and Pol V in siRNA-directed transcriptional gene silencing in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 2009, 23, 2850–2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nuthikattu, S.; McCue, A.D.; Panda, K.; Fultz, D.; DeFraia, C.; Thomas, E.N.; Slotkin, R.K. The Initiation of Epigenetic Silencing of Active Transposable Elements Is Triggered by RDR6 and 21-22 Nucleotide Small Interfering RNAs. Plant Physiol. 2013, 162, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wu, L.; Mao, L.; Qi, Y. Roles of DICER-LIKE and ARGONAUTE Proteins in TAS-Derived Small Interfering RNA-Triggered DNA Methylation. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. McCue, A.D.; Panda, K.; Nuthikattu, S.; Choudury, S.G.; Thomas, E.N.; Slotkin, R.K. ARGONAUTE 6 bridges transposable element mRNA-derived si RNAs to the establishment of DNA methylation. EMBO J. 2014, 34, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Liu, R.; Lang, Z. The mechanism and function of active DNA demethylation in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2019, 62, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Li, Y.; Kumar, S.; Qian, W. Active DNA demethylation: Mechanism and role in plant development. Plant Cell Rep. 2017, 37, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Zhu, J.K. Active DNA Demethylation Mediated by DNA Glycosylases. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43, 143–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Choi, Y.; Gehring, M.; Johnson, L.; Hannon, M.; Harada, J.J.; Goldberg, R.B.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Fischer, R.L. DEMETER, a DNA Glycosylase Domain Protein, Is Required for Endosperm Gene Imprinting and Seed Viability in Arabidopsis. Cell 2002, 110, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Penterman, J.; Zilberman, D.; Huh, J.H.; Ballinger, T.; Henikoff, S.; Fischer, R.L. DNA demethylation in the Arabidopsis genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 6752–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Ortega-Galisteo, A.P.; Morales-Ruiz, T.; Ariza, R.R.; Roldán-Arjona, T. Arabidopsis DEMETER-LIKE proteins DML2 and DML3 are required for appropriate distribution of DNA methylation marks. Plant Mol. Biol. 2008, 67, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Martínez-Macías, M.I.; Qian, W.; Miki, D.; Pontes, O.; Liu, Y.; Tang, K.; Liu, R.; Morales-Ruiz, T.; Ariza, R.R.; Roldán-Arjona, T.; et al. A DNA 3′ Phosphatase Functions in Active DNA Demethylation in Arabidopsis. Mol. Cell 2012, 45, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Tang, K.; Lang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J.-K. The DNA demethylase ROS1 targets genomic regions with distinct chromatin modifications. Nature Plants 2016, 2, 16169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. He, X.; Hsu, Y.; Zhu, S.; Wierzbicki, A.T.; Pontes, O.; Pikaard, C.S.; Liu, H.; Wang, C.; Jin, H.; Zhu, J. An Effector of RNA-Directed DNA Methylation in Arabidopsis Is an ARGONAUTE 4- and RNA-Binding Protein. Cell 2009, 137, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Iyer, L.M.; Zhang, D.; Aravind, L. Adenine methylation in eukaryotes: Apprehending the complex evolutionary history and functional potential of an epigenetic modification. Bioessays 2016, 38, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wu, X.; Zhang, Y. TET-mediated active DNA demethylation: Mechanism, function and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2017, 18, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zhang, Q.; Wang, D.; Lang, Z.; He, L.; Yang, L.; Zeng, L.; Li, Y.; Zhao, C.; Huang, H.; Zhang, H.; et al. Methylation interactions in Arabidopsis hybrids require RNA-directed DNA methylation and are influenced by genetic variation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E4248–E4256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Kou, H.P.; Li, Y.; Song, X.X.; Ou, X.F.; Xing, S.C.; Ma, J.; Wettstein, D.V.; Liu, B. Heritable alteration in DNA methylation induced by nitrogen-deficiency stress accompanies enhanced tolerance by progenies to the stress in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 168, 1685–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tian, P.; Lin, Z.T.; Lin, D.B.; Dong, S.Y.; Huang, J.Z.; Huang, T.B. The pattern of DNA methylation alteration, and its association with the changes of gene expression and alternative splicing during phosphate starvation in tomato. Plant J. 2021, 108, 841–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Akhter, Z.; Bi, Z.; Ali, K.; Sun, C.; Fiaz, S.; Haider, F.U.; Bai, J. In Response to Abiotic Stress, DNA Methylation Confers EpiGenetic Changes in Plants. Plants 2021, 10, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gong, Z.; Xiong, L.; Shi, H.; Yang, S.; Herrera-Estrella, L.R.; Xu, G.; Chao, D.-Y.; Li, J.; Wang, P.-Y.; Qin, F.; et al. Plant abiotic stress response and nutrient use efficiency. Sci. China Life Sci. 2020, 63, 635–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Elser, J.J.; Bracken, M.E.S.; Cleland, E.E.; Gruner, D.S.; Harpole, W.S.; Hillebrand, H.; Ngai, J.T.; Seabloom, E.W.; Shurin, J.B.; Smith, J.E. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lynch, J.P. Root phenotypes for improved nutrient capture: An underexploited opportunity for global agriculture. New Phytol. 2019, 223, 548–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bouis, H.E.; Welch, R.M. Biofortification-A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, S-20–S-32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R. Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets–iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytol. 2009, 182, 49–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Takahashi, H.; Watanabe-Takahashi, A.; Smith, F.; Takahashi, H.; Watanabe-Takahashi, A.; Blake-Kalff, M.; Saito, K. The roles of three functional sulphate transporters involved in uptake and translocation of sulphate in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 2000, 23, 71–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Huang, X.; Chao, D.; Koprivova, A.; Danku, J.; Wirtz, M.; Muller, S.; Sandoval, F.J.; Bauwe, H.; Roje, S.; Dilkes, B.; et al. Nuclear localised MORE SULPHUR ACCUMULATION1 epigenetically regulates sulphur homeostasis in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 2016, 12, e1006298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xu, G.; Fan, X.; Miller, A.J. Plant nitrogen assimilation and use efficiency. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012, 63, 153–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Borrell, A.K.; Garside, A.L.; Fukai, S.; Reid, D.J. Season, nitrogen rate, and plant type affect nitrogen uptake and nitrogen use efficiency in rice. Sust. J. Agric. Res. 1998, 49, 829–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Meyer, R.C.; Gryczka, C.; Neitsch, C.; Muller, M.; Brautigam, A.; Schlereth, A.; Schon, H.; Weigelt-Fischer, K.; Altmann, T. Genetic diversity for nitrogen use efficiency in Arabidopsis thaliana. Planta 2019, 250, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kuhlmann, M.; Meyer, R.C.; Jia, Z.; Klose, D.; Krieg, L.-M.; von Wirén, N.; Altmann, T. Epigenetic Variation at a Genomic Locus Affecting Biomass Accumulation under Low Nitrogen in Arabidopsis thaliana. Agronomy 2020, 10, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yu, Y.; Yang, X.; Wang, H.; Shi, F.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, L.; Wang, D.; Liu, B. Cytosine methylation alteration in natural populations of Leymus chinensis induced by multiple abiotic stresses. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e55772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Fan, X.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Teo, C.; Xu, G.; Fan, X. Genetic and Global Epigenetic Modification, Which Determines the Phenotype of Transgenic Rice? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Fan, X.; Liu, L.; Qian, K.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, P.; Xu, M.; Hu, Z.; Yan, W.; Wu, Y.; et al. Plant DNA methylation is sensitive to parent seed N content and influences the growth of rice. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. López-Arredondo, D.L.; Leyva-González, M.A.; González-Morales, S.I.; López-Bucio, J.; Herrera-Estrella, L. Phosphate Nutrition: Improving Low-Phosphate Tolerance in Crops. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014, 65, 95–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Secco, D.; Wang, C.; Shou, H.; Schultz, M.D.; Chiarenza, S.; Nussaume, L.; Ecker, J.R.; Whelan, J.; Lister, R. Stress induced gene expression drives transient DNA methylation changes at adjacent repetitive elements. eLife 2015, 4, e09343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Yong-Villalobos, L.; González-Morales, S.I.; Wrobel, K.; Gutiérrez-Alanis, D.; Cervantes-Peréz, S.A.; Hayano-Kanashiro, C.; Oropeza-Aburto, A.; Cruz-Ramírez, A.; Martínez, O.; Herrera-Estrella, L. Methylome analysis reveals an important role for epigenetic changes in the regulation of the Arabidopsis response to phosphate starvation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E7293–E7302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Yen, M.-R.; Suen, D.-F.; Hsu, F.-M.; Tsai, Y.-H.; Fu, H.; Schmidt, W.; Chen, P.-Y. Deubiquitinating Enzyme OTU5 Contributes to DNA Methylation Patterns and Is Critical for Phosphate Nutrition Signals. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 1826–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Schönberger, B.; Chen, X.; Mager, S.; Ludewig, U. Site-Dependent Differences in DNA Methylation and Their Impact on Plant Establishment and Phosphorus Nutrition in Populus trichocarpa. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Chu, S.; Zhang, X.; Yu, K.; Lv, L.; Sun, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Jiao, Y.; Zhang, D. Genome-Wide Analysis Reveals Dynamic Epigenomic Differences in Soybean Response to Low-Phosphorus Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Mager, S.; Schönberger, B.; Ludewig, U. The transcriptome of zinc deficient maize roots and its relationship to DNA methylation loss. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Sun, S.; Zhu, J.; Guo, R.; Whelan, J.; Shou, H. DNA methylation is involved in acclimation to iron-deficiency in rice (Oryza sativa). Plant J. 2021, 107, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bocchini, M.; Bartucca, M.L.; Ciancaleoni, S.; Mimmo, T.; Cesco, S.; Pii, Y.; Albertini, E.; Del Buono, D. Iron deficiency in barley plants: Phytosiderophore release, iron translocation, and DNA methylation. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Kuo, K.; McCune, R.; Gehrke, C.; Rosemarie, M.; Melanie, E. Quantitative reversed- phase high performance liquid chromatographic determination of major and modified deoxyribonucleosides in DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1980, 8, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wagner, I.; Capesius, I. Determination of 5-methylcytosine from plant DNA by high-performance liquid chromatography. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1981, 654, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, T.; Osabe, K.; Clement, J.D.; Bedon, F.; Pettolino, F.A.; Ziolkowski, L.; Llewellyn, D.J.; Finnegan, E.J.; Wilson, I.W. Genetic and DNA Methylation Changes in Cotton (Gossypium) Genotypes and Tissues. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Li, X.; Yuan, J.; Dong, Y.; Fu, C.; Li, M.; Yu, L. Optimization of an HPLC Method for Determining the Genomic Methylation Levels of Taxus Cells. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2015, 54, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Gao, Y.; Hao, J.; Wang, Z.; Song, K.; Ye, J.; Zheng, X.; Liang, Y.; Lu, J. DNA methylation levels in different tissues in tea plant via an optimized HPLC method. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2019, 60, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Baurens, F.; Nicolleau, J.; Legavre, T.; Verdeil, J.L.; Monteuuis, O. Genomic DNA methylation of juvenile and mature Acacia mangium micropropagated in vitro with reference to leaf morphology as a phase change marker. Tree Physiol. 2004, 24, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Finke, A.; Rozhon, W.; Pecinka, A. Analysis of DNA Methylation Content and Patterns in Plants. Methods Mol. Biol. 2018, 1694, 277–298. [Google Scholar]
  97. Shan, X.H.; Li, Y.D.; Liu, X.M.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, M.Z.; Guo, W.L.; Liu, B.; Yuan, Y.P. Comparative analyses of genetic/epigenetic diversities and structures in a wild barley species (Hordeum brevisubulatum) using MSAP, SSAP and AFLP. Genet. Mol. Res. 2012, 11, 2749–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Vos, P.; Hogers, R.; Bleeker, M.; Reijans, M.; Lee, T.v.d.; Hornes, M.; Friters, A.; Pot, J.; Paleman, J.; Kuiper, M.; et al. AFLP: A new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995, 23, 4407–4414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Xiong, L.Z.; Xu, C.G.; Maroof, S.; Zhang, Q. Patterns of cytosine methylation in an elite rice hybrid and its parental lines, detected by a methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism technique. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1999, 261, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Roberts, R.J.; Vincze, T.; Posfai, J.; Macelis, D. REBASE—A database for DNA restriction and modification: Enzymes, genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, D234–D236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Li, A.; Hu, B.-Q.; Xue, Z.-Y.; Chen, L.; Wang, W.-X.; Song, W.-Q.; Chen, C.-B.; Wang, C.-G. DNA Methylation in Genomes of Several Annual Herbaceous and Woody Perennial Plants of Varying Ploidy as Detected by MSAP. Plant Mol. Biol. Report. 2011, 29, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Herrera, C.M.; Bazaga, P. Untangling individual variation in natural populations: Ecological, genetic and epigenetic correlates of long-term inequality in herbivory. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 1675–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Xin, C.; Hou, R.; Wu, F.; Zhao, Y.; Xiao, H.; Si, W.; Ali, M.E.; Cai, L.; Guo, J. Analysis of cytosine methylation status in potato by methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphisms under low-temperature stress. J. Plant Biol. 2015, 58, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schrey, A.W.; Alvarez, M.; Foust, C.M.; Kilvitis, H.J.; Lee, J.D.; Liebl, A.L.; Martin, L.B.; Richards, C.L.; Robertson, M. Ecological Epigenetics: Beyond MS-AFLP. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2013, 53, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Salmon, A.; Clotault, J.; Jenczewski, E.; Chable, V.; Manzanares-Dauleux, M.J. Brassica oleracea displays a high level of DNA methylation polymorphism. Plant Sci. 2008, 174, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Darst, R.P.; Pardo, C.E.; Ai, L.; Brown, K.D.; Kladde, M.P. Bisulfite Sequencing of DNA. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 2010, 91, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Meissner, A. Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing for comparative high-resolution DNA methylation analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, 5868–5877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Krueger, F.; Kreck, B.; Franke, A.; Andrews, S.R. DNA methylome analysis using short bisulfite sequencing data. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Baubec, T.; Akalin, A. Genome-wide analysis of DNA methylation patterns by high-throughput sequencing. In Field Guidelines for Genetic Experimental Designs in High-Throughput Sequencing; Aransay, A.M., Trueba, J.L.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  110. Li, J.; Li, R.; Wang, Y.; Hu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, L.; Feng, C.; Gu, X.; Liang, F.; Lamont, S.J.; et al. Genome-wide DNA methylome variation in two genetically distinct chicken lines using MethylC-seq. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Lister, R.; O’Malley, R.C.; Tonti-Filippini, J.; Gregory, B.D.; Berry, C.C.; Millar, A.H.; Ecker, J.R. Highly Integrated Single-Base Resolution Maps of the Epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell 2008, 133, 523–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Lang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tang, K.; Tang, D.; Datsenka, T.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Handa, A.K.; Zhu, J.K. Critical roles of DNA demethylation in the activation of ripeninginduced genes and inhibition of ripening-repressed genes in tomato fruit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E4511–E4519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Lai, Y.S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, W.; Shen, D.; Wang, H.; Xia, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Song, J.; Wang, C.; Li, X. The association of changes in DNA methylation with temperaturedependent sex determination in cucumber. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 68, 2899–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Li, J.; Huang, Q.; Sun, M.; Zhang, T.; Li, H.; Chen, B.; Xu, K.; Gao, G.; Li, F.; Yan, G.; et al. Global DNA methylation variations after short-term heat shock treatment in cultured microspores of Brassica napus cv. Topas. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Schmidt, M.; Van Bel, M.; Woloszynska, M.; Slabbinck, B.; Martens, C.; De Block, M.; Coppens, F.; Van Lijsebettens, M. Plant-RRBS, a bisulfite and next-generation sequencing-based methylome profiling method enriching for coverage of cytosine positions. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Seymour, G.J.; Cullinan, M.P.; Heng, N.C.K. Tools and Strategies for Analysis of Genome-Wide and Gene-Specific DNA Methylation Patterns. Methods Mol. Biol. 2017, 1537, 249–277. [Google Scholar]
  117. Xing, X.; Zhang, B.; Li, D. Comprehensive Whole DNA Methylome Analysis by Integrating MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq. Methods Mol. Biol. 2018, 1708, 209–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Dworkin, M.; Xie, S.; Saha, M.; Thimmapuram, J.; Kalavacharla, V. Analyses of methylomes of upland and lowland switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) ecotypes using MeDIP-seq and BS-seq. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Vining, K.; Pomraning, K.; Wilhelm, L.; Priest, H.; Pellegrini, M.; Mockler, T.; Freitag, M.; Strauss, S. Dynamic DNA cytosine methylation in the Populus trichocarpagenome: Tissue-level variation and relationship to gene expression. BMC Genom. 2012, 13, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Xu, J.; Wang, X.; Cao, H.; Xu, H.; Xu, Q.; Deng, X. Dynamic changes in methylome and transcriptome patterns in response to methyltransferase inhibitor 5-azacytidine treatment in citrus. DNA Res. 2017, 24, 509–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Neary, J.L.; Perez, S.M.; Peterson, K.; Lodge, D.J.; Carless, M.A. Comparative analysis of MBD-seq and MeDIP-seq and estimation of gene expression changes in a rodent model of schizophrenia. Genomics 2017, 109, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Harris, R.A.; Wang, T.; Coarfa, C.; Nagarajan, R.P.; Hong, C.; Downey, S.L.; Johnson, B.E.; Fouse, S.D.; Delaney, A.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Comparison of sequencing-based methods to profile DNA methylation and identification of monoallelic epigenetic modifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 1097–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Li, D.; Zhang, B.; Xing, X.; Wang, T. Combining MeDIP-seq and MRE-seq to investigate genome-wide CpG methylation. Methods 2015, 72, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Stevens, M.; Cheng, J.B.; Li, D.; Xie, M.; Hong, C.; Maire, C.L.; Ligon, K.L.; Hirst, M.; Marra, M.A.; Costello, J.F.; et al. Estimating absolute methylation levels at single-CpG resolution from methylation enrichment and restriction enzyme sequencing methods. Genome Res. 2013, 23, 1541–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Ahn, J.; Heo, S.; Lee, J.; Bang, D. Introduction to Single-Cell DNA Methylation Profiling Methods. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Nair, S.S.; Coolen, M.W.; Stirzaker, C.; Song, J.Z.; Statham, A.L.; Strbenac, D.; Robinson, M.D.; Clark, S.J. Comparison of methyl-DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) and methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) protein capture for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveal CpG sequence coverage bias. Epigenetics 2014, 6, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Gonzalgo, M.L.; Liang, G. Methylation-sensitive single-nucleotide primer extension (Ms-SNuPE) for quantitative measurement of DNA methylation. Nat. Protoc. 2007, 2, 1931–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rodríguez López, M.C.; Guzmán Asenjo, B.; Lloyd, A.J.; Wilkinson, M.J. Direct Detection and Quantification of Methylation in Nucleic Acid Sequences Using High-Resolution Melting Analysis. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 9100–9108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kunze, S. Quantitative Region-Specific DNA Methylation Analysis by the EpiTYPER™ Technology. In DNA Methylation Protocols; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 515–535. [Google Scholar]
  130. Zhang, Q.; Liang, Z.; Cui, X.; Ji, C.; Li, Y.; Zhang, P.; Liu, J.; Riaz, A.; Yao, P.; Liu, M.; et al. N6-Methyladenine DNA Methylation in Japonica and Indica Rice Genomes and Its Association with Gene Expression, Plant Development, and Stress Responses. Mol. Plant 2018, 11, 1492–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Liang, Z.; Shen, L.; Cui, X.; Bao, S.; Geng, Y.; Yu, G.; Liang, F.; Xie, S.; Lu, T.; Gu, X. DNA N6-adenine methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Dev. Cell 2018, 45, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Genes 13 00992 g001 550
Figure 1. Dynamics of DNA methylation in plants. (H=A, T or C). Two DNA methylation processes in plants: (a) DNA methylation maintenance and (b) de novo DNA methylation. (a) Methyltransferase 1 (MET1) maintains symmetric CG site methylation. Chromosomal methylase (CMT2/3) maintains symmetrical CHG site methylation. The suppressor of the variegation homolog protein, SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6 binds to the methylated CHG site and promotes the function of CMT3/CMT2. (b) Asymmetric de novo DNA methylation and CHH methylation performed by domain-rearranged methyltransferase 2 (DRM2) or CMT2, depending on the genomic region. DRM2 causes CHH methylation through the RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway, which depends on the 24 nt small interfering RNA (siRNA). siRNA is loaded onto the ARGONAUTE proteins (AGO), mainly AGO4 and AGO6, interacting with DRM2. DNA demethylation includes (c) passive demethylation and (d) active demethylation. (c) 5mC loses its methyl in passive demethylation during DNA replication. (d) 5mC losses are catalyzed by DNA glycosylases in active demethylation. DNA glycosylases including the repressor of silencing 1 (ROS1), Demeter (DME), Demeter-like 2 and 3 (DML2/3).
Figure 1. Dynamics of DNA methylation in plants. (H=A, T or C). Two DNA methylation processes in plants: (a) DNA methylation maintenance and (b) de novo DNA methylation. (a) Methyltransferase 1 (MET1) maintains symmetric CG site methylation. Chromosomal methylase (CMT2/3) maintains symmetrical CHG site methylation. The suppressor of the variegation homolog protein, SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6 binds to the methylated CHG site and promotes the function of CMT3/CMT2. (b) Asymmetric de novo DNA methylation and CHH methylation performed by domain-rearranged methyltransferase 2 (DRM2) or CMT2, depending on the genomic region. DRM2 causes CHH methylation through the RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway, which depends on the 24 nt small interfering RNA (siRNA). siRNA is loaded onto the ARGONAUTE proteins (AGO), mainly AGO4 and AGO6, interacting with DRM2. DNA demethylation includes (c) passive demethylation and (d) active demethylation. (c) 5mC loses its methyl in passive demethylation during DNA replication. (d) 5mC losses are catalyzed by DNA glycosylases in active demethylation. DNA glycosylases including the repressor of silencing 1 (ROS1), Demeter (DME), Demeter-like 2 and 3 (DML2/3).
Genes 13 00992 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary of the effects of different nutrient stresses on plant methylation.
Table 1. Summary of the effects of different nutrient stresses on plant methylation.
ElementPlantGenome RegionTreatmentMode of ActionMethodologyReference
NArabidopsis thalianaRDR2−NRDR2 expression corrlated with morphological traitsQuantitative real-time PCR[76]
NArabidopsis thalianaAT1G55420, AT1G55430 and AT1G55440−NDNA methylation change in recognition gene regions (AT1G55420, AT1G55430 and AT1G55440)WGBS[77]
NLeymus chinensisGenomic−NCytosine methylation changes more around transposable elementsAFLP, MSAP, SSAP[78]
NRiceGenomic−NHeritable alteration in DNA methylationMSAP[64]
NRiceGenomicN content decrease by the knockdown of OsNAR2.1DNA methylation levels increase in OsNAR2.1 RNAi linesWGBS, MeDIP[79]
NRiceGenomicN content decrease in the parent seedPlant DNA methylation changes induced by parent seed N contentWGBS[80]
PRiceGenomic−PDNA methylation occurred preferentially in TEsMethylC-Seq[82]
PArabidopsis thalianaGenomic−PGene-wide methylation changesWGBS[83]
PArabidopsis thalianaGenomic−POver 160 DMRs induce by P deficiencyGenome-Wide DNA methylation[84]
PTomatoGenomic−PGlobal methylation level increaseWGBS[65]
PPopulus trichocarpaGenomic−PDifferentially methylated miRNAsWGBS[85]
PSoybeanGenomic−PDifferential methylation, and siRNAs modulated TE activity by guiding CHH methylationBGS[86]
ZnMaizeGenomic−ZnMajor methylation loss, mostly in transposable elementsBGS[87]
FeRiceGenomic−FeHypermethylation, especially for the CHHMethylC-Seq[88]
FeBarleyGenomic−FeEleven DNA bands differently methylated theMSAP[89]
SArabidopsis thalianaSULTR1.1 and SULTR1.2−SDNA methylation of SULTR1.1 and SULTR1.2 changes in msa1WGBS[73]
Note: −N: nitrogen deficiency; −P: phosphorus deficiency; −Zn: zinc deficiency; −Fe: iron deficiency; −S: sulfur deficiency; WGBS/MethylC-Seq: Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing; AFLP: Amplified fragment length polymorphism; MSAP: Methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism; SSAP: Specific-sequence amplified polymorphism; MeDIP: Methylated DNA co-immunoprecipitation sequencing; BGS: Bisulfite genomic sequencing.
Table
Table 2. Methodology of plant DNA methylation.
Table 2. Methodology of plant DNA methylation.
MethodsCoverageReference GenomeAdvantageLimitationReference
HPLCGenomic DNANoDo not need a reference genomeComplicated operating system[91]
SSAPCG regionNoHigh economic efficiency without a reference genomeNot specifically designed to detect methylation[97]
AFLPCG regionNoHigh economic efficiency without a reference genomeNot specifically designed to detect methylation[97]
MSAPCG regionNoHigh economic efficiency without a reference genomeMiss methylation states[99]
BGSGenomic DNAYesDetects the presence of 5mC at the single-nucleotide resolution accuratelyOnly in the specific region[106]
WGBS/
MethylC-Seq		Genomic DNAYesHigh sensitivity to DNAHigh price[109]
RRBSPromoters and CpG islandsYesEfficient and accurate on the high-density and representative genesLimited by enzyme cleavage sites[115]
MeDIP-SeqCG regionYesDetects the CpG island of the whole genome rapidly and accuratelyCannot analyze the single base and needs correction with different densities of CpG[116]
MBD-SeqCG regionYesSeparated different DNA methylation according to CpG densityAntibodies may cross-react[126]
MS-SSCAIndividual CpG siteNoFastPrimer design is complex[128]
Ms-SNuPECG regionNoAnalysis of C and T content representing the degree of DNA methylationThe number of each analysis is small[127]
EpiTYPER™CG regionNoFast and reproducibleDNA methylation status is unclear, with overlapping CpGs[129]
Note: HPLC: High-performance liquid chromatography; SSAP: Specific-sequence amplified polymorphism; AFLP: Amplified fragment length polymorphism; MSAP: Methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism; BGS: Bisulfite genomic sequencing; WGBS/MethylC-Seq: Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing; RRBS: Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing; MeDIP: Methylated DNA co-immunoprecipitation sequencing; MBD-Seq: Methyl-CpG-binding domain sequencing; MS-SSCA: Methylation-sensitive single-strand conformation analysis; Ms-SNuPE: Methylation-sensitive single nucleotide primer extension.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, X.; Peng, L.; Zhang, Y. Plant DNA Methylation Responds to Nutrient Stress. Genes 2022, 13, 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13060992

AMA Style

Fan X, Peng L, Zhang Y. Plant DNA Methylation Responds to Nutrient Stress. Genes. 2022; 13(6):992. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13060992

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Xiaoru, Lirun Peng, and Yong Zhang. 2022. "Plant DNA Methylation Responds to Nutrient Stress" Genes 13, no. 6: 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13060992

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