Supplementary Material Epigenetic histone modifications of human transposable elements: genome defense versus exaptation Ahsan Huda, Leonardo Mariño-Ramírez.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Wheat chr 3B T. urartuAe. taushii Class I With LTR Gypsy Copia LTR unclass Without LTR LINE SINE0.01 Class.
Advertisements

Supplementary Material Supplementary Tables Supplementary Table 1. Sequencing statistics for ChIP-seq samples. Supplementary Table 2. Pearson correlation.
Controls for TTS identification using PET A series of controls were implemented in order to evaluate the potential contamination by internal priming in.
4 male, 4 female LCLs HumanChimpanzeeRhesus Macaque Expression: RNAseq Active Gene Marks: Pol II (ChIPseq) H3K4me3 (ChIPseq) Repressed Region Mark: H3K27me3.
A B IL-4(+) IL-4(-) IL-4(+) IL-4(-) ChIP-Seq (STAT6) Ramos IL-4 (+) P-value Ramos IL-4 (-) P-value BEAS2B IL-4 (+) P-value BEASB IL-4 (-) P-value fold.
Log 2 (expression) H3K4me2 score A SLAMF6 log 2 (expression) Supplementary Fig. 1. H3K4me2 profiles vary significantly between loci of genes expressed.
Compound cis-regulatory elements with both boundary and enhancer functions in the human genome Daudi Jjingo 1, Jianrong Wang 1, Andrew B. Conley 1, Victoria.
Figure S1. RACE mapped transcription starts and polyA signals of Ogre CL5 and Ogre CL5del and putative splice site of Ogre CL5 and Ogre CL5del in Silene.
Supplemental Figure 1. False trans association due to probe cross-hybridization and genetic polymorphism at single base extension site. (A) The Infinium.
Functional Elements in the Human Genome
Xiaoshu Chen, Jianzhi Zhang  Cell Systems 
Figure 1. Effect of acute TNF treatment on transcription in human SGBS adipocytes as assessed by RNA-seq and RNAPII ChIP-seq. Following 10 days in vitro.
Dynamic epigenetic enhancer signatures reveal key transcription factors associated with monocytic differentiation states by Thu-Hang Pham, Christopher.
Alternative Computational Analysis Shows No Evidence for Nucleosome Enrichment at Repetitive Sequences in Mammalian Spermatozoa  Hélène Royo, Michael Beda.
Matan Goldshtein, David B. Lukatsky  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (November 2015)
Sensitivity of RNA‐seq.
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (February 2017)
by Holger Weishaupt, Mikael Sigvardsson, and Joanne L. Attema
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 146, Issue 6, Pages (September 2011)
Hi-C Analysis in Arabidopsis Identifies the KNOT, a Structure with Similarities to the flamenco Locus of Drosophila  Stefan Grob, Marc W. Schmid, Ueli.
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages (February 2016)
N6-Methyladenosines Modulate A-to-I RNA Editing
Hyeshik Chang, Jaechul Lim, Minju Ha, V. Narry Kim  Molecular Cell 
Latent Regulatory Potential of Human-Specific Repetitive Elements
Adrien Le Thomas, Georgi K. Marinov, Alexei A. Aravin  Cell Reports 
Alternative Splicing QTLs in European and African Populations
Anastasia Baryshnikova  Cell Systems 
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages (February 2009)
Volume 133, Issue 3, Pages (May 2008)
Figure 1. Biased distribution of different SV classes
Volume 11, Pages (January 2019)
TED-Seq Identifies the Dynamics of Poly(A) Length during ER Stress
Joseph Rodriguez, Jerome S. Menet, Michael Rosbash  Molecular Cell 
Biased Allelic Expression in Human Primary Fibroblast Single Cells
Hyeshik Chang, Jaechul Lim, Minju Ha, V. Narry Kim  Molecular Cell 
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 9-22 (January 2013)
Figure 1. Plasma next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay workflow, comparison of variant allelic fraction with ... Figure 1. Plasma next-generation sequencing.
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (November 2016)
Genome-wide analysis of p53 occupancy.
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Human Promoters Are Intrinsically Directional
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages (March 2016)
Evolution of Alu Elements toward Enhancers
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (June 2013)
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages (June 2009)
Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages (August 2016)
Gene Density, Transcription, and Insulators Contribute to the Partition of the Drosophila Genome into Physical Domains  Chunhui Hou, Li Li, Zhaohui S.
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages (August 2010)
Significant differences in translational efficiencies of DNA damage repair pathway genes between patient clusters. Significant differences in translational.
Volume 32, Issue 6, Pages (June 2010)
Genomewide profiling of chromatin accessibility in prostate cancer specimens Genomewide profiling of chromatin accessibility in prostate cancer specimens.
Supplementary Figures
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages (August 2015)
Genetic maintenance of histone acetylation prevents gene expression changes in the promoters of genes responding to acute mtDNA depletion. Genetic maintenance.
Xiaoshu Chen, Jianzhi Zhang  Cell Systems 
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages (May 2015)
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages (February 2016)
Highly metastatic PDAC cells have a unique gene signature, which is not preserved in metastases but predicts poor patient outcome. Highly metastatic PDAC.
Mutant TERT promoter displays active histone marks and distinct long-range interactions: A, cell lines that were used in the study with their origin and.
Presentation transcript:

Supplementary Material Epigenetic histone modifications of human transposable elements: genome defense versus exaptation Ahsan Huda, Leonardo Mariño-Ramírez and I. King Jordan Supplementary Figure 1. Comparison of the original (old) mapping and new mapping procedures. (a) Number of tags of active histone tail modifications and (b) number of tags of repressive modifications mapped using the old and the new mapping techniques (a) (b)

Supplementary Figure 2. Effect of individual histone modifications on CD4 + T cell gene expression levels. Histone tail modifications were determined to be present or absent in the promoter regions of human genes as described in the Methods section. For each modification, the log 2 normalized ratio of the average expression level for genes present for the modification over the average expression level for genes where the modification is absent is shown. Active modifications (red) have positive ratios, and repressive modifications (green) have negative ratios.

Supplementary Table 1. Statistics for histone modification enrichment or depletion in TEs and human gene expression. Significance was calculated using the G-test and the P- value was adjusted for multiple tests using the Bonferroni correction (refer to Figure 1). Supplementary Table 2. Correlation and statistical significance between gene expression enrichment or depletion and TE enrichment or depletion for 38 histone modifications (refer to Figure 2)

Supplementary Figure 3. Comparison of global versus local methods for computing TE-histone modification enrichment ratios. For each TE class (family), log2 normalized enrichment ratios were computed for the 38 histone modifications by using a genome-wide background tag count (y-axis) or a locally computed background tag count (x-axis). AluL1 L2 MIR LTRDNA

Supplementary Figure 4. Enrichment or depletion of 38 individual histone modifications in TE families. Log 2 normalized ratio of the number of tags of each of the 38 histone modifications located within each TE family over the local genomic background tag count. TE-modification enrichment values were calculate using the local genomic background histone modification tag counts, which were computed as described in the Methods section.

Supplementary Figure 5. Correlation between enrichment of histone modifications in TE families and for human gene expression. The enrichment of 38 histone modifications in human gene expression (Supplementary Figure 2) is plotted against the same in 6 TE families (Supplementary Figure 1). TE-histone modification enrichment values were calculated using the local genomic background histone modification tag counts, which were computed as described in the Methods section. Pearson correlation coefficient values (r) are shown.

Supplementary Figure 6. Enrichment or depletion of active and repressive histone modifications in retrotransposons. Histone modifications were classified as active or repressive based on expression enrichment (Supplementary Figure 1). The log2 normalized ratios of the number of tags of active or repressive modifications located within each family of retrotransposons over the modification background tag counts are shown. Background modification tag counts were calculate using the local genomic background histone modification tag counts, which were computed as described in the Methods section. Retrotransposon families are arranged according to their relative age. Spearman rank correlations between active and repressive TE-modification enrichments (depletions) and the relative ages of TE families are shown.

(a) Alu active (b) Alu repressive Supplementary Figure 7. TE distance from genes versus histone modifications. Distances between TE sequences and the nearest genes are binned in 10kb bins and plotted against the number of histone modification tags mapped to the TE sequence, normalized by its length. Tags are mapped using the new mapping procedure. (Refer to Figure 5) (c) L1 active (d) L1 repressive Supplementary Table 3. Statistics for distances between Alu and L1 sequences and the nearest genes using uniquely mapped tags (Refer to Figure 5)

Supplementary Figure 8. Q-Q plots showing the concordance between the expression fold change and data generated from the theoretical Normal distribution (refer to Figure 2). Supplementary Table 4. Statistics for correlations between Alu and L1 subfamilies and histone modifications (Refer to Figure 4).

Supplementary Figure 8 contd. Q-Q plots showing the concordance between the TE enrichment fold change data and data generated from the a theoretical Normal distribution (refer to Figure 2). Alu L1 L2 MIR LTR DNA

Alu subfamilies L1 subfamilies Supplementary Figure 9. Q-Q plots showing the non-concordance of millidiv and tags counts with the data generated from the a theoretical Normal distribution (refer to Figure 4).

Supplementary Figure 10. Q-Q plots showing the non-concordance of modification tag counts with respect to their distance from human genes with the data generated from the a theoretical Normal distribution (refer to Figure 5). Alu active Alu repressive L1 active L1 repressive

Supplementary Figure 11. Age of Alu subfamilies determined by divergence from consensus sequence (refer to Figure 4).

Supplementary Figure 12. Age of L1 subfamilies determined by divergence from consensus sequence (refer to Figure 4).