Back to all available

Integrated genomic and methylome profiling reveals promoter repression and age-linked CpGs in the California Mussel

bioinformatics
computational-biology
evolutionary-studies
genomics
marine-biology

Abstract

While most knowledge of animal DNA methylation comes from vertebrates, this epigenetic mark remains poorly understood in invertebrates, which comprise the majority of animal diversity. For instance, how promoter and gene body methylation contribute to gene regulation, and how methylation relates to aging, are still relatively unknown in most invertebrates. Focusing on the California mussel (Mytilus californianus), we paired whole-genome resequencing and whole-genome bisulfite sequencing from the same individuals and evaluated relationships among promoter methylation, gene body methylation, gene expression, and age. Using seven individuals spanning a range of body sizes from intertidal and shallow subtidal sites near Santa Barbara, California, we found standing genetic variation levels similar to related species and a relatively small effective population size. Promoter methylation was less frequent but showed a strong negative association with expression and remained the best predictor of repression after accounting for gene body methylation, aligning with patterns widely documented in vertebrates and adding to the limited evidence in invertebrates that promoter methylation can be regulatory. We identified thousands of age-associated differentially methylated loci with directional changes across age classes, providing candidate sites for epigenetic clocks that could enable assessment of biological age, health, and stress resilience in wild and cultured populations.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].