<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN"  "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd"><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">elife</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">eLife</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>eLife</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub" publication-format="electronic">2050-084X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">47891</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="display-channel"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Chromosomes and Gene Expression</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Plant Biology</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Epimutations are associated with CHROMOMETHYLASE 3-induced de novo DNA methylation</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" equal-contrib="yes" id="author-139661"><name><surname>Wendte</surname><given-names>Jered M</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0663-3779</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="equal-contrib1">†</xref><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund2"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" equal-contrib="yes" id="author-117662"><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Yinwen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="equal-contrib1">†</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con2"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" equal-contrib="yes" id="author-139662"><name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>Lexiang</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="equal-contrib1">†</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con3"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-139663"><name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>Xiuling</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con4"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-139664"><name><surname>Hazarika</surname><given-names>Rashmi R</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5843-0535</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con5"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-139665"><name><surname>Shahryary</surname><given-names>Yadollah</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-3373</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con6"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-21585"><name><surname>Johannes</surname><given-names>Frank</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7962-2907</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund3"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con7"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" id="author-15695"><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>Robert J</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-6663</contrib-id><email>schmitz@uga.edu</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund1"/><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund3"/><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund4"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con8"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution content-type="dept">Department of Genetics</institution><institution>University of Georgia</institution><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Athens</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution content-type="dept">Institute of Bioinformatics</institution><institution>University of Georgia</institution><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Athens</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution content-type="dept">Department of Plant Science</institution><institution>Technical University of Munich</institution><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Freising</named-content></addr-line><country>Germany</country></aff><aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution content-type="dept">Institute for Advanced Study</institution><institution>Technical University of Munich</institution><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Garching</named-content></addr-line><country>Germany</country></aff></contrib-group><contrib-group content-type="section"><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Baulcombe</surname><given-names>David</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution>University of Cambridge</institution><country>United Kingdom</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="senior_editor"><name><surname>Weigel</surname><given-names>Detlef</given-names></name><role>Senior Editor</role><aff><institution>Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology</institution><country>Germany</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><fn fn-type="con" id="equal-contrib1"><label>†</label><p>These authors contributed equally to this work</p></fn></author-notes><pub-date date-type="publication" publication-format="electronic"><day>29</day><month>07</month><year>2019</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2019</year></pub-date><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>e47891</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2019-04-23"><day>23</day><month>04</month><year>2019</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2019-07-19"><day>19</day><month>07</month><year>2019</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2019, Wendte et al</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2019</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Wendte et al</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read/><license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><ali:license_ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p>This article is distributed under the terms of the <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution License</ext-link>, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="elife-47891-v1.pdf"/><abstract><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.001</object-id><p>In many plant species, a subset of transcribed genes are characterized by strictly CG-context DNA methylation, referred to as gene body methylation (gbM). The mechanisms that establish gbM are unclear, yet flowering plant species naturally without gbM lack the DNA methyltransferase, CMT3, which maintains CHG (H = A, C, or T) and not CG methylation at constitutive heterochromatin. Here, we identify the mechanistic basis for gbM establishment by expressing <italic>CMT3</italic> in a species naturally lacking <italic>CMT3. CMT3</italic> expression reconstituted gbM through a progression of de novo CHG methylation on expressed genes, followed by the accumulation of CG methylation that could be inherited even following loss of the <italic>CMT3</italic> transgene. Thus, gbM likely originates from the simultaneous targeting of loci by pathways that promote euchromatin and heterochromatin, which primes genes for the formation of stably inherited epimutations in the form of CG DNA methylation.</p></abstract><kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords"><kwd><italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic></kwd><kwd>epimutation</kwd><kwd>DNA methylation</kwd><kwd>gene body methylation</kwd><kwd>epigenetics</kwd><kwd>heterochromatin</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group kwd-group-type="research-organism"><title>Research organism</title><kwd><italic>A. thaliana</italic></kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group id="fund1"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000875</institution-id><institution>Pew Charitable Trusts</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>Robert J</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund2"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001</institution-id><institution>National Science Foundation</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>NSF NPGI Postdoctoral Fellowship IOS-1811694</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Wendte</surname><given-names>Jered M</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund3"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution>German Excellence Initiative and the European Seventh Framework Programme</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>Grant agreement no. 291763</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Johannes</surname><given-names>Frank</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>Robert J</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund4"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001</institution-id><institution>National Science Foundation</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>NSF MCB-1856143</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>Robert J</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><funding-statement>The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.</funding-statement></funding-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta specific-use="meta-only"><meta-name>Author impact statement</meta-name><meta-value>Simultaneous targeting of loci by pathways that promote euchromatin and heterochromatin primes transcribed genes for epimutations in the form of CG DNA methylation.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1" sec-type="intro"><title>Introduction</title><p>Heritable gains or losses of DNA methylation, or epimutations, can have important phenotypic consequences. Examples include peloric mutants of toadflax, where differential methylation of a single transcription factor can change flowers from bilaterally to radially symmetrical and the colorless non-ripening locus of tomato, where differential methylation affects fruit ripening (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib12">Cubas et al., 1999</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib38">Manning et al., 2006</xref>). Despite the potential implications for phenotypic change, little is known about how epimutations form.</p><p>One form of genic DNA methylation that may provide clues to the mechanisms of epimutation is gene body methylation (gbM), which is found on a subset of expressed genes in many eukaryotic genomes, including most flowering plants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Bewick et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib11">Cokus et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib16">Feng et al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib21">Huff and Zilberman, 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Lister et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib47">Regulski et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib53">Seymour et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib60">Takuno and Gaut, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib58">Takuno et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib63">Tran et al., 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib66">Wang et al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib72">Zemach et al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib74">Zhang et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib76">Zilberman et al., 2007</xref>). GbM has been functionally implicated in certain processes, including transcriptional regulation, transcript processing, and suppression of intragenic transcripts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Choi et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Lorincz et al., 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib42">Maunakea et al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib47">Regulski et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib65">Vial-Pradel et al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib77">Zilberman et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib76">Zilberman et al., 2007</xref>). However, natural and experimental losses of gbM have also been documented with no obvious effects on expression or chromatin structure (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Bewick et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib74">Zhang et al., 2006</xref>). One hypothesis that may reconcile these seemingly conflicting results explains the formation of gbM as a passive process resulting from transient localization of the proteins that maintain heterochromatin to genic space (i.e. euchromatin) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Inagaki and Kakutani, 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib62">Teixeira and Colot, 2009</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Wendte and Schmitz, 2018</xref>). Here, gbM is proposed to arise passively, but, once established, is maintained due to the preferential recruitment of maintenance methyltransferases to previously methylated sites. Under this line of reasoning, gbM may have functional consequences in some cases, but can also be non-functional, which could explain experimental findings. A better understanding of the mechanistic basis for the establishment of gbM will provide important insights into its possible functions, the mechanisms underlying epimutations, as well as to factors that might influence DNA methyltransferase mistargeting in disease states (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Wendte and Schmitz, 2018</xref>).</p><p>In plants, most knowledge of DNA methylation is derived from studies of <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic>, where cytosines in different sequence contexts are the preferred substrates of distinct pathways. The RNA directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway acts to de novo methylate cytosines in all sequence contexts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib41">Matzke and Mosher, 2014</xref>). In RdDM, DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANSFERASE 2 (DRM2) is targeted to chromatin via non-coding RNAs produced by two plant-specific multi-subunit RNA polymerases (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib19">Haag and Pikaard, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib67">Wendte and Pikaard, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib75">Zhou and Law, 2015</xref>). Following de novo establishment, methylation of symmetrical CG cytosines is maintained by METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 (MET1), which is recruited to hemi-methylated CG sites to methylate the complementary, unmethylated CG sites (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib17">Finnegan et al., 1996</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib49">Ronemus et al., 1996</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib70">Woo et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib69">Woo et al., 2007</xref>). Symmetrical CHG (H = A, T, or C) cytosine methylation is maintained by CHROMOMETHYLASE 3 (CMT3) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib2">Bartee et al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Lindroth et al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib44">Papa et al., 2001</xref>). Among CHG sites, CMT3 shows a marked preference for CWG (W = A or T) cytosines relative to CCG cytosines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Gouil and Baulcombe, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>). An additional CHROMOMETHYLASE, CMT2, targets the methylation of CHH cytosines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib73">Zemach et al., 2013</xref>). In <italic>A. thaliana</italic>, CHH sites targeted by CMT2 can be distinguished from those targeted by RdDM, as they show an enrichment in CWA methylation relative to other CHH contexts, in contrast to RdDM target regions which show no preferred site enrichment (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Gouil and Baulcombe, 2016</xref>).</p><p>CMT2 and CMT3 participate in a self-reinforcing feedback loop with an additional heterochromatin modification, histone H3 lysine nine di-methylation (H3K9me2) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Du et al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>). CMT2 and CMT3 are both thought to depend on direct physical binding to H3K9me2 for targeting to chromatin and methylation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>). DNA methylation can be physically bound by the H3K9 methyltransferases, which reinforces the co-localization of H3K9me2 and CMT-dependent DNA methylation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib3">Bernatavichute et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib14">Du et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Du et al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib26">Johnson et al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib32">Li et al., 2018</xref>). This co-dependency results in losses of CMT-dependent DNA methylation in H3K9 methyltransferase mutants, as well as losses of H3K9me2 in <italic>cmt</italic> mutants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Du et al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib24">Jackson et al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib37">Malagnac et al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib40">Mathieu et al., 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib54">Soppe et al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib56">Stroud et al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib61">Tariq et al., 2003</xref>).</p><p>GbM is restricted to CG context cytosines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib11">Cokus et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Lister et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib58">Takuno et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib63">Tran et al., 2005</xref>), and therefore dependent on MET1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib11">Cokus et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Lister et al., 2008</xref>). However, complementation of <italic>met1</italic> mutants with wild-type <italic>MET1</italic> fails to restore gbM, presumably because hemi-methylated CG cytosines required for MET1 recruitment have been lost (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib48">Reinders et al., 2009</xref>). Thus, the mechanisms required for the establishment of gbM are unclear.</p><p>Recent comparative analyses have identified Angiosperm plant species lacking gbM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>). Concurrent with the loss of gbM is the loss of the gene encoding CMT3, which has led to the hypothesis that CMT3 is required for the initial establishment of gbM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Bewick et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>). The lack of immediate restoration of gbM in <italic>MET1</italic> complemented <italic>met1</italic> mutants has led to the proposition that CMT3 is only rarely localized to gene bodies such that gbM only accumulates slowly over evolutionary time scales (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Inagaki and Kakutani, 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib68">Wendte and Schmitz, 2018</xref>). Direct experimental testing of this model is difficult, and it is also currently unclear whether CMT3 can be active at regions with no pre-existing DNA or H3K9 methylation. Furthermore, the favored activity of ZMET2, the maize ortholog of CMT3, is a maintenance methyltransferase of hemi-methylated cytosines in the CHG sequence context (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>), and, thus, a de novo activity that results in methylation of CG cytosines in vivo is unprecedented.</p><p>To gain insights into this process and provide a direct test of a role for CMT3 in gbM, we heterologously expressed <italic>A. thaliana CMT3 (AtCMT3)</italic> in a plant species that has lost both <italic>CMT3</italic> and gbM, <italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>). <italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic>, like <italic>A. thaliana</italic>, is a member of the Brassicaceae family and diverged from a common ancestor with <italic>A. thaliana</italic> ~47 million years ago (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1">Arias et al., 2014</xref>). Expression of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> resulted in gains of CHG methylation over repetitive sequences characterized by the presence of H3K9me2, as predicted based on the known mechanism of CMT3 targeting. However, <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing lines also exhibited ectopic CHG methylation over a subset of genes in an <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expression dependent manner. Genes that gained CHG methylation were orthologs of <italic>A. thaliana</italic> gbM genes and had no prior CHG methylation or detectable H3K9 methylation, suggesting de novo methylation activity of CMT3 in vivo. Unexpectedly, gains of CHG methylation did not result in stable accumulation of H3K9 methylation over gene bodies or expression changes, showing that the genic CHG methylation was uncoupled from transcriptional silencing, similar to gbM, likely due to transcription-coupled de-methylases. Gains in CHG methylation were also associated with gains in CG and CHH methylation, and removal of the transgene via crossing to non-transgenic parents, or progressive <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene silencing over six generations of propagation, revealed that ectopic genic CG methylation was preferentially maintained relative to genic CHG or CHH methylation following the loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression. The results provide new insights to the mechanism of CMT3-initiation of gbM by demonstrating that CMT3 promotes the establishment of genic CG epimutations which can be maintained even in the absence of <italic>CMT3</italic>.</p></sec><sec id="s2" sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><sec id="s2-1"><title>Expression of AtCMT3 in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> results in increased CHG methylation</title><p>To gain insights into the mechanisms of CMT3-targeting of DNA methylation, full-length genomic <italic>CMT3</italic> from <italic>A. thaliana (AtCMT3)</italic> was expressed in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> under the native <italic>A. thaliana</italic> promoter. In total, we assessed plants derived from six transformation events. Two of these lineages, referred to as AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2, were propagated by single seed descent for six generations following transformation and serve as the main focus of this study (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1A</xref>; see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref> for a complete description of all plant lines and associated data described in this study). Whole genome bisulfite sequencing was completed on individual plants for each generation (numbered T1-T6) of each line to assess the impact of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression on DNA methylation. Plants expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> showed increased levels of CHG methylation in intergenic regions, associated with preexisting methylation, as well as over some gene bodies with no prior methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s2">Figure 1—figure supplement 2</xref>).</p><fig-group><fig id="fig1" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.002</object-id><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><title>Expression of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> in <italic>E.salsugineum</italic> results in increased CHG methylation.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Schematic of the experiment. Two <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> lines derived from transformations with genomic <italic>A. thaliana CMT3</italic> were propagated by single seed decent for six generations (<bold>T1–T6</bold>). The two lines are referred to as AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2, followed by the generation (<bold>T1–T6</bold>). For additional lines analyzed in this study see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp1">Supplementary file 1</xref>. (<bold>B</bold>) Genome browser view of CHG methylation levels derived from whole genome bisulfite sequencing. The image illustrates the gains in CHG methylation that occur in regions that are methylated in wild type, as well as over gene bodies with no pre-existing DNA methylation (boxed in red). Scales on tracks designate the weighted percent methylation, with 1 = 100% on the top strand and −1 = 100% on the bottom strand. Only CHG methylation is shown. For methylation in all contexts see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s2">Figure 1—figure supplement 2</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.003</object-id><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title>Diagram of all experimental <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> lines analyzed in this study with associated data collected.</title></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-figsupp1-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s2" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.004</object-id><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 2.</label><caption><title>CHG methylation increases in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> lines.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Genome browser view of CHG methylation levels derived from whole genome bisulfite sequencing. The image illustrates the gains in CHG methylation that occur in regions that are methylated in wild type, as well as over gene bodies with no pre-existing DNA methylation (boxed in red). Scales on tracks designate the weighted percent methylation, with 1 = 100% on the top strand and −1 = 100% on the bottom strand. Cytosine methylation is divided into CG (red), CHG (blue), and CHH (yellow) sequence contexts. Corresponds to the region shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-figsupp2-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s3" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.005</object-id><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 3.</label><caption><title>CG, CHG, and CHH DMRs co-localize.</title><p>(<bold>A–L</bold>) Upset plots showing the number and overlap between hyper DMRs identified for each sequence context, CG, CHG, and CHH, within each generation of each lineage, AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2: (<bold>A</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T1</sup>; (<bold>B</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T2</sup>; (<bold>C</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T3</sup>; (<bold>D</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup>; (<bold>E</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup>; (<bold>F</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T6</sup>; (<bold>G</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T1</sup>; (<bold>H</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T2</sup>; (<bold>I</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T3</sup>; (<bold>J</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup>; (<bold>K</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T5</sup>; (<bold>L</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T6</sup>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-figsupp3-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s4" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.006</object-id><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 4.</label><caption><title>AtCMT3 expression results in gains in CHG methylation over similar regions between lineages and across generations.</title><p>Matrix showing the number and overlap between hyper-CHG DMRs identified in each individual in AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2. The top half of the matrix shows the number of overlapping DMRs and the bottom half shows the p-value calculated based on fisher’s exact test (***p significant &lt;0.0004, Bonferroni correction). See also <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-figsupp4-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s5" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.007</object-id><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 5.</label><caption><title>Genome wide percent CHG methylation is correlated with <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression levels.</title><p><italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was determined by RNA-seq (first panel) or qRT-PCR (second panel). For qRT-PCR <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was normalized to <italic>TUB4</italic> expression (Thhalv10003210m). See also <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig1-figsupp5-v1.tif"/></fig></fig-group><p>Differentially methylated regions (DMRs) were identified in each sequence context (CG, CHG, and CHH), comparing each generation of AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2, and wild type (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>). Consistent with AtCMT3 activity, the majority of DMRs identified were CHG DMRs, with 25,096 identified that were characterized by a median size of 407 base pairs (bp) (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). A smaller number of CG (3,502 DMRs, median size: 189 bp) and CHH (1,763 DMRs, median size: 243 bp) were also identified (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). The majority of CHG DMRs (&gt;99%, in each lineage) were hypermethylated CHG DMRs in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing lineages relative to wild type (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>). Many of the CG and CHH DMRs (between 45–72% CG and 86–98% CHH, depending on the line) were also hypermethylated DMRs in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing lines relative to wild type, and overlapped with CHG DMRs, suggesting they result from cross-talk between CMT3-mediated CHG methylation and other pathways (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s3">Figure 1—figure supplement 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>). There was also a significant overlap of hypermethylated CHG DMRs between all individuals, suggesting that AtCMT3 was not methylating DNA randomly (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s4">Figure 1—figure supplement 4</xref>).</p><p>The levels of CHG methylation varied between individuals expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>). Plants were transformed using the floral dip method (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Clough and Bent, 1998</xref>), which results in random and potentially multiple transgene insertions that can segregate out over generations. Therefore, we predicted that <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression likely varied between individuals, which could explain differences in CHG methylation levels. To test this, we performed RNA-sequencing in the T3 - T5 generations of AtCMT3-L1, the T3 - T6 generations of AtCMT3-L2, as well as two, T2 generation plants from an additional, independently transformed lineage (AtCMT3-L3) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref>). The results demonstrated a significant correlation between the levels of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression and genome-wide CHG methylation levels (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8828, p=1.669×10<sup>−4</sup>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s5">Figure 1—figure supplement 5</xref>, see <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref> for FPKM values). This was especially notable for two T2 generation plants of AtCMT3-L3, which had the highest <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression levels (233.7 and 372.5 FPKM for AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2</sup> and T2b, respectively) and the highest genome-wide percent CHG methylation (27% and 32%, for T2 and T2b, respectively). These results also revealed that expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene was progressively lost in the AtCMT3-L2 lineage following the T4 generation (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>). We also examined the relationship between genome-wide CHG methylation and <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression using qRT-PCR, including plants from additional lineages, and found a weaker although significant relationship (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.5932, p=0.025, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s5">Figure 1—figure supplement 5</xref>). Taken together, <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression is likely one factor contributing to genome-wide CHG levels in these lines.</p><p>Despite lacking <italic>CMT3</italic>, wild-type <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> does exhibit residual levels of CHG methylation, likely deposited by other DNA methylation pathways such as RdDM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>). As the maize ortholog of CMT3 has been shown to preferentially act on hemi-methylated CHG cytosines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>), we predicted that AtCMT3 would be preferentially targeted to regions with pre-existing CHG methylation. To test this, CHG DMRs were ranked based on wild-type CHG methylation levels. Results showed that the majority of CHG DMRs (18,812/25,096 or 75%) were characterized by the presence of low levels of CHG methylation in wild type that increased upon the expression of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>). Characterizing the DMRs based on overlap with genomic features revealed that 19,576 out of 25,096 (78%) total CHG DMRs overlapped with repetitive elements or intergenic regions, which are expected targets of all DNA methylation pathways (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). Summarizing CHG methylation over all repetitive elements confirmed that plants expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> exhibited increased CHG methylation over these regions from ~15% methylation in wild type to ~30–70% methylation in AtCMT3 lines (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2B</xref>).</p><fig-group><fig id="fig2" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.008</object-id><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><title><italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression results in CHG methylation over repeats and a subset of gene bodies.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Heatmap of % CHG methylation over hyper-CHG differentially methylated regions (DMRs) defined by comparing all AtCMT3-L1 and L2 generations (<bold>T1–T6</bold>) to wild type. DMRs are ranked by % CHG methylation levels in wild type plants showing that the majority of gains in CHG methylation occurred over regions with pre-existing CHG methylation classified as repeats or intergenic regions. A subset of regions with no pre-existing CHG methylation, mainly classified as genes, also showed gains in CHG methylation, especially in AtCMT3-L2 individuals. See also <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>. (<bold>B</bold>) Metaplot summarizing % CHG methylation over repetitive sequences for each Line. (<bold>C</bold>) Metaplot summarizing % CHG methylation over gene bodies for each Line. (<bold>D</bold>) The number of genes gaining a minimum of 5% CHG methylation (CHG-gain genes) in each lineage. See <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref> for lists of CHG-gain genes.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig2-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig2s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.009</object-id><label>Figure 2—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title><italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression results in gains in CHG methylation over similar genes between lineages and across generations.</title><p>Matrix showing the number and overlap between genes gaining a minimum of 5% CHG methylation identified in each individual in AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2. The top half of the matrix shows the number of overlapping genes and the bottom half shows the p-value calculated based on a hypergeometric test (***p significant &lt;0.0004, Bonferroni correction). See also <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig2-figsupp1-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig2s2" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.010</object-id><label>Figure 2—figure supplement 2.</label><caption><title>The number of genes gaining a minimum of 5% CHG methylation (CHG-gain genes) is correlated with <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression levels.</title><p><italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was determined by RNA-seq (first panel) or qRT-PCR (second panel). For qRT-PCR <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was normalized to <italic>TUB4</italic> expression (Thhalv10003210m). See also <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig2-figsupp2-v1.tif"/></fig></fig-group></sec><sec id="s2-2"><title>Expression of AtCMT3 in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> results in increased CHG methylation in a subset of gene bodies</title><p>In addition to methylated regions, a subset of regions (6,284 out of 25,096 (25%) CHG DMRs) that gained CHG methylation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lines had no pre-existing CHG methylation, and the majority (4,725/6,284 or 75%) of these regions overlapped annotated genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s2">Figure 1—figure supplement 2</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). Examination of percent CHG methylation over all annotated genes revealed increases in CHG methylation over gene bodies, ranging from ~2–10% CHG methylation on average, compared to no CHG methylation in wild-type plants (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C</xref>). The patterns of CHG methylation in several of the generations of the AtCMT3-L2 lineage, which exhibited higher levels of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>), were reminiscent of that seen for gbM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>), in that the percent methylation levels were highest towards the center of the gene bodies, decreasing towards the transcription start sites (TSS) and transcription termination sites (TTS) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C</xref>).</p><p>To further characterize the genes that gained CHG methylation, genes that had less than 1% total DNA methylation in any context in wild type and that gained a minimum of 5% CHG methylation were identified in each line (CHG-gain genes) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). The number of CHG-gain genes varied between individuals and lineages. In AtCMT3-L1, the number of CHG-gain genes generally increased over generational time from 99 genes in T1 to 583 genes in T6 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). AtCMT3-L2 individuals were characterized by higher numbers of CHG-gain genes relative to AtCMT3-L1, with the T1 generation showing gains in 718 genes, 2,996 genes in T2, 3,553 genes in T3, and 4,055 genes in T4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). Following the T4 generation, the T5 and T6 generations of AtCMT3-L2 showed a decline in the number of CHG-gain genes, with 1,937 in T5 and only 88 genes in T6 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2D</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). Despite the variation in the number of CHG-gain genes, the overlap of CHG-gain genes between all individuals was significantly higher than expected by chance (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2s1">Figure 2—figure supplement 1</xref>). As CHG-gain genes had no prior CHG methylation, these results demonstrate a de novo methyltransferase activity of CMT3 in vivo.</p><p>We hypothesized that the variation in the number of CHG-gain genes between individuals could be related to variation in the expression levels of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene, similar to genome-wide CHG methylation levels. Indeed, based on RNA-seq assessment of <italic>At</italic>C<italic>MT3</italic> expression, the levels of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression and number CHG-gain genes were correlated (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.7951, p=0.001) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2s2">Figure 2—figure supplement 2</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>). Again, two T2 generation individuals of the AtCMT3-L3 lineage, which had the highest <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp4">Supplementary file 4</xref>), also had the highest number of CHG-gain genes (5,566 and 6,346 CHG-gain genes for AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2</sup> and T2b, respectively) (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). This result was also confirmed utilizing qRT-PCR (R2 = 0.9503, p=3.91×10<sup>−5</sup>) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2s2">Figure 2—figure supplement 2</xref>). Therefore, the decline in the number of CHG-gain genes in the AtCMT3-L2<sup>T5</sup> and T6 generations is correlated with the progressive loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression.</p></sec><sec id="s2-3"><title>CHG methylation in gene bodies is not associated with stable H3K9 methylation</title><p>CMT3 can directly bind to H3K9me2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al., 2012</xref>). To determine if increases of CHG methylation detected in plants expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> were correlated with H3K9me2, we conducted H3K9me2 chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq) in wild-type <italic>E. salsugineum</italic>. Consistent with CMT3 binding of H3K9me2, regions enriched for H3K9me2 in wild type showed increased CHG methylation in all lines expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A–B</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>).</p><fig-group><fig id="fig3" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.011</object-id><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><title>Gains in CHG methylation do not alter H3K9me2 levels or distribution.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Genome browser view of CHG methylation levels and H3K9me2 ChIP sequencing levels in the T3 and T5 generations of the AtCMT3-L1 and L2 lineages. Arrows indicate gains of CHG methylation over gene bodies in the AtCMT3-L2 generations that do not show H3K9me2 enrichment. Scales on methylation tracks designate the weighted percent methylation, with 1 = 100% on the top strand and −1 = 100% on the bottom strand. Scales on the H3K9me2 tracks indicate the number of mapped reads and are not adjusted for library size (See C-F for comparison of normalized reads). DNA methylation is only shown in the CHG context. For DNA methylation in all contexts see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>. (<bold>B</bold>) Metaplot of % CHG methylation over H3K9me2 ChIP peaks identified in wild type plants. (<bold>C–F</bold>) Metaplot of H3K9me2 ChIP-sequencing enrichment over H3K9me2 ChIP peaks defined in wild type plants and over CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T3</sup> (<bold>C</bold>), AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> (<bold>D</bold>), AtCMT3-L2<sup>T3</sup> (<bold>E</bold>), and AtCMT3-L2<sup>T5</sup> (<bold>F</bold>). Reads were normalized to library size. See <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref> for lists of CHG-gain genes in each lineage.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig3-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig3s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.012</object-id><label>Figure 3—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title>Gains in CHG methylation do not alter H3K9me2 levels or distribution.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Genome browser view of CHG methylation levels and H3K9me2 ChIP sequencing levels in the T3 and T5 generations of the AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2 lineages. Arrows indicate gene bodies that gain CHG methylation in the AtCMT3-L2 generations but do not show H3K9me2 enrichment. Scales on methylation tracks designate the weighted percent methylation, with 1 = 100% on the top strand and −1 = 100% on the bottom strand. Scales on the H3K9me2 tracks indicate the number of mapped reads and are not normalized. Cytosine methylation is divided into CG (red), CHG (blue), and CHH (yellow) sequence contexts. Corresponds to the region shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig3-figsupp1-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig3s2" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.013</object-id><label>Figure 3—figure supplement 2.</label><caption><title>Gains in CHG methylation do not alter H3K9me1 levels or distribution.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Genome browser view of CHG methylation levels and H3K9me1 ChIP sequencing levels in the T2c generation of the AtCMT3-L3 lineage. In wild type and AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2c</sup>, H3K9me1 can be found enriched in regions also enriched for H3K9me2. The arrow indicates a gene body that gains CHG methylation in AtCMT3-L3 but does not show H3K9me1 enrichment. Scales on methylation tracks designate the weighted percent methylation, with 1 = 100% on the top strand and −1 = 100% on the bottom strand. Scales on the H3K9me1 tracks indicate the number of mapped reads and are not normalized. Cytosine methylation is divided into CG (red), CHG (blue), and CHH (yellow) sequence contexts. (<bold>B</bold>) Metaplot of H3K9me1 ChIP-sequencing enrichment over H3K9me2 ChIP peaks defined in wild type plants and over CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2c</sup>. (<bold>C</bold>) Metaplot of H3K9me1 ChIP-sequencing enrichment comparing enrichment over CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2c</sup> to genes that do not gain CHG methylation (UM genes).</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig3-figsupp2-v1.tif"/></fig></fig-group><p>We next sought to determine how gains in CHG methylation affected the distribution of H3K9me2 by conducting H3K9me2 ChIP-seq in the T3 and T5 generation plants for AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2. We found plants expressing <italic>AtCMT3</italic> also showed enrichment for H3K9me2 across H3K9me2 ChIP peaks identified in wild type, but there were no further increases of H3K9me2 in heterochromatin, despite the increase in CHG methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A,C–F</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>). In contrast to repeat regions, gains in CHG methylation over gene bodies in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lines were not associated with pre-existing H3K9me2 in wild-type plants (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A,C–F</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>). Also unexpected, the establishment of CHG methylation following <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression did not result in detectable H3K9me2 across CHG-gain genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A,C–F</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>).</p><p>CMT3 can also directly bind to H3K9me1, which distinguishes it from CMT2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>). Therefore, we also conducted H3K9me1 ChIP-seq in transgenic and non-transgenic lines. Similar to findings in <italic>A. thaliana</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Jackson et al., 2004</xref>), H3K9me1 was enriched over regions characterized by H3K9me2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s2">Figure 3—figure supplement 2A–B</xref>). H3K9me1 was preferentially enriched in heterochromatin relative to CHG-gain genes before or after introduction of the transgene and the H3K9me1 signal over CHG-gain genes was indistinguishable from genes that remained unmethylated (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s2">Figure 3—figure supplement 2B–C</xref>). Overall, we conclude that gains of CHG methylation at genic loci resulting from expression of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> are not associated with stable H3K9 methylation.</p></sec><sec id="s2-4"><title>CHG methylation in gene bodies is not associated with transcriptional silencing</title><p>CMT3-mediated CHG methylation in heterochromatin is associated with transcriptional silencing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib2">Bartee et al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Lindroth et al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>). To determine if gains in CHG methylation over gene bodies resulted in transcriptional changes, we compared expression of CHG-gain genes between wild-type and transgenic plants. In each line there was only a small proportion of CHG-gain genes (less than or equal to 10%) that showed a greater than two log<sub>2 </sub>fold change and a similar number were both down and up-regulated (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4A</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4s1">Figure 4—figure supplement 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). There was also no relationship between the levels of CHG methylation gain and expression changes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4A</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4s1">Figure 4—figure supplement 1</xref>). Additionally, we defined up- and down-regulated genes genome wide in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lines (defined as greater than a two log<sub>2 </sub>fold change relative to wild type), and CHG gain genes were not significantly enriched in either up- or down-regulated genes (p&gt;0.05, Fishers exact test) (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp6">Supplementary file 6</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp7">Supplementary file 7</xref>). We also considered that the changes in gene expression may be indirect effects of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression and assessed up- and down-regulated genes for significant enrichments in Gene Ontology (GO) biologic processes. We found that many of the enriched terms for up- and down-regulated genes were involved in abiotic stress responses (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp8">Supplementary file 8</xref>). However, there were no consistently identified GO-term enrichments across lineages suggesting that <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was unlikely the direct or indirect cause of these changes (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp8">Supplementary file 8</xref>). Lack of transcriptional changes directly related to CHG methylation is consistent with the lack of stable H3K9me2 at these loci (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3C–F</xref>). We conclude that genic CHG methylation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lines is uncoupled from heterochromatin formation and transcriptional silencing, similar to gbM.</p><fig-group><fig id="fig4" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.014</object-id><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><title>Genes that gain CHG methylation have <italic>A. thaliana</italic> gbM gene characteristics.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Relationship between levels of CHG methylation gain and log<sub>2 </sub>fold change (FC) in expression for CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> relative to wild type. Genes with zero FPKM values were removed from the analysis. See <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4s1">Figure 4—figure supplement 1</xref> for additional individuals analyzed. (<bold>B–E</bold>) Comparison of the (<bold>B</bold>) distribution of gene lengths, (<bold>C</bold>) number of exons, (<bold>D</bold>) expression levels, and (<bold>E</bold>) frequency of CHG sites between CHG-gain genes and unmethylated genes (UM). P-values were calculated using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Boxes indicate the first and third quartiles, with the center line indicating the median and notches the 95% confidence interval of the median. Whiskers show 1.0 times the interquartile range and outliers beyond this range were excluded for visualization purposes, but included in all calculations.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig4-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig4s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.015</object-id><label>Figure 4—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title>Changes in expression are not related to CHG methylation levels.</title><p>Relationship between fold change in expression relative to wild type and CHG methylation levels for genes identified as gaining a minimum of 5% CHG methylation in each respective line. Lines analyzed include those with both RNA sequencing and whole genome bisulfite sequencing data: (<bold>A</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T3</sup>; (<bold>B</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup>; (<bold>C</bold>) AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup>; (<bold>D</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T3</sup>; (<bold>E</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T5</sup>; (<bold>F</bold>) AtCMT3-L2<sup>T6</sup>; (<bold>G</bold>) AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2</sup>; (<bold>H</bold>) AtCMT3-L3<sup>T2b</sup>. Genes with zero FPKM values were removed from the analysis.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig4-figsupp1-v1.tif"/></fig></fig-group></sec><sec id="s2-5"><title>Genes that gain CHG methylation in AtCMT3-expressing lines are orthologs of <italic>A. thaliana</italic> gbM genes and possess similar characteristics</title><p>GbM is present on conserved orthologous genes across diverse plant species (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Bewick et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib53">Seymour et al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib60">Takuno and Gaut, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib58">Takuno et al., 2016</xref>). To determine if genes that gain CHG methylation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lineages are genes that would be predicted to have gbM based on orthology, orthologs of CHG-gain genes in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> were identified in <italic>A. thaliana</italic>. Among the generations of AtCMT3-L1 and L2, there was a total of 4,769 CHG-gain genes identified in at least one individual (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>). Among these genes, 4,104 have an orthologous gene encoded in the <italic>A. thaliana</italic> genome, and, out of those, 1,526 were classified as gbM in the <italic>A. thaliana</italic> Col-0 accession, which is significantly more than expected by chance (p=2.83×10<sup>−222</sup>, hypergeometric test) (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp9">Supplementary file 9</xref>).</p><p>Relative to unmethylated genes, gbM genes are generally characterized as being constitutively expressed at moderate levels, they tend to be longer and have more exons, and have a higher frequency of CMT3-preferred CHG sites (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Bewick et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Lister et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib59">Takuno and Gaut, 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib60">Takuno and Gaut, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib58">Takuno et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib74">Zhang et al., 2006</xref>). To determine whether the CHG-gain genes had similar characteristics, we compared the 4,769 CHG-gain genes identified to the remaining unmethylated <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> genes (UM genes). On average, CHG-gain genes were longer, contained more exons, exhibited a more moderate, but on average higher, range of expression, and had a higher frequency of CHG cytosines relative to gene length compared to unmethylated genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4B–E</xref>). Therefore, AtCMT3 in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> methylates genes that are orthologs and/or characterized by similar properties of gbM loci in <italic>A. thaliana</italic>.</p></sec><sec id="s2-6"><title>Gains in CHG methylation over gene bodies are associated with gains in non-CHG methylation</title><p>GbM is defined as strictly CG context methylation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Bewick and Schmitz, 2017</xref>), which contrasts with the predominantly CHG methylation observed over gene bodies in the AtCMT3-Lines (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s2">Figure 1—figure supplement 2</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>). To determine if <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression resulted in non-CHG methylation over gene bodies as well, we focused on the AtCMT3-L2 lineage, which showed higher <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression levels and CHG-gain genes relative to AtCMT3-L1. We analyzed all CHG DMRs that overlapped CHG-gain genes identified in the T4 generation (4,312 CHG DMRs overlapping 4,055 CHG-gain genes) (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>), and determined the levels of CG, CHG, and CHH methylation over these regions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Re-focusing the analysis to the level of DMRs over genes, rather than whole genes, revealed some residual methylation present on genes below our original cutoff of 1% gene-wide methylation. This residual methylation was almost exclusively in the CG context and is consistent with CMT3 preferentially localizing to methylated DNA (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Importantly, 2,094 of the 4,312 regions had no detectable CHG methylation in wild type and 597 of the 4,312 had no methylation in any sequence context (see also <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s2">Figure 1—figure supplement 2</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref>).</p><fig-group><fig id="fig5" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.016</object-id><label>Figure 5.</label><caption><title>CHG methylation over gene bodies is associated with gains in non-CHG methylation.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Heatmap of % methylation levels across CHG DMRs overlapping the CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> divided into selected trinucleotide contexts. See <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1A</xref> for further parsing of the data into all 16 possible trinucleotide contexts. (<bold>B</bold>) Assessment of the relationship of genic cytosine methylation to <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression across AtCMT3-L2 generations. Line plots show the number of methylated cytosines in each context relative to AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> across CHG DMRs overlapping CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup>. Bar plots show the expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene. For further parsing of the CHG and CHH contexts into CWG vs. CCG and CWA vs. other CHH, see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1B–C</xref>. (<bold>C</bold>) Assessment of the relationship of repeat and intergenic cytosine methylation to <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression across AtCMT3-L2 generations. Line plots show the number of methylated cytosines relative to AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> across hyper CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> that overlap repeats or intergenic regions. Bar plots show the expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig5-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig5s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.017</object-id><label>Figure 5—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title>CHG methylation over gene bodies is associated with gains in non-CHG methylation.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Heatmap of % methylation levels across CHG hyper-DMRs overlapping the CHG-gain genes in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> divided into all 16 possible trinucleotide contexts. (<bold>B–C</bold>) Assessment of the relationship of genic cytosine methylation to <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression across AtCMT3-L2 generations. Line plots show the number of methylated cytosines in (<bold>B</bold>) CWG vs. CCG contexts and (<bold>C</bold>) CWA vs. other CHH contexts relative to AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> across CHG DMRs overlapping CHG-gain genes defined in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup>. Bar plots show the expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene. See also <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A–B</xref>. (<bold>D</bold>) Assessment of the relationship of genic cytosine methylation to <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression across AtCMT3-L1 generations. Line plots show the number of methylated cytosines in each context relative to AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup> across CHG DMRs overlapping CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup>. Bar plots show the expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene. (<bold>E–F</bold>) Assessment of the number of methylated cytosines relative to AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> across hyper CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> that overlap CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> (<bold>E</bold>) or repeats or intergenic regions (<bold>F</bold>). AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> was crossed to wild type (non-transgenic) and three F2 progeny were assessed: one progeny that retained the transgene (L1T5XWT F2 (+CMT3)) and two where the transgene segregated out (L1T5XWT F2 (-CMT3) #1 and #2). The gel image below the line plot is the result of PCR conducted on genomic DNA from each line with primers to detect the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig5-figsupp1-v1.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig5s2" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.018</object-id><label>Figure 5—figure supplement 2.</label><caption><title>AtCMT3-induced genic CG methylation is maintained at higher levels than background following loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Comparison of the % methylation of CG sites that were not found to be methylated in the non-transgenic wild type (Shandong ecotype) parent of AtCMT3 transgenic lines. Shown is the % CG methylation calculated in each lineage across hyper CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> that overlap CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> (black bars; same regions assessed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>) compared to the average % CG methylation of an equal amount of sequence space extracted from five randomly chosen sets of unmethylated genes that did not gain CHG methylation in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup>. The number of genes chosen in each set was equal to the number of AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> CHG gain genes. Note that AtCMT3-L2<sup>T5</sup> and T6 exhibited silencing of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene, yet still maintained CG methylation levels higher than that detected on unmethylated genes. Methylation over the same regions was also assessed in additional, non-transgenic <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> accession (Yukon) to demonstrate that the levels of CG methylation over CHG gain genes in transgenic lines were unlikely to have occurred independently of AtCMT3. (<bold>B</bold>) Comparison of the % methylation of CG sites that were not found to be methylated in the non-transgenic wild type (Shandong ecotype) parent of AtCMT3 transgenic lines. Shown is the % CG methylation calculated in each lineage across hyper CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> that overlap CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> (black bars; same regions assessed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref>) compared to the average % CG methylation of an equal amount of sequence space extracted from five randomly chosen sets of unmethylated genes that did not gain CHG methylation in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup>. The number of genes chosen in each set was equal to the number of AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> CHG gain genes. AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> was crossed to wild type (non-transgenic) and three F2 progeny were assessed: one progeny that retained the transgene (L1T5XWT F2 (+CMT3)) and two where the transgene segregated out (L1T5XWT F2 (-CMT3) #1 and #2). Note that the F2 progeny where the transgene segregated out still maintained CG methylation levels higher than that detected on unmethylated genes. As in (<bold>A</bold>), methylation over the same regions was also assessed in additional, non-transgenic <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> accession (Yukon) to demonstrate that the levels of CG methylation over CHG gain genes in transgenic lines were unlikely to have occurred independently of AtCMT3. Error bars are ± one standard deviation of the mean.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig5-figsupp2-v1.tif"/></fig></fig-group><p>As observed previously, the major gains in genic methylation in AtCMT3-Lines occurred in the CHG contexts (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Further dividing CHG methylation into CWG and CCG contexts revealed that the CHG methylation was highly enriched for CWG methylation, consistent with the preferred substrates of CMT3 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Gouil and Baulcombe, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Widespread, but lesser gains were also identified for CHH cytosines (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). The CHH methylation was almost exclusively in the CWA context, which is indicative of CMT2 activity and not RdDM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Gouil and Baulcombe, 2016</xref>), suggesting that CMT3 activity likely leads to the recruitment of CMT2. Gains in genic CG methylation were comparatively lower than the other sequence contexts, but did occur appreciably over most loci, including regions with no prior CG methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>). Further parsing of the data into all 16 trinucleotide contexts did not reveal any additional trends in the patterns of methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1A</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2-7"><title>Ectopic genic CG methylation is preferentially maintained following loss of AtCMT3 expression</title><p>Establishment of methylation in non-CHG sequence contexts over CHG-gain genes is consistent with CMT3 activity recruiting additional methyltransferase pathways. The natural transgene silencing that occurred in the AtCMT3-L2 lineage following the T4 generation provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis and determine whether non-CHG methylation remained following loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression. To do so, we analyzed AtCMT3-L2 individuals for which we had both RNA-seq and whole genome bisulfite sequencing data (wild type, AtCMT3-L2 T3-T6) relative to the T4 generation, which showed the highest number of CHG-gain genes. The number of newly methylated cytosines in each sequence context in the CHG DMRs overlapping the 4,055 CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> were identified for each individual (same regions as <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref>; cytosines analyzed were corrected for coverage in all lines). Then the ratio of methylated cytosines was calculated relative to the T4 generation.</p><p>Results showed that the proportional CHG methylation levels on genes mirrored <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression levels, with a slight increase in proportional methylation from 92% in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T3</sup> to 100% (by definition) in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>). Following the T4 generation, and consistent with progressive silencing of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene, the number of CHG cytosines methylated showed a marked decrease, with only 62% of T4 levels remaining methylated in the T5 generation and 4% remaining methylated in the T6 generation where <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression was greatly reduced (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>). CHH context cytosines showed a similar trend with 97% cytosines methylated in the T3 relative to the T4 generation, followed by a steep decline, with only 24% and 5% methylated remaining in the T5 and T6 generations, respectively, relative to the T4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>). Further dividing CHG and CHH cytosines into CWG vs. CCG or CWA vs. other CHH contexts did not reveal any differences in these trends (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1B–C</xref>).</p><p>CG context cytosines showed a more substantial increase from the T3 to T4 generation, with CG cytosines in the T3 generation at 54% of the levels measured in T4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>). Also contrasting with CHG and CHH methylation, following the T4 generation, the proportion of methylated CG sites remaining following the progressive <italic>AtCMT3</italic> silencing was relatively high and much more stable, with 68% in T5% and 51% in T6 of the CG cytosines remaining methylated, relative to T4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>).</p><p>The results of the analysis of genic methylation for AtCMT3-L2 contrast with the identical analysis conducted on AtCMT3-L1, which did not show evidence of silencing of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene. In this case, the relative methylation levels were maintained in all sequence contexts across generations (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1D</xref>). Furthermore, to verify that the remaining genic CG methylation in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T6</sup> did not result from residual AtCMT3 activity, we also completed an alternative approach where we crossed the AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> transgene expressing line to wild type (non-transgenic) to segregate out the transgene. We analyzed two F2 progeny from this cross in which the transgene was segregated out and one F2 progeny that still contained the transgene (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref>). In the F2 progeny that did not encode the transgene, the ectopic genic CHG and CHH methylation that was present in the in the transgenic parent was lost but the genic CG methylation was maintained, similar to the result from AtCMT3-L2 when the transgene was silenced (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref>). In contrast, the F2 progeny that still encoded the transgene maintained similar levels of genic methylation in all contexts as the transgenic parent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref>).</p><p>Importantly, the levels of newly methylated CG cytosines on CHG-gain genes in both the lines that lost <italic>AtCMT3</italic> through silencing or crossing out were higher than background due to bisulfite non-conversion, estimated by comparing them to randomly sampled, un-methylated genes that did not gain CHG methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2A–B</xref>). The genic CG methylation is also unlikely to have occurred independently of AtCMT3, as the gains in genic CG methylation at these loci are also higher that those found by comparing an additional, non-transgenic <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> accession (Yukon) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2A–B</xref>). Thus, genic CG methylation showed a lesser dependency on <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression and was preferentially maintained following loss of transgene expression, either through natural silencing or crossing out the transgene, consistent with maintenance of CG methylation by other methyltransferases recruited by initial AtCMT3 activity.</p></sec><sec id="s2-8"><title>AtCMT3 preferentially methylates heterochromatin relative to genes</title><p>The majority CHG DMRs resulting from <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression were annotated as repeats or intergenic regions with prior methylation in wild type (~75% compared to ~25% genic loci with no prior methylation) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>). Furthermore, the levels of CHG methylation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing lines were much higher on repeats relative to genes (30–70% CHG methylation on repeats compared to 2–10% on genes) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2B–C</xref>). Therefore, we next sought to determine whether this difference was a result of AtCMT3 preferentially methylating heterochromatic loci relative to genic loci. We reasoned that favorable activity of AtCMT3 on heterochromatin could be revealed in lines where <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression was reduced, as they would be expected to show a greater proportional loss of CHG methylation over genic regions relative to heterochromatic loci when compared to lines with high <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression.</p><p>To test this, we performed the same analysis reported in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>, except instead of genic loci, we focused on regions defined as hyper-CHG DMRs in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> that did not overlap genes (i.e. repeats and intergenic loci). Results showed that the relative number of methylated cytosines was much more robustly maintained in the AtCMT3-L2 T5 and T6 generations at these loci relative to genic loci following loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression (compare <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B and C</xref>). This was especially evident in the T6 generation that showed a −4.6 log<sub>2 </sub>fold change in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression relative to AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5C</xref>). Despite substantial loss of transgene expression, 55% and 57% of CHG and CHH cytosines, respectively, remained methylated in the T6 generation relative to T4 across repeats and intergenic loci (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5C</xref>). In contrast, only 4% of CHG and 5% of CHH cytosines remaining methylated across genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>). Methylated CG cytosines were also slightly more robust to loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene expression, dropping to 66% of T4 levels over repeats compared to 51% over genes in the T6 generation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B–C</xref>).</p><p>An alternative explanation for these results is that methylation induced by <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression is more readily maintained by other methylation pathways in heterochromatin relative to genes, as other methyltransferases preferentially target these regions. To consider this possibility, we also analyzed the relative maintenance of DNA methylation in heterochromatin in lines in which the transgene was removed via crossing to wild type. In the F2 progeny of the AtCMT3-L1T5 X wild type cross that no longer encoded the transgene, both CG and CHH methylation were maintained at relatively similar levels as the transgenic parent, in contrast to CHG methylation that was only maintained at ~25% of the levels of the transgenic parent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1F</xref>). This is consistent with the possibility that AtCMT3-induced CG and CHH methylation, and to a lesser extent CHG methylation, can be perpetuated following loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> in heterochromatin in preference to genes by other methylation pathways. However, the relative levels of CHG methylation in particular are lower than those detected over heterochromatin for lines in which the transgene was silenced, consistent with residual AtCMT3 preferentially targeting heterochromatin in these lines (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5C</xref>). We conclude that AtCMT3 preferentially targets heterochromatin and does not readily methylate genic loci until expressed at high levels.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3" sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><p>We have provided experimental evidence that CMT3 can initiate epimutations in the form of gene body CG methylation, which are maintained over generational time, even after loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression. This finding has provided new insights into CMT3 localization and function by showing CMT3 is associated with de novo DNA methylation activity in vivo at genic loci lacking prior DNA methylation. The results also revealed a mechanism for the establishment of gbM that is consistent with the hypothesis that gbM is a passive effect of self-reinforcing positive feedback loops inherent to the heterochromatin machinery.</p><p>The natural loss of <italic>CMT3</italic> in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> and other species associated with the loss of gbM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>), combined with prior work demonstrating that CMT3 targeting and activity requires binding to H3K9me (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib55">Stoddard et al., 2019</xref>), suggests that both CMT3 and histone methyltransferases are important in the establishment of gbM. Furthermore, a plausible means for CMT3 activity to recruit additional methyltransferase pathways that deposit methylation in additional sequence contexts, such as CMT2, is indirectly through the promotion of H3K9me2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Du et al., 2015</xref>). We therefore propose that both enzymes work in concert to provide de novo methylation of transcribed loci to initially establish gbM through the model described in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>, which expands on prior models (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Inagaki and Kakutani, 2012</xref>).</p><fig id="fig6" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.019</object-id><label>Figure 6.</label><caption><title>Hypothetical model for CMT3 establishment of gbM.</title><p>The activity of CMT3 and histone methyltransferases (HMTs) maintains CWG methylation and H3K9me2, respectively, and is most readily detected at silenced loci. At silenced loci, methylation by CMT3 and HMTs is reinforced by other methyltransferase pathways, including MET1 (CG methylation), CMT2 (CWA methylation), and DRM2 (methylation in all contexts), which maintain constitutive heterochromatin. In contrast to silenced loci, CMT3 and HMTs can only transiently establish de novo CWG methylation and H3K9me at transcribed loci characterized by gbM. This process may be initiated by incorporation of H3K9me1 nucleosomes, which are bound exclusively by CMT3 and not CMT2 and normally removed by the H3K9 de-methylase IBM1 in a transcription coupled mechanism. However, on rare occasions CMT3 may bind H3K9me1 located in genes and de novo methylate CWG cytosines. De novo methylation of CMT3 is not a favored activity of the enzyme, so this happens only very rarely or when CMT3 is expressed at high levels. This temporally stabilizes H3K9me due to the self-reinforcing feedback loop between histone and DNA methyltransferases. Transient stabilization of H3K9me promotes H3K9me2 that can then recruit additional methyltransferases including MET1 and CMT2 to methylate CG and CWA cytosines, respectively. Heterochromatin formation is inhibited, however, through eventual removal of H3K9me by IBM1. Loss of H3K9me and/or loss of available CMT3 results in the failure of maintenance of DNA methylation in all contexts except CG following DNA replication. CG methylation is maintained due to the preferential targeting of the CG maintenance methyltransferase, MET1, to hemi-methylated cytosines following replication.</p></caption><graphic mime-subtype="tiff" mimetype="image" xlink:href="elife-47891-fig6-v1.tif"/></fig><p>In this model, nucleosomes possessing H3K9me are on rare occasions incorporated into transcribed genes. Initially, genic histone methylation could be restricted to H3K9me1, which is bound by CMT3 and not CMT2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib57">Stroud et al., 2014</xref>), and could potentially explain the phylogenetic correlation between encoding <italic>CMT3</italic> and the presence of gbM across plant species (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al., 2016</xref>). Most H3K9me associated nucleosomes are efficiently removed via the histone de-methylase, INCREASED BONSAI METHYLATION 1 (IBM1), in a transcription coupled mechanism. In <italic>A. thaliana</italic>, gbM loci are devoid of H3K9me2 due to the activity of IBM1, which prevents the establishment of H3K9me2 at gbM loci through a mechanism that requires active transcription (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib22">Inagaki et al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib50">Saze et al., 2008</xref>). It is notable that encoded in the <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> genome are several expressed orthologs of the <italic>A. thaliana IBM1</italic> (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp10">Supplementary file 10</xref>), which could destabilize H3K9me and plausibly explain the lack of detection of H3K9me over genes that gain CHG methylation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s1">Figure 3—figure supplement 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3s2">Figure 3—figure supplement 2</xref>). However, CMT3 binding to H3K9me may transiently stabilize H3K9me2 through the establishment of de novo CHG methylation, which activates the feedback loop between DNA and histone methyltransferases. This contrasts with CMT3 activity at heterochromatin, where CMT3 preferentially methylates hemi-methylated CWG sites and is re-enforced by additional methylation pathways. As de novo methylation is a less favored activity of CMT3, this process is predicted to occur rarely, but can be promoted with high levels of CMT3 expression. Transient stabilization of H3K9me2 recruits additional methyltransferases, including CMT2, which establish DNA methylation in additional sequence contexts. Finally, removal of H3K9me2 by IBM1 disrupts the feedback loop between H3K9me2 and CMTs resulting in the loss of non-CG methylation following DNA replication. CG methylation is maintained, however, due to the preferential recruitment of CG maintenance methyltransferases to hemi-methylated sites following DNA replication (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>).</p><p>From a mechanistic standpoint, it is most parsimonious to conclude that gbM is a passive byproduct inherent to the function of CMT3 in the maintenance of heterochromatin. The presence of pathways that work to uncouple gbM from transcriptional silencing, such as the IBM1 pathway, further support this line of reasoning, as they may have evolved to counteract negative consequences of ‘spillage’ of the heterochromatin machinery into genic space. Why, then, are some genes consistently characterized by body methylation across species and others not? It is telling that the genes that gain methylation in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> are homologs of gbM genes in <italic>A. thaliana</italic> and/or retain similar characteristics including gene length, expression profile, and relative frequency of CHG sites. Rather than an exact determinant of gbM status, it is likely that gene length and constitutive expression contribute to the exposure of a locus to incorporation of H3K9me1/2 nucleosomes, which, combined with the frequency of CMT3-preferred CWG sites and CMT3 levels, make a gene susceptible to methylation by CMT3 in a probabilistic manner. Under this model, gbM can be thought of as an epigenetic scar resulting from transient localization of the heterochromatin machinery that is likely to be present on a given gene as a function of these factors. This model does not exclude functional consequences of gbM, but it also does not require them.</p></sec><sec id="s4" sec-type="materials|methods"><title>Materials and methods</title><table-wrap id="keyresource" position="anchor"><label>Key resources table</label><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th valign="top">Reagent type <break/>(species) or resource</th><th valign="top">Designation</th><th valign="top">Source or reference</th><th valign="top">Identifiers</th><th valign="top">Additional <break/>information</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Strain, strain background (<italic>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</italic>)</td><td valign="top">C58C1</td><td valign="top">other</td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">Dr. Robert Schmitz (University of Georgia)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Strain, strain background (<italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic>)</td><td valign="top">Shandong</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.arabidopsis.org">https://www.arabidopsis.org</ext-link></td><td valign="top">CS22504</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Strain, strain background (<italic>E. salsugineum</italic>)</td><td valign="top">Shandong AtCMT3 lineages</td><td valign="top">This paper</td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top">Dr. Robert Schmitz (University of Georgia)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Strain, strain background (<italic>E. salsugineum</italic>)</td><td valign="top">Yukon</td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.arabidopsis.org">https://www.arabidopsis.org</ext-link></td><td valign="top">CS22664</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Antibody</td><td valign="top">anti-H3K9me2</td><td valign="top">Cell Signaling Technology</td><td valign="top">Cat# 9753 s; RRID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/AB_659848">AB_659848</ext-link></td><td valign="top">Polyclonal, 5 μg</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Antibody</td><td valign="top">anti-H3K9me1</td><td valign="top">Abcam</td><td valign="top">Cat# 8896; RRID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/AB_732929">AB_732929</ext-link></td><td valign="top">Polyclonal, 5 μg</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Recombinant DNA reagent</td><td valign="top">pEarleyGate 302 pAtCMT3::gAtCMT3</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021223">23021223</ext-link></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Peptide, recombinant protein</td><td valign="top">T4 DNA Ligase</td><td valign="top">NEB</td><td valign="top">Cat# M0202</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Peptide, recombinant protein</td><td valign="top">Klenow Fragment</td><td valign="top">NEB</td><td valign="top">Cat# M0210</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Peptide, recombinant protein</td><td valign="top">Phusion DNA Polymerase</td><td valign="top">NEB</td><td valign="top">Cat# M0530</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Peptide, <break/>recombinant protein</td><td valign="top">SuperScript III Reverse Transcriptase</td><td valign="top">Invitrogen</td><td valign="top">Cat# 18080044</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">Qiagen DNeasy <break/>Plant Mini Kit</td><td valign="top">Qiagen</td><td valign="top">Cat# 69106</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">EZ DNA-methylation <break/>Gold Kit</td><td valign="top">Zymogen</td><td valign="top">Cat# D5006</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">AMPure beads</td><td valign="top">Beckman Coulter</td><td valign="top">Cat# A63880</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">NEXTFLEX Bisulfite Sequencing Library Prep Kit</td><td valign="top">Bioo Scientific</td><td valign="top">Cat# NOVA-5119–01</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">KAPA HiFi Uracil+</td><td valign="top">Roche</td><td valign="top">Cat #07959079001</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">Direct-Zol RNA <break/>Mini-prep plus</td><td valign="top">Zymogen</td><td valign="top">Cat# R2071</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">Illumina TruSeq mRNA Stranded Library Kit</td><td valign="top">Illumina</td><td valign="top">Cat# 20020594</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">Protein A Dynabeads</td><td valign="top">Invitrogen</td><td valign="top">Cat# 10001D</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Commercial assay or kit</td><td valign="top">LightCycler 480 SYBR green master mix</td><td valign="top">Roche</td><td valign="top">Cat# 04707516001</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Chemical compound, drug</td><td valign="top">Silwet L-77</td><td valign="top">Phyto Technology Laboratories</td><td valign="top">Cat#:S7777</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Chemical compound, drug</td><td valign="top">Pierce Protease Inhibitors</td><td valign="top">ThermoFisher</td><td valign="top">Cat# A32963</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Chemical compound, drug</td><td valign="top">NEBNext dA-Tailing Reaction Buffer</td><td valign="top">NEB</td><td valign="top">Cat# B6059</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Chemical compound, drug</td><td valign="top">proteinase K</td><td valign="top">ThermoFisher</td><td valign="top">Cat# 26160</td><td valign="top"/></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">methylpy</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030523">26030523</ext-link></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://github.com/yupenghe/methylpy">https://github.com/yupenghe/methylpy</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">cutadapt v1.9.dev1</td><td valign="top">DOI: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200">https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_011841">SCR_011841</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://cutadapt.readthedocs.io/en/stable/">https://cutadapt.readthedocs.io/en/stable/</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">bowtie 2.2.4</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22388286">22388286</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_005476">SCR_005476</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2/index.shtml">http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/bowtie2/index.shtml</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">Intervene v.0.6.1</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28569135">28569135</ext-link></td><td valign="top"/><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://intervene.readthedocs.io/en/latest/">https://intervene.readthedocs.io/en/latest/</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">Bedtools v2.27.1</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110278">20110278</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_006646">SCR_006646</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://bedtools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/">https://bedtools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">HISAT2 v2.0.5</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25751142">25751142</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_015530">SCR_015530</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/hisat2/index.shtml">https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/hisat2/index.shtml</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">StringTie v1.3.3b</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25690850">25690850</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_016323">SCR_016323</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/stringtie/#pub">https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/stringtie/#pub</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">HOMER 4.10</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20513432">20513432</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_010881">SCR_010881</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://homer.ucsd.edu/homer/">http://homer.ucsd.edu/homer/</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">Trimmomatic v0.33</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24695404">24695404</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_011848">SCR_011848</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.usadellab.org/cms/?page=trimmomatic">http://www.usadellab.org/cms/?page=trimmomatic</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">Bowtie v1.1.1</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261174">19261174</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_005476">SCR_005476</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/index.shtml">http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/index.shtml</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">SAMtools v1.2 and v0.1.19</td><td valign="top">PMID: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19505943">19505943</ext-link></td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_00210">SCR_00210</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://samtools.sourceforge.net">http://samtools.sourceforge.net</ext-link></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Software, algorithm</td><td valign="top">R v3.44</td><td valign="top">other</td><td valign="top">RRID:<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://scicrunch.org/resolver/SCR_001905">SCR_001905</ext-link></td><td valign="top"><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.r-project.org">https://www.r-project.org</ext-link></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><sec id="s4-1"><title>Contact for reagent and resource sharing</title><p>Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by Robert J. Schmitz (schmitz@uga.edu).</p></sec><sec id="s4-2"><title>Experimental models and subject details</title><p><italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic> Shandong ecotype was grown on soil at 21°C in long day conditions (16 hr light, 8 hr dark). Plant transgenesis was conducted using the floral dip method (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Clough and Bent, 1998</xref>). The pEarleyGate 302 vector containing genomic sequence of <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana CMT3</italic>, including the native promoter, published by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Du et al. (2012)</xref> was transformed into <italic>Agrobacterium tumefaciens</italic> strain C58C1. Bacteria were grown for 2 days at 30°C in 200 ml cultures containing gentamicin (25 µg/mL), kanamycin (50 µg/mL), and rifampicin (50 µg/mL) and pelleted by centrifugation at 4°C. Bacterial pellets were resuspended in 5% sucrose and 0.03% Silwet L-77 (Phyto Technology Laboratories) and used to dip open <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> inflorescences. Transgenic plants were selected for using Finale (BASTA, Bayer).</p></sec><sec id="s4-3"><title>Whole genome bisulfite sequencing</title><p>Whole genome bisulfite sequencing libraries were generated based on methods described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib64">Urich et al. (2015)</xref>. DNA was extracted from cauline leaves of individual plants flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen using the Qiagen DNeasy Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was fragmented via sonication to a peak size of ~200 bp and further size selected using AMPure beads (Beckman Coulter) to between 150 bp and 500 bp. Fragment end repair was performed using End-It from Lucigen incubated at room temperature for 45 min, followed by purification using AMPure beads. Next, A-tailing was conducted using Klenow Fragment from NEB in NEBNext dA-tailing reaction buffer at 37°C for 30 min, followed by purification with AMPure beads and Illumina indexed adapter (NEXTFLEX Bisulfite-Seq Barcodes) ligation using T4 DNA ligase from NEB. Ligation was conducted at 16°C for 16 hr. Ligation products were purified twice using AMPure beads and bisulfite converted using the EZ DNA Methylation-Gold Kit from Zymogen. Bisulfite converted DNA was then amplified using KAPA HiFi Uracil + and universal primers with the following parameters: 95°C for 2 min, 98°C for 30 s, 8 cycles of 98°C for 15 s, 60°C for 30 s, 72°C for 4 min, and a final extension time of 72°C for 10 min. PCR products were purified using AMPure beads and sequenced with an Illumina NextSeq500 instrument by the Georgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core. Adapters and primers used were those provided in the NEXTFLEX Bisulfite Sequencing Library Prep Kit (Bioo Scientific).</p></sec><sec id="s4-4"><title>RNA-sequencing</title><p>Total RNA was extracted from cauline leaves of individual plants using the Direct-Zol RNA Mini-prep plus kit from Zymogen according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sequencing libraries were prepared from 1.3 μg input RNA with the Illumina TruSeq mRNA Stranded Library Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions, except all volumes were reduced to 1/3 of the recommended quantity. Sequencing was completed using an Illumina NextSeq500 instrument by the Georgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core.</p></sec><sec id="s4-5"><title>Chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq)</title><p>ChIP was conducted based on the protocol described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib51">Schubert et al. (2006)</xref>. Cauline leaves were harvested from individual plants and submerged in cross-linking buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.4 M sucrose, 100 mM PMSF, 1% formaldehyde). Tissues were vacuum infiltrated for 5 min at 85 kPa, followed by release of vacuum and 10 additional minutes at 85 kPa. Crosslinking was quenched with the addition of glycine to a concentration of 100 mM followed by 5 min under vacuum at 85 kPa. Tissues were then washed five times in water, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, and ground to a fine powder with mortar and pestle. Powder was suspended in 10 mls extraction buffer 1 (0.4 M sucrose, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 10 mM MgCl<sub>2</sub>, 5 mM BME, 0,1 mM PMSF, 1 mM EDTA, one tab/10 ml Pierce Protease Inhibitors (ThermoFisher)). The suspension was filtered through 2 layers of Miracloth to enrich nuclei and pelleted by centrifugation for 20 min at 4000 rpm at 4°C. Pellets were resuspended in 1 ml extraction buffer 2 (0.25 M sucrose, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 10 mM MgCl<sub>2</sub>, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM BME, 0.1 mM PMSF, one tab/10 ml protease inhibitors) and centrifuged for 10 min at 12,000 g at 4°C. Pellets were then suspended in 300 μl extraction buffer 3 (1.7 M sucrose, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 0.15% Triton X-100, 2 mM MgCl<sub>2</sub>, 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM BME, 0.1 mM PMSF, one tab/10 ml protease inhibitors) and layered on top of 300 μl extraction buffer 3. Samples were then centrifuged for 1 hr at 16,000 g at 4°C, supernatant was removed, and chromatin pellets were resuspended in 100 μl nuclei lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 10 mM EDTA, 1% SDS, 0.1 mM PMSF, one tab/10 ml protease inhibitors). Chromatin was fragmented via sonication to a fragment size of ~200 base pairs and debris were removed by centrifugation at 16,000 g for 5 min at 4°C. 10 μl of the supernatant was removed for input controls and the remaining supernatant was diluted 1:10 in ChIP dilution buffer (1.1% Triton X-100, 1.2 mM EDTA, 16.7 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 167 mM NaCl, 0.1 M PMSF, one tab/10 ml protease inhibitors).</p><p>Protein A Dynabeads (Invitrogen) were prepared by washing 25 μl beads three times with 1 ml ChIP dilution buffer (1.1% Triton X-100, 1.2 mM EDTA, 16.7 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 167 mM NaCl). Beads were then resuspended in 100 μl ChIP dilution buffer with 5 ug anti-H3K9me2 (Cell Signaling Technology, Cat. # 9753 s) or anti-H3K9me1 (Abcam # 8896) added. Antibodies were bound to beads at 4°C with end over end rotation for 3 hr. Beads were then washed three times with ChIP dilution buffer (1.1% Triton X-100, 1.2 mM EDTA, 16.7 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 167 mM NaCl, 0.1 M PMSF, one tab/10 ml protease inhibitors) and resuspended in the diluted chromatin samples from above. Samples were incubated with rotation over night at 4°C.</p><p>Following incubation, beads were washed twice with 1 ml each of low salt wash buffer (150 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 1% TritonX-100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8), high salt wash buffer (500 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 1% TritonX-100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8), and LiCl wash buffer (0.25 LiCl, 1% NP40, 1% sodium deoxycholate, 1 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8). Beads were then washed one time with 1 ml TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA) and resuspended in 250 μl elution buffer (1% SDS, 0.1 M NaHCO<sub>3</sub>). Samples were eluted with incubation at 65°C for 15 min with gentle agitation. The supernatant was removed and saved and the elution was repeated with an additional 250 μl elution buffer. Supernatants were then combined and 20 μl 5 M NaCl was added. 500 μl elution buffer and 20 μl 5 M NaCl were also added to the input controls. Crosslinks were reversed over night at 65°C. Following crosslink reversal, 10 μl of 0.5 M EDTA, 20 μl 1 M Tris-HCl (pH 6.5), and 2 μl of 10 mg/ml proteinase K (ChIP grade, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was added to each sample and incubated at 45°C for 1 hr. DNA was extracted with phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) and resuspended in water.</p><p>ChIP sequencing libraries were prepared by conducting end repair, A-tailing, and adaptor ligation steps identical to those described for bisulfite sequencing library preparation, except that with the substitution of Illumina TruSeq adaptors and indexed primers. Libraries were amplified with Phusion DNA Polymerase (NEB) with the following parameters: 95°C for 2 min, 98°C for 30 s, 15 cycles of 98°C for 15 s, 60°C for 30 s, 72°C for 4 min, and a final extension step of 72°C for 10 min. Libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq500 instrument by the Georgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core.</p></sec><sec id="s4-6"><title>qRT-PCR</title><p>RNA was extracted from cauline leaves of individual plants using the Direct-Zol RNA Mini-prep plus kit from Zymogen according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Synthesis of cDNA was completed using SuperScript III with random hexamers (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Real time qRT-PCR was conducted using LightCycler 480 SYBR green master mix in a Light Cycler 480 instrument (Roche). Primers used include: AtCMT3 qRT-PCR FP: <named-content content-type="sequence">TGGTTTGAACCTCGTCACTAAA</named-content>; AtCMT3 qRT-PCR RP: <named-content content-type="sequence">CGTTTGTCTCTGGGTGGTTAT</named-content>; EsTUB4 qRT-PCR FP: <named-content content-type="sequence">CCTCCATATCCAAGGCGGTC</named-content>; EsTUB4 qRT-PCR RP: <named-content content-type="sequence">GTACTGGCCGGTGTGATCAA</named-content>.</p></sec><sec id="s4-7"><title>Whole genome bisulfite sequencing mapping and analyses</title><p>WGBS data were processed using ‘single-end-pipeline’ function from Methylpy as described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib52">Schultz et al. (2015)</xref>. Briefly, quality-filtering and adapter-trimming were performed using cutadapt v1.9.dev1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib39">Martin, 2011</xref>). Qualified Reads were aligned to the <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> v1.0 reference genome (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib71">Yang et al., 2013</xref>) (downloaded from: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov">https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov</ext-link>) using bowtie 2.2.4 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib30">Langmead and Salzberg, 2012</xref>). Only uniquely aligned and non-clonal reads were retained. Chloroplast DNA (which is fully unmethylated) was used as a control to calculate the sodium bisulfite reaction non-conversion rate of unmodified cytosines. A binomial test was used to determine the methylation status of cytosines with a minimum coverage of three reads.</p><p>Identification of DMRs (Differential Methylated Regions) was performed using ‘DMRfind’ function from Methylpy pipeline as described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib52">Schultz et al. (2015)</xref>. Default parameters were adopted and only DMRs with at least 5 DMSs (Differential Methylated Sites) were reported and used for subsequent analysis.</p><p>To produce metaplots, 1 kb regions upstream and downstream features of interest were divided into 20 bins each. Features of interest were also divided into total of 20 bins. Weighted methylation levels were computed as the number of methylated reads divided by the total reads for each bin.</p><p>To generate the heatmap shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>, weighted percent CHG methylation was calculated for all significant CHG DMRs with a minimum of 5 cytosines with three read coverage each in all lines (listed in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref>). DMRs were then ranked by weighted %CHG methylation levels in wild type (vertical axis) and arranged by lineage (horizontal axis). To identify called DMRs reported in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref>, all significant DMRs with minimum coverage requirements were filtered by cutoffs of a minimum of 10% change, relative to wild type, to be considered a hypo- or hyper- CHH or CHG DMR, and a minimum of 20% change, relative to WT, to be considered a hypo- or hyper- CG DMR. Overlaps of hyper-CG, CHG, and CHH DMRs and generation of upset plots, shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s3">Figure 1—figure supplement 3</xref>, were calculated using Intervene v.0.6.1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib27">Khan and Mathelier, 2017</xref>). To calculate the overlap of hyper-CHG DMRs between all individuals of the AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2 lineages reported in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s4">Figure 1—figure supplement 4</xref>, coordinates of the called hyper-CHG DMRs reported in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp3">Supplementary file 3</xref> were input to the bedtools v2.27.1 fisher command (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib46">Quinlan and Hall, 2010</xref>). P values reported were calculated from Fisher’s Exact Test with significance set at p&lt;0.0004 based on the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.</p><p>To identify CHG-gain genes, genes were first filtered for those that had less than 1% cytosine methylation in any sequence context in wild-type. Genes were then filtered for coverage and only those with at least 10 informative CHG cytosines (min. five read coverage) in each line were assessed. Coverage corrections were separately done for: 1. wild type and all individuals of the AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2 lineages described in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1A</xref>; 2. wild type and all other individuals besides AtCMT3-L3T2c and the individuals of the AtCMT3-L1 and AtCMT3-L2 described in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1A</xref>; and 3. wild type and AtCMT3-L3T2c. Genes were then called as CHG-gain genes if they showed a minimum of 5% increase in CHG methylation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing lines relative to wild-type. Percent CHG methylation was calculated as the number of methylated reads mapping to CHG sites at the gene of interest divided by the total number of reads mapping to CHG sites. CHG-gain genes are listed in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp5">Supplementary file 5</xref>. The significance of the overlap of CHG-gain genes between individuals shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2s1">Figure 2—figure supplement 1</xref> was calculated with a hypergeometric test with significance set at p&lt;0.0004 based on the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.</p><p>To generate the heatmap shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1A</xref>, all CHG DMRs identified in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp2">Supplementary file 2</xref> that overlapped the CHG-gain genes AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> were analyzed. Weighted methylation levels of trinucleotide sub-contexts (CNN, N = A/T/C/G) were calculated for each qualified DMR in wild type and AtCMT3-L2, T1-T6 derived from WGBS. The methylation levels of sub-contexts in wild type was used to determine their hierarchical clustering relationships. Corresponding methylation levels in ATCMT3-L2, T1-T6 were plotted in the same order.</p><p>To determine the relative number of methylated cytosines over CHG-gain genes in individuals of the AtCMT3-L2 lineage relative to AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> (shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1B–C</xref>), the analysis was limited to cytosines located within the regions analyzed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5A</xref> that had a minimum of 3 read coverage in each line and were not methylated in wild type. Methylation status was determined with a binomial test. Number of methylated cytosines in each sequence context were reported as a ratio, relative to the number of methylated cytosines in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup>. In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5C</xref>, the same analysis was performed as described in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref>, except cytosines analyzed were those found in hyper-CHG DMRs defined in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> that did not overlap genes and were thus annotated as repeats or intergenic regions. In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1D</xref>, the same analysis was conducted except the regions analyzed were the hyper-CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup> that overlapped AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup> CHG-gain genes and the ratios of methylated cytosines are relative to AtCMT3-L1<sup>T4</sup>. The same analysis was also conducted to produce <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E–F</xref>, except the regions analyzed were the hyper CHG DMRs identified in AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> that overlapped AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> CHG gain genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref>) or did not overlap genes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1F</xref>) and the ratios of methylated cytosines are relative to AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup>.</p><p>To identify the background levels of CG methylation shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2</xref>, an equal number of genes as the number of CHG-gain genes identified in AtCMT3-L2<sup>T4</sup> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2A</xref>) or AtCMT3-L1<sup>T5</sup> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2B</xref>) was randomly selected from all genes that were classified as unmethylated in wild type and did not gain CHG methylation in AtCMT3-expressing lineages using the R command sample. Then an equal amount of sequence as analyzed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2A</xref>) or <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2B</xref>) was extracted from the randomly chosen genes, with the total number of nucleotides distributed evenly across each gene. All CG cytosines with less than three read coverage in each line assessed and cytosines found to be methylated in wild type (Shandong accession) were removed from the analysis. Coverage filtering was completed individually for the lineages assessed in each panel of <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2</xref>. Methylated CG cytosines were then identified in each lineage using a binomial test and percent CG methylation was calculated as the number of methylated CG cytosines divided by the total number of CG cytosines. This was completed for five randomly chosen sets of unmethylated genes and compared to the identical analysis completed on the CHG gain gene regions assessed in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5B</xref> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2A</xref>) or <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s1">Figure 5—figure supplement 1E</xref> (for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5s2">Figure 5—figure supplement 2B</xref>). Bisulfite sequencing data for <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> Yukon accession were from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Bewick et al. (2016)</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s4-8"><title>RNA sequencing mapping and analyses</title><p>Quality-filtering and adapter-trimming were performed using Trimmomatic v0.33 with default parameters (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib8">Bolger et al., 2014</xref>). Qualified reads were aligned to the <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> v1.0 reference genome using HISAT2 v2.0.5 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Kim et al., 2015</xref>). Gene expression (calculated as fragments per kilobase million; FPKM) values were computed using StringTie v1.3.3b (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib45">Pertea et al., 2016</xref>). To compare expression between wild type and <italic>AtCMT3</italic>-expressing lines, Log<sub>2</sub> fold change values were calculated as Log<sub>2</sub> (FPKM AtCMT3 line/FPKM wild-type). Genes with zero FPKM values were removed from expression analyses. A cutoff of ±2 Log<sub>2</sub> fold change was used to identify genes undergoing substantial changes in expression.</p><p>To conduct Gene Ontology enrichment analyses of up- and down-regulated genes, <italic>A. thaliana</italic> orthologs of <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> genes identified in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al. (2016)</xref> were utilized to extract GO annotations from TAIR (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.arabidopsis.org">www.arabidopsis.org</ext-link>). These annotations were then used to identify significantly enriched GO terms with an elim Fisher’s exact test (p-value&lt;0.01) using the R package topGO (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/topGO.html">https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/topGO.html</ext-link>).</p></sec><sec id="s4-9"><title>ChIP-sequencing mapping and analyses</title><p>Quality-filtering and adapter-trimming were performed using Trimmomatic v0.33 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib8">Bolger et al., 2014</xref>) with default parameters. The remaining reads were aligned to the <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> v1.0 reference genome using Bowtie v1.1.1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Langmead et al., 2009</xref>) with the following parameters: ‘bowtie -m 1 v 2 --best --strata --chunkmbs 1024 S’. Aligned reads were sorted using SAMtools v1.2 and duplicated reads were removed using SAMtools v0.1.19 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Li et al., 2009</xref>). ChIP-peaks were defined in wild type relative to input using HOMER 4.10 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Heinz et al., 2010</xref>) with the following parameters: ‘-region -tagThreshold 10 -size 1000 -minDist 2500 -tbp 0’. Identified peaks that were directly connected together were merged into a single region. Peaks were then further filtered by read density. The density for each merged region was defined as follows: aligned reads divided by region length. Only merged regions with density greater than 0.05 were outputted as peaks and used for subsequent analysis.</p><p>We used these ChIP-peak regions and the coordinates of CHG-gain genes to create metaplots to compare enrichment between samples. In the metaplots, mapped reads were normalized to total mapped reads for each locus of interest, and were averaged over 4 bins representing 2 kb upstream, 2 kb from the transcription start site into the gene, 2 kb from the transcription stop site into the gene, and 2 kb downstream. Finally, the average bin values were normalized to account for the number of loci.</p></sec><sec id="s4-10"><title>qRT-PCR analyses</title><p>Relative expression of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> transgene to <italic>TUB4</italic> (Thhalv10003210m) was calculated using the double delta threshold cycle (Ct) method as 2 ^ -((Average <italic>AtCMT3</italic> Ct) – (Average <italic>TUB4</italic> Ct)) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib35">Livak and Schmittgen, 2001</xref>). Average Ct values were calculated from three technical replicates.</p></sec><sec id="s4-11"><title>Characterization CHG-gain genes</title><p>Gene length and exon number for CHG-gain genes and UM genes were derived from <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> reference annotation files. CHG site number was calculated by scanning the whole gene sequence with a three base window and step size of 1 base. Both positive strand and negative strand were considered. The CHG frequency was calculated by normalizing CHG site number to gene length. Significance for differences in characteristics between CHG-gain and UM genes was calculated with a Wilcoxon rank-sum in the stats package of R v3.44.</p><p>Orthologs of CHG-gain genes in <italic>A. thaliana</italic> and their gbM status reported in <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="supp9">Supplementary file 9</xref> were those identified in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al. (2016)</xref>. To determine if gbM-gain genes had more <italic>A. thaliana</italic> orthologs that were classified as gbM than expected by chance, a hypergeometric test was conducted using the values of 20,211 total <italic>A. thaliana</italic> genes with an <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> ortholog, with 4532 of those being classified as gbM in <italic>A. thaliana</italic> by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib43">Niederhuth et al. (2016)</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s4-12"><title>Data availability</title><p>All sequencing data generated have been deposited into NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number: GSE128687.</p></sec></sec></body><back><ack id="ack"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors would like to thank Javier Gallego-Bartolomé and Steve Jacobsen for providing the pEG302 AtCMT3 construct and Karen Schumaker for providing <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> seeds. RJS and FJ acknowledge support from the Technical University of Munich-Institute for Advanced Study funded by the German Excellence Initiative and the European Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 291763. RJS is supported by NSF MCB-1856143 and is a Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences, supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. JMW is supported by an NSF NPGI Postdoctoral Fellowship (IOS-1811694).</p></ack><sec id="s5" sec-type="additional-information"><title>Additional information</title><fn-group content-type="competing-interest"><title>Competing interests</title><fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="conf1"><p>No competing interests declared</p></fn></fn-group><fn-group content-type="author-contribution"><title>Author contributions</title><fn fn-type="con" id="con1"><p>Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con2"><p>Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con3"><p>Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con4"><p>Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con5"><p>Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con6"><p>Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con7"><p>Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing—review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con8"><p>Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—review and editing</p></fn></fn-group></sec><sec id="s6" sec-type="supplementary-material"><title>Additional files</title><supplementary-material id="supp1"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.020</object-id><label>Supplementary file 1.</label><caption><title>Sequencing statistics for all next generation sequencing data analyzed in this study.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp1-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp2"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.021</object-id><label>Supplementary file 2.</label><caption><title>Differentially methylated regions identified by methylpy.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp2-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp3"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.022</object-id><label>Supplementary file 3.</label><caption><title>Called hyper- and hypo-DMRs in each lineage.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp3-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp4"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.023</object-id><label>Supplementary file 4.</label><caption><title>FPKM values for all genes determined by RNA-seq.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp4-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp5"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.024</object-id><label>Supplementary file 5.</label><caption><title>Lists of genes that gained a minimum of 5% CHG methylation in each line.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp5-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp6"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.025</object-id><label>Supplementary file 6.</label><caption><title>Genes with greater than (+/-) two log<sub>2</sub> fold change in expression identified in each line.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp6-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp7"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.026</object-id><label>Supplementary file 7.</label><caption><title>P-values for Fisher's Exact tests of enrichment of CHG-gain genes in up- or down-regulated genes.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp7-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp8"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.027</object-id><label>Supplementary file 8.</label><caption><title>Gene Ontology analysis for biologic processes enriched in up- or down-regulated genes.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp8-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp9"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.028</object-id><label>Supplementary file 9.</label><caption><title>List of CHG-gain genes with closest <italic>A. thaliana</italic> ortholog and <italic>A. thaliana</italic> gbM status.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp9-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="supp10"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.029</object-id><label>Supplementary file 10.</label><caption><title>List of <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> IBM1-like genes and expression status.</title></caption><media mime-subtype="xlsx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-supp10-v1.xlsx"/></supplementary-material><supplementary-material id="transrepform"><object-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.030</object-id><label>Transparent reporting form</label><media mime-subtype="docx" mimetype="application" xlink:href="elife-47891-transrepform-v1.docx"/></supplementary-material></sec><sec id="s7" sec-type="data-availability"><title>Data availability</title><p>All sequencing data generated have been deposited into NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number: GSE128687.</p><p>The following dataset was generated:</p><p><element-citation id="dataset1" publication-type="data" specific-use="isSupplementedBy"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wendte</surname><given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Hazarika</surname><given-names>RR</given-names></name><name><surname>Shahrary</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Johannes</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><data-title>Epimutations are associated with CHROMOMETHYLASE 3-induced de novo DNA methylation</data-title><source>NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus</source><pub-id assigning-authority="NCBI" pub-id-type="accession" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE128687">GSE128687</pub-id></element-citation></p><p>The following previously published dataset was used:</p><p><element-citation id="dataset2" publication-type="data" specific-use="references"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bewick</surname><given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Niederhuth</surname><given-names>CE</given-names></name><name><surname>Willing</surname><given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Hofmeister</surname><given-names>BT</given-names></name><name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Lu</surname><given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Rohr</surname><given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Hartwig</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiefer</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Deal</surname><given-names>RB</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmutz</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Grimwood</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Stroud</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname><given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneeberger</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><data-title>On the origin and evolutionary consequences of gene body DNA methylation</data-title><source>NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus</source><pub-id assigning-authority="NCBI" pub-id-type="accession" xlink:href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE75071">GSE75071</pub-id></element-citation></p></sec><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="bib1"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Arias</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Beilstein</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Tang</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>McKain</surname> <given-names>MR</given-names></name><name><surname>Pires</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Diversification times among Brassica (Brassicaceae) crops suggest hybrid formation after 20 million years of divergence</article-title><source>American Journal of Botany</source><volume>101</volume><fpage>86</fpage><lpage>91</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3732/ajb.1300312</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24388963</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib2"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bartee</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Malagnac</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Bender</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>Arabidopsis cmt3 chromomethylase mutations block non-CG methylation and silencing of an endogenous gene</article-title><source>Genes &amp; Development</source><volume>15</volume><fpage>1753</fpage><lpage>1758</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/gad.905701</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11459824</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib3"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bernatavichute</surname> <given-names>YV</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Cokus</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Pellegrini</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Genome-wide association of histone H3 lysine nine methylation with CHG DNA methylation in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic></article-title><source>PLOS ONE</source><volume>3</volume><elocation-id>e3156</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0003156</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18776934</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib4"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bewick</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Niederhuth</surname> <given-names>CE</given-names></name><name><surname>Willing</surname> <given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Hofmeister</surname> <given-names>BT</given-names></name><name><surname>Shi</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Lu</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Rohr</surname> <given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Hartwig</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiefer</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Deal</surname> <given-names>RB</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmutz</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Grimwood</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Stroud</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneeberger</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>On the origin and evolutionary consequences of gene body DNA methylation</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>113</volume><fpage>9111</fpage><lpage>9116</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1604666113</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27457936</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib5"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bewick</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Niederhuth</surname> <given-names>CE</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Rohr</surname> <given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Griffin</surname> <given-names>PT</given-names></name><name><surname>Leebens-Mack</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>The evolution of CHROMOMETHYLASES and gene body DNA methylation in plants</article-title><source>Genome Biology</source><volume>18</volume><elocation-id>65</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13059-017-1195-1</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28457232</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib6"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bewick</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Wendte</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>Evolutionary and experimental loss of gene body methylation and its consequence to gene expression</article-title><source>G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics</source><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/g3.119.400365</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib7"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bewick</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>Gene body DNA methylation in plants</article-title><source>Current Opinion in Plant Biology</source><volume>36</volume><fpage>103</fpage><lpage>110</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.pbi.2016.12.007</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28258985</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib8"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bolger</surname> <given-names>AM</given-names></name><name><surname>Lohse</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Usadel</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data</article-title><source>Bioinformatics</source><volume>30</volume><fpage>2114</fpage><lpage>2120</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24695404</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib9"><element-citation publication-type="preprint"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Choi</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Lyons</surname> <given-names>DB</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Moore</surname> <given-names>JD</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>DNA methylation and histone H1 cooperatively repress transposable elements and aberrant intragenic transcripts</article-title><source>bioRxiv</source><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/527523</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib10"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Clough</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Bent</surname> <given-names>AF</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1998">1998</year><article-title>Floral dip: a simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic></article-title><source>The Plant Journal</source><volume>16</volume><fpage>735</fpage><lpage>743</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1046/j.1365-313x.1998.00343.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10069079</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib11"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cokus</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Merriman</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Haudenschild</surname> <given-names>CD</given-names></name><name><surname>Pradhan</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Nelson</surname> <given-names>SF</given-names></name><name><surname>Pellegrini</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>452</volume><fpage>215</fpage><lpage>219</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature06745</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18278030</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib12"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cubas</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Vincent</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Coen</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1999">1999</year><article-title>An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>401</volume><fpage>157</fpage><lpage>161</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/43657</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10490023</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib13"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Du</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Bernatavichute</surname> <given-names>YV</given-names></name><name><surname>Stroud</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Caro</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Vashisht</surname> <given-names>AA</given-names></name><name><surname>Terragni</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Chin</surname> <given-names>HG</given-names></name><name><surname>Tu</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Hetzel</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Wohlschlegel</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Pradhan</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Patel</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>Dual binding of chromomethylase domains to H3K9me2-containing nucleosomes directs DNA methylation in plants</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>151</volume><fpage>167</fpage><lpage>180</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.034</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23021223</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib14"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Du</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Groth</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Hale</surname> <given-names>CJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Vashisht</surname> <given-names>AA</given-names></name><name><surname>Wohlschlegel</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Patel</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Mechanism of DNA methylation-directed histone methylation by KRYPTONITE</article-title><source>Molecular Cell</source><volume>55</volume><fpage>495</fpage><lpage>504</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.009</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25018018</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib15"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Du</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Patel</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>DNA methylation pathways and their crosstalk with histone methylation</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology</source><volume>16</volume><fpage>519</fpage><lpage>532</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nrm4043</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26296162</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib16"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Cokus</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>PY</given-names></name><name><surname>Bostick</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Goll</surname> <given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Hetzel</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jain</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Strauss</surname> <given-names>SH</given-names></name><name><surname>Halpern</surname> <given-names>ME</given-names></name><name><surname>Ukomadu</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Sadler</surname> <given-names>KC</given-names></name><name><surname>Pradhan</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Pellegrini</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>Conservation and divergence of methylation patterning in plants and animals</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>107</volume><fpage>8689</fpage><lpage>8694</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1002720107</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20395551</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib17"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Finnegan</surname> <given-names>EJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Peacock</surname> <given-names>WJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Dennis</surname> <given-names>ES</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1996">1996</year><article-title>Reduced DNA methylation in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic> results in abnormal plant development</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>93</volume><fpage>8449</fpage><lpage>8454</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.93.16.8449</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8710891</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib18"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gouil</surname> <given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Baulcombe</surname> <given-names>DC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>DNA methylation signatures of the plant chromomethyltransferases</article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>12</volume><elocation-id>e1006526</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1006526</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27997534</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib19"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Haag</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Pikaard</surname> <given-names>CS</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Multisubunit RNA polymerases IV and V: purveyors of non-coding RNA for plant gene silencing</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology</source><volume>12</volume><fpage>483</fpage><lpage>492</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nrm3152</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21779025</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib20"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Heinz</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Benner</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Spann</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Bertolino</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Lin</surname> <given-names>YC</given-names></name><name><surname>Laslo</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname> <given-names>JX</given-names></name><name><surname>Murre</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Singh</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Glass</surname> <given-names>CK</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities</article-title><source>Molecular Cell</source><volume>38</volume><fpage>576</fpage><lpage>589</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20513432</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib21"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Huff</surname> <given-names>JT</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Dnmt1-independent CG methylation contributes to nucleosome positioning in diverse eukaryotes</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>156</volume><fpage>1286</fpage><lpage>1297</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.029</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24630728</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib22"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Inagaki</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Miura-Kamio</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Nakamura</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Lu</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Cui</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Cao</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Kimura</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Saze</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Kakutani</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>Autocatalytic differentiation of epigenetic modifications within the Arabidopsis genome</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>29</volume><fpage>3496</fpage><lpage>3506</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/emboj.2010.227</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20834229</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib23"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Inagaki</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Kakutani</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>What triggers differential DNA methylation of genes and TEs: contribution of body methylation?</article-title><source>Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology</source><volume>77</volume><fpage>155</fpage><lpage>160</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/sqb.2013.77.016212</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23302809</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib24"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jackson</surname> <given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Lindroth</surname> <given-names>AM</given-names></name><name><surname>Cao</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2002">2002</year><article-title>Control of CpNpG DNA methylation by the KRYPTONITE histone H3 methyltransferase</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>416</volume><fpage>556</fpage><lpage>560</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature731</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11898023</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib25"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jackson</surname> <given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Jasencakova</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>PerezBurgos</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Singh</surname> <given-names>PB</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Schubert</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenuwein</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>Dimethylation of histone H3 lysine 9 is a critical mark for DNA methylation and gene silencing in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic></article-title><source>Chromosoma</source><volume>112</volume><fpage>308</fpage><lpage>315</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00412-004-0275-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15014946</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib26"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Bostick</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Kraft</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Henderson</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Callis</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>The SRA methyl-cytosine-binding domain links DNA and histone methylation</article-title><source>Current Biology</source><volume>17</volume><fpage>379</fpage><lpage>384</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.009</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17239600</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib27"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Khan</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mathelier</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>Intervene: a tool for intersection and visualization of multiple gene or genomic region sets</article-title><source>BMC Bioinformatics</source><volume>18</volume><elocation-id>287</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12859-017-1708-7</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib28"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Langmead</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Salzberg</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements</article-title><source>Nature Methods</source><volume>12</volume><fpage>357</fpage><lpage>360</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nmeth.3317</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25751142</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib29"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Langmead</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Trapnell</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Pop</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Salzberg</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome</article-title><source>Genome Biology</source><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>R25</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19261174</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib30"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Langmead</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Salzberg</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2</article-title><source>Nature Methods</source><volume>9</volume><fpage>357</fpage><lpage>359</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nmeth.1923</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22388286</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib31"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Handsaker</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Wysoker</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Fennell</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Ruan</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Homer</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Marth</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Abecasis</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Durbin</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><collab>1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup</collab></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>The sequence alignment/Map format and SAMtools</article-title><source>Bioinformatics</source><volume>25</volume><fpage>2078</fpage><lpage>2079</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19505943</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib32"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Harris</surname> <given-names>CJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Jia</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Du</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Mechanistic insights into plant SUVH family H3K9 methyltransferases and their binding to context-biased non-CG DNA methylation</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>115</volume><fpage>E8793</fpage><lpage>E8802</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1809841115</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30150382</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib33"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lindroth</surname> <given-names>AM</given-names></name><name><surname>Cao</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Jackson</surname> <given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>McCallum</surname> <given-names>CM</given-names></name><name><surname>Henikoff</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>Requirement of CHROMOMETHYLASE3 for maintenance of CpXpG methylation</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>292</volume><fpage>2077</fpage><lpage>2080</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1059745</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11349138</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib34"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lister</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>O'Malley</surname> <given-names>RC</given-names></name><name><surname>Tonti-Filippini</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Gregory</surname> <given-names>BD</given-names></name><name><surname>Berry</surname> <given-names>CC</given-names></name><name><surname>Millar</surname> <given-names>AH</given-names></name><name><surname>Ecker</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>133</volume><fpage>523</fpage><lpage>536</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.029</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18423832</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib35"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Livak</surname> <given-names>KJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmittgen</surname> <given-names>TD</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta delta C(T)) Method</article-title><source>Methods</source><volume>25</volume><fpage>402</fpage><lpage>408</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1006/meth.2001.1262</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11846609</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib36"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lorincz</surname> <given-names>MC</given-names></name><name><surname>Dickerson</surname> <given-names>DR</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitt</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Groudine</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>Intragenic DNA methylation alters chromatin structure and elongation efficiency in mammalian cells</article-title><source>Nature Structural &amp; Molecular Biology</source><volume>11</volume><fpage>1068</fpage><lpage>1075</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nsmb840</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15467727</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib37"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Malagnac</surname> <given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Bartee</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Bender</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2002">2002</year><article-title>An Arabidopsis SET domain protein required for maintenance but not establishment of DNA methylation</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>6842</fpage><lpage>6852</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/emboj/cdf687</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12486005</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib38"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Manning</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Tör</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Poole</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Hong</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Thompson</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>King</surname> <given-names>GJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Giovannoni</surname> <given-names>JJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Seymour</surname> <given-names>GB</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2006">2006</year><article-title>A naturally occurring epigenetic mutation in a gene encoding an SBP-box transcription factor inhibits tomato fruit ripening</article-title><source>Nature Genetics</source><volume>38</volume><fpage>948</fpage><lpage>952</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ng1841</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16832354</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib39"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Martin</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads</article-title><source>EMBnet.journal</source><volume>17</volume><elocation-id>10</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14806/ej.17.1.200</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib40"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mathieu</surname> <given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Probst</surname> <given-names>AV</given-names></name> <name><surname>Paszkowski</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2005">2005</year><article-title>Distinct regulation of histone H3 methylation at lysines 27 and 9 by CpG methylation in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>24</volume><fpage>2783</fpage><lpage>2791</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/sj.emboj.7600743</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16001083</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib41"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Matzke</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Mosher</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>RNA-directed DNA methylation: an epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity</article-title><source>Nature Reviews Genetics</source><volume>15</volume><fpage>394</fpage><lpage>408</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nrg3683</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24805120</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib42"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Maunakea</surname> <given-names>AK</given-names></name><name><surname>Nagarajan</surname> <given-names>RP</given-names></name><name><surname>Bilenky</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ballinger</surname> <given-names>TJ</given-names></name><name><surname>D'Souza</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Fouse</surname> <given-names>SD</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Hong</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Nielsen</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Turecki</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Delaney</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Varhol</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Thiessen</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Shchors</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Heine</surname> <given-names>VM</given-names></name><name><surname>Rowitch</surname> <given-names>DH</given-names></name><name><surname>Xing</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Fiore</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Schillebeeckx</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jones</surname> <given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Haussler</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Marra</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Hirst</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Costello</surname> <given-names>JF</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>Conserved role of intragenic DNA methylation in regulating alternative promoters</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>466</volume><fpage>253</fpage><lpage>257</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature09165</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20613842</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib43"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Niederhuth</surname> <given-names>CE</given-names></name><name><surname>Bewick</surname> <given-names>AJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Alabady</surname> <given-names>MS</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>KD</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Rohr</surname> <given-names>NA</given-names></name><name><surname>Rambani</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Burke</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Udall</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Egesi</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmutz</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Grimwood</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jackson</surname> <given-names>SA</given-names></name><name><surname>Springer</surname> <given-names>NM</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Widespread natural variation of DNA methylation within angiosperms</article-title><source>Genome Biology</source><volume>17</volume><elocation-id>194</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13059-016-1059-0</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27671052</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib44"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Papa</surname> <given-names>CM</given-names></name><name><surname>Springer</surname> <given-names>NM</given-names></name><name><surname>Muszynski</surname> <given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Meeley</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Kaeppler</surname> <given-names>SM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>Maize chromomethylase Zea methyltransferase2 is required for CpNpG methylation</article-title><source>The Plant Cell</source><volume>13</volume><fpage>1919</fpage><lpage>1928</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1105/tpc.010064</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11487702</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib45"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pertea</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Pertea</surname> <given-names>GM</given-names></name><name><surname>Leek</surname> <given-names>JT</given-names></name><name><surname>Salzberg</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Transcript-level expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with HISAT, StringTie and ballgown</article-title><source>Nature Protocols</source><volume>11</volume><fpage>1650</fpage><lpage>1667</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nprot.2016.095</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27560171</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib46"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Quinlan</surname> <given-names>AR</given-names></name><name><surname>Hall</surname> <given-names>IM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features</article-title><source>Bioinformatics</source><volume>26</volume><fpage>841</fpage><lpage>842</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20110278</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib47"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Regulski</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Lu</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Kendall</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Donoghue</surname> <given-names>MT</given-names></name><name><surname>Reinders</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Llaca</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Deschamps</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Levy</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>McCombie</surname> <given-names>WR</given-names></name><name><surname>Tingey</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Rafalski</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Hicks</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Ware</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Martienssen</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>The maize methylome influences mRNA splice sites and reveals widespread paramutation-like switches guided by small RNA</article-title><source>Genome Research</source><volume>23</volume><fpage>1651</fpage><lpage>1662</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/gr.153510.112</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23739895</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib48"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Reinders</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Wulff</surname> <given-names>BB</given-names></name><name><surname>Mirouze</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Marí-Ordóñez</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Dapp</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Rozhon</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Bucher</surname> <given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Theiler</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Paszkowski</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Compromised stability of DNA methylation and transposon immobilization in mosaic Arabidopsis epigenomes</article-title><source>Genes &amp; Development</source><volume>23</volume><fpage>939</fpage><lpage>950</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/gad.524609</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19390088</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib49"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ronemus</surname> <given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Galbiati</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ticknor</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellaporta</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1996">1996</year><article-title>Demethylation-induced developmental pleiotropy in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>273</volume><fpage>654</fpage><lpage>657</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.273.5275.654</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8662558</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib50"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Saze</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Shiraishi</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Miura</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Kakutani</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Control of genic DNA methylation by a jmjC domain-containing protein in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic></article-title><source>Science</source><volume>319</volume><fpage>462</fpage><lpage>465</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1150987</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18218897</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib51"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schubert</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Primavesi</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Bishopp</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Roberts</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Doonan</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenuwein</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Goodrich</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2006">2006</year><article-title>Silencing by plant Polycomb-group genes requires dispersed trimethylation of histone H3 at lysine 27</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>25</volume><fpage>4638</fpage><lpage>4649</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/sj.emboj.7601311</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16957776</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib52"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schultz</surname> <given-names>MD</given-names></name><name><surname>He</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Whitaker</surname> <given-names>JW</given-names></name><name><surname>Hariharan</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Mukamel</surname> <given-names>EA</given-names></name><name><surname>Leung</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Rajagopal</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Nery</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Urich</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Lin</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Lin</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Jung</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitt</surname> <given-names>AD</given-names></name><name><surname>Selvaraj</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Ren</surname> <given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Sejnowski</surname> <given-names>TJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Ecker</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>Human body epigenome maps reveal noncanonical DNA methylation variation</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>523</volume><fpage>212</fpage><lpage>216</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature14465</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26030523</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib53"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Seymour</surname> <given-names>DK</given-names></name><name><surname>Koenig</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Hagmann</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Becker</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Weigel</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Evolution of DNA methylation patterns in the Brassicaceae is driven by differences in genome organization</article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>e1004785</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1004785</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25393550</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib54"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Soppe</surname> <given-names>WJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Jasencakova</surname> <given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Houben</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Kakutani</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Meister</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Huang</surname> <given-names>MS</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Schubert</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Fransz</surname> <given-names>PF</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2002">2002</year><article-title>DNA methylation controls histone H3 lysine 9 methylation and heterochromatin assembly in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>6549</fpage><lpage>6559</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/emboj/cdf657</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12456661</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib55"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stoddard</surname> <given-names>CI</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Campbell</surname> <given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Bernatavichute</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Narlikar</surname> <given-names>GJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>A nucleosome bridging mechanism for activation of a maintenance DNA methyltransferase</article-title><source>Molecular Cell</source><volume>73</volume><fpage>73</fpage><lpage>83</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.molcel.2018.10.006</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30415948</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib56"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stroud</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Greenberg</surname> <given-names>MV</given-names></name> <name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Bernatavichute</surname> <given-names>YV</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>Comprehensive analysis of silencing mutants reveals complex regulation of the Arabidopsis methylome</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>152</volume><fpage>352</fpage><lpage>364</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2012.10.054</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23313553</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib57"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stroud</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Do</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Du</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhong</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Patel</surname> <given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Non-CG methylation patterns shape the epigenetic landscape in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>Nature Structural &amp; Molecular Biology</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>64</fpage><lpage>72</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nsmb.2735</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24336224</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib58"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Takuno</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Ran</surname> <given-names>JH</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaut</surname> <given-names>BS</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Evolutionary patterns of genic DNA methylation vary across land plants</article-title><source>Nature Plants</source><volume>2</volume><elocation-id>15222</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nplants.2015.222</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27249194</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib59"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Takuno</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaut</surname> <given-names>BS</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>Body-methylated genes in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic> are functionally important and evolve slowly</article-title><source>Molecular Biology and Evolution</source><volume>29</volume><fpage>219</fpage><lpage>227</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/molbev/msr188</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21813466</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib60"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Takuno</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaut</surname> <given-names>BS</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>Gene body methylation is conserved between plant orthologs and is of evolutionary consequence</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>110</volume><fpage>1797</fpage><lpage>1802</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1215380110</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23319627</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib61"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tariq</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Saze</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Probst</surname> <given-names>AV</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lichota</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Habu</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Paszkowski</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2003">2003</year><article-title>Erasure of CpG methylation in Arabidopsis alters patterns of histone H3 methylation in heterochromatin</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>100</volume><fpage>8823</fpage><lpage>8827</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1432939100</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12853574</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib62"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Teixeira</surname> <given-names>FK</given-names></name><name><surname>Colot</surname> <given-names>V</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Gene body DNA methylation in plants: a means to an end or an end to a means?</article-title><source>The EMBO Journal</source><volume>28</volume><fpage>997</fpage><lpage>998</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/emboj.2009.87</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19384348</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib63"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tran</surname> <given-names>RK</given-names></name><name><surname>Henikoff</surname> <given-names>JG</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Ditt</surname> <given-names>RF</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Henikoff</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2005">2005</year><article-title>DNA methylation profiling identifies CG methylation clusters in Arabidopsis genes</article-title><source>Current Biology</source><volume>15</volume><fpage>154</fpage><lpage>159</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.008</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15668172</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib64"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Urich</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Nery</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Lister</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Ecker</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>MethylC-seq library preparation for base-resolution whole-genome bisulfite sequencing</article-title><source>Nature Protocols</source><volume>10</volume><fpage>475</fpage><lpage>483</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nprot.2014.114</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25692984</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib65"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Vial-Pradel</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Keta</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Nomoto</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Luo</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Takahashi</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Suzuki</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Yokoyama</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Sasabe</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Kojima</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Tada</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Machida</surname> <given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Machida</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Arabidopsis Zinc-Finger-Like protein ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2 (AS2) and two nucleolar proteins maintain gene body DNA methylation in the leaf polarity gene ETTIN (ARF3)</article-title><source>Plant and Cell Physiology</source><volume>59</volume><fpage>1385</fpage><lpage>1397</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/pcp/pcy031</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29415182</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib66"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Beyene</surname> <given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhai</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Feng</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Fahlgren</surname> <given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Taylor</surname> <given-names>NJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Bart</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrington</surname> <given-names>JC</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Ausin</surname> <given-names>I</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>CG gene body DNA methylation changes and evolution of duplicated genes in cassava</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>112</volume><fpage>13729</fpage><lpage>13734</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1519067112</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26483493</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib67"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wendte</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Pikaard</surname> <given-names>CS</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>The RNAs of RNA-directed DNA methylation</article-title><source>Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms</source><volume>1860</volume><fpage>140</fpage><lpage>148</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bbagrm.2016.08.004</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib68"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wendte</surname> <given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmitz</surname> <given-names>RJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Specifications of Targeting Heterochromatin Modifications in Plants</article-title><source>Molecular Plant</source><volume>11</volume><fpage>381</fpage><lpage>387</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.molp.2017.10.002</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29032247</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib69"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Woo</surname> <given-names>HR</given-names></name><name><surname>Pontes</surname> <given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Pikaard</surname> <given-names>CS</given-names></name><name><surname>Richards</surname> <given-names>EJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>VIM1, a methylcytosine-binding protein required for centromeric heterochromatinization</article-title><source>Genes &amp; Development</source><volume>21</volume><fpage>267</fpage><lpage>277</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1101/gad.1512007</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17242155</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib70"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Woo</surname> <given-names>HR</given-names></name><name><surname>Dittmer</surname> <given-names>TA</given-names></name><name><surname>Richards</surname> <given-names>EJ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Three SRA-domain methylcytosine-binding proteins cooperate to maintain global CpG methylation and epigenetic silencing in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>4</volume><elocation-id>e1000156</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1000156</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18704160</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib71"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname> <given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Jarvis</surname> <given-names>DE</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Beilstein</surname> <given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Grimwood</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenkins</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Shu</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Prochnik</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Xin</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ma</surname> <given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Schmutz</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Wing</surname> <given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Mitchell-Olds</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Schumaker</surname> <given-names>KS</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>The reference genome of the halophytic plant Eutrema salsugineum</article-title><source>Frontiers in Plant Science</source><volume>4</volume><elocation-id>46</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fpls.2013.00046</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23518688</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib72"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zemach</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>McDaniel</surname> <given-names>IE</given-names></name><name><surname>Silva</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2010">2010</year><article-title>Genome-wide evolutionary analysis of eukaryotic DNA methylation</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>328</volume><fpage>916</fpage><lpage>919</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1186366</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20395474</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib73"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zemach</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>MY</given-names></name><name><surname>Hsieh</surname> <given-names>PH</given-names></name><name><surname>Coleman-Derr</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Eshed-Williams</surname> <given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Thao</surname> <given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Harmer</surname> <given-names>SL</given-names></name><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2013">2013</year><article-title>The Arabidopsis nucleosome remodeler DDM1 allows DNA methyltransferases to access H1-containing heterochromatin</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>153</volume><fpage>193</fpage><lpage>205</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.033</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23540698</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib74"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Yazaki</surname> <given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Sundaresan</surname> <given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Cokus</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Chan</surname> <given-names>SW</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname> <given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Henderson</surname> <given-names>IR</given-names></name><name><surname>Shinn</surname> <given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Pellegrini</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>SE</given-names></name><name><surname>Ecker</surname> <given-names>JR</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2006">2006</year><article-title>Genome-wide high-resolution mapping and functional analysis of DNA methylation in Arabidopsis</article-title><source>Cell</source><volume>126</volume><fpage>1189</fpage><lpage>1201</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.003</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16949657</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib75"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhou</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Law</surname> <given-names>JA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title>RNA pol IV and V in gene silencing: rebel polymerases evolving away from pol II's rules</article-title><source>Current Opinion in Plant Biology</source><volume>27</volume><fpage>154</fpage><lpage>164</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.pbi.2015.07.005</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26344361</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib76"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Gehring</surname> <given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Tran</surname> <given-names>RK</given-names></name><name><surname>Ballinger</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Henikoff</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2007">2007</year><article-title>Genome-wide analysis of <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic> DNA methylation uncovers an interdependence between methylation and transcription</article-title><source>Nature Genetics</source><volume>39</volume><fpage>61</fpage><lpage>69</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/ng1929</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17128275</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib77"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zilberman</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Coleman-Derr</surname> <given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Ballinger</surname> <given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Henikoff</surname> <given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Histone H2A.Z and DNA methylation are mutually antagonistic chromatin marks</article-title><source>Nature</source><volume>456</volume><fpage>125</fpage><lpage>129</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature07324</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18815594</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back><sub-article article-type="decision-letter" id="SA1"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.036</article-id><title-group><article-title>Decision letter</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Baulcombe</surname><given-names>David</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution>University of Cambridge</institution><country>United Kingdom</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group></front-stub><body><boxed-text><p>In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.</p></boxed-text><p>Thank you for submitting your article &quot;A positive feedback loop that establishes heterochromatin predisposes transcribed genes to stable epimutations&quot; for consideration by <italic>eLife</italic>. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Detlef Weigel as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.</p><p>The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.</p><p>Summary:</p><p>This manuscript aims at understanding the mechanism of CG gene body methylation (gbM) by expressing the Arabidopsis CMT3 gene in <italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic>, a species that is lacking a CMT3 ortholog and is devoid of gbM. The authors generated several transgenic lines in <italic>Eutrema</italic> expressing the <italic>Arabidopsis</italic> CMT3 gene, and followed the establishment of CHG methylation in two independent lines over six generations. They found de novo CHG methylation on repeat sequences, intergenic sequences and on some genes that share common features with genes targeted by gbM in <italic>Arabidopsis thaliana</italic>. Interestingly, these genes were not marked by H3K9me2, a modification that is usually associated with CMT3 activity. Finally, it is shown that CMT3 silencing led to a fast decrease of CHG and CHH methylation and to a slow decrease of CG methylation. It is proposed that transient deposition of H3K9me2 on genes may recruit CMT3, which in turn methylates DNA in CHG context, leading to CG methylation by an unknown mechanism.</p><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) The main shortcoming of the manuscript is the failure to point to a mechanism through which CHG methylation mediates CG methylation. The main data to support the assumption that CHG methylation leads to gbM are those in Figure 6, showing that loss of CMT3 expression (after transgene silencing) causes a slower decline of CG methylation compared to CHG and CHH methylation. The authors made use of the fact that CMT3 became silenced in the fifth generation in the AtCMT3-L2 line to test the effect of CMT3 loss on DNA methylation. Since it is unclear if the silencing is triggered by the transgene itself or by other factors, and how quickly silencing occurred, the results in Figure 6 are not completely conclusive. Moreover, the data are based on a single line and one individual per generation.</p><p>To address this point we request the analysis of at least one other non-silenced transgenic line, as well as the analysis of transgene-free progeny instead of the apparently silenced line.</p><p>2) Plants expressing CMT3 show body CHG methylation, but not body H3K9me2. The authors seem to interpret this observation as H3K9me2 recruiting CMT3 but H3K9me2 being removed by IBM1. An alternative interpretation of the results could be that H3K9me1, rather than H3K9me2, recruits CMT3. CMT3 binds not only to H3K9me2 but also to H3K9me1, even though CMT2 does not bind to H3K9me1 (Stroud et al., 2014, Figure 2D). Therefore, it seems possible that preexisting H3K9me1 guides CMT3, but not CMT2, to introduce CHG methylation in gene bodies.</p><p>To address this point we request the comparison of H3K9me1 in transgenic and non-transgenic control plants.</p><p>3) In Figure 5A, the authors compared CHG methylation gain and expression change in each gene in the T4 plant with body CHG methylation. Their interpretation of the results is that &quot;genic CHG methylation in AtCMT3-expressing lines is uncoupled from heterochromatin formation and transcriptional silencing, similar to gbM.&quot; A possible complication can be that transcriptome should reflect both primary effects of the body CHG methylation and indirect effects from those primary effects. The indirect effects would not correlate with CHG methylation.</p><p>Furthermore, the proportion of CHG methylated genes in downregulated genes (X&lt;-2) seems significantly higher than those in upregulated genes (2&lt;X) and control genes (-2&lt;X&lt;2). The results look consistent with transcriptome analyses in ibm1 mutants in Arabidopsis (Inagaki et al., 2017). According to that literature, genes downregulated in ibm1 mutants have significant levels of CHG methylation, while upregulated genes do not. In addition, GO analyses of upregulated genes suggest their link to immune responses. The interpretation by Inagaki et al. was that CHG methylation induces downregulation for a subset of genes, and that the upregulation of many genes reflects indirect effects, likely due to primary changes in expression of some key factor involved in immune responses.</p><p>As the results in Figure 5A seem consistent with the transcriptome of ibm1 mutants (downregulation as primary effects and upregulation as indirect effects), we suggest GO analysis of upregulated genes, and statistical test for the overrepresentation of CHG gain in downregulated genes. If GO analysis of upregulated genes show some tendency, even if not immune response, that would suggest indirect effects involved.</p><p>More generally, the question is if body CHG methylation affects gene expression. That could be clarified by examining other plants without the gain of CHG methylation, such as other transgenic lines or other generations of plants in the same line, as controls (in addition to the non-transgenic wild-type plants). Especially interesting controls might be T6 plants of the line that lost body CHG methylation while keeping body CG methylation, because that might disentangle effects of body CG and CHG methylation.</p><p>Other points:</p><p>Please address the following additional points raised by the three reviewers as much as possible.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #1:</italic> </p><p>4) The manuscript suggests that an increase of CMT3 expression leads to an increase of CHG methylation (subsection “Expression of AtCMT3 in <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> results in increased CHG methylation”, third paragraph). It is surprising why the authors did not use the AtCMT3-L3 for their analysis, as CMT3 is higher expressed in this line than in AtCMT3-L1 (Supplementary file 4). If the model is correct, AtCMT3-L3 should exhibit a higher methylation level than lines -L1 or -L2. As the authors have generated the methylome of this line (Figure 1—figure supplement 1), they should analyze gbM in this line. In fact, it would be advisable to include also the data for the other lines, since based on Figure 1—figure supplement 1 the authors produced methylome data for all lines until the second generation.</p><p>5) Figure 4: The choice of the generations used in the analysis requires justification; why analyzing generations 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11 for Col-0 and generations 5, 13 for suv4/5/6 ? At least they should include the 13th Col-0 generation in the analysis, since the DNA methylation pattern can be significantly affected after few generations (Figure 1, AtCMT3-L2). It is also advisable to include additional explanations to this paragraph to allow the reader to follow what has been analyzed.</p><p>6) It is unclear how the RNA seq data were analyzed (subsection “RNA sequencing mapping and analyses”).</p><p>7) For the ChIP-seq analysis, input seems to have been retrieved (subsection “Chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq)”) but apparently was not used for the normalization, neither have H3 data been used to normalize (subsection “ChIP-sequencing mapping and analyses”). The analysis has to be described in more detail or repeated.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #2:</italic> </p><p>8) In regard to the ways of presentation of the ChIP-seq results, they showed metaplot and browser view for H3K9me2. It might also be informative to see scatter plot, comparing H3K9me2 level between the T4 and non-transgenic plants, to see if the signal increases in a subset of genes or TE genes.</p><p>9) Based on results in Figure 4, authors discussed that gain of CG methylation rate was significantly lower in Arabidopsis suvh4/5/6 mutant than in WT, but loss of CG methylation was not significantly different. The background statistics was not clear to me.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #3:</italic> </p><p>10) The manuscript often refers to &quot;targeting&quot; of CMT3 to genes, which to me implies an active process. But the authors reach the conclusion (Discussion, last paragraph) that gbm is likely a passive byproduct of having a functional CMT3 enzyme. It's not that CMT3 is specifically targeted to genes, but that CMT3 acts in non-heterchromatic regions with some low frequency. It is suggested that the authors reconsider their use of the word targeting.</p><p>11) One of the results that most strongly supports the authors' model is that CG methylation is retained (and CHG and CHH methylation is lost) in CHGhyper genes after CMT3 is silenced in line L2 (Figure 6A and 6B). This led me to wonder why <italic>Eutrema</italic> lacks all gbm – presumably the loss of CMT3 occurred relatively recently in its evolutionarily history since its closest relatives retain CMT3 and gbm. Shouldn't some CG methylation still be present? Can the authors date the loss of CMT3 in <italic>Eutrema</italic> and does the total absence of gbm in this species fit with the timing of that loss and what we know about rates of mCG gain and loss in gene bodies over time?</p><p>12) Based on analysis of repeat methylation, the authors suggest that AtCMT3 preferentially targets heterochromatin over genes. There are alternative interpretations for these data. DNA methylation was reduced in all contexts in L2T6 in heterochromatin (Figure 6C), although it remained higher than in genes (Figure 6B). But the remaining methylation could be due to other maintenance and de novo pathways also being more active in those regions (MET1, RdDM, CMT2), rather than any residual CMT3 activity preferentially being directed to heterochromatin.</p><p>13) The portion of the manuscript about epimutations rates in suvh4/5/6 in <italic>Arabidopsis</italic> was a distraction from the main message. The effects on CG methylation gain, while statistically significant, do not appear particularly strong. I recommend removing this section from the paper.</p><p>14) The right panel of Figure 1—figure supplement 5 does not support the conclusion that higher levels of CMT3 expression are correlated with increased global CHG methylation. The R2 value of 0.59 is driven by two points and many samples have high CHG methylation but relatively low CMT3 expression. This doesn't seem like a key conclusion of the paper, and the authors should be more cautious in their interpretation.</p></body></sub-article><sub-article article-type="reply" id="SA2"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.47891.037</article-id><title-group><article-title>Author response</article-title></title-group></front-stub><body><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) The main shortcoming of the manuscript is the failure to point to a mechanism through which CHG methylation mediates CG methylation. The main data to support the assumption that CHG methylation leads to gbM are those in Figure 6, showing that loss of CMT3 expression (after transgene silencing) causes a slower decline of CG methylation compared to CHG and CHH methylation. The authors made use of the fact that CMT3 became silenced in the fifth generation in the AtCMT3-L2 line to test the effect of CMT3 loss on DNA methylation. Since it is unclear if the silencing is triggered by the transgene itself or by other factors, and how quickly silencing occurred, the results in Figure 6 are not completely conclusive. Moreover, the data are based on a single line and one individual per generation.</p><p>To address this point we request the analysis of at least one other non-silenced transgenic line, as well as the analysis of transgene-free progeny instead of the apparently silenced line.</p></disp-quote><p>These are excellent suggestions and we have added the new data as the reviewers have requested. We conducted the same analysis we completed for AtCMT3-L2 in AtCMT3-L1, which did not demonstrate silencing of the transgene. In this case, the relative methylation levels over genes in all contexts (CG, CHG, and CHH) remained similar over generational time. This result is included in new Figure 5—figure supplement 1D.</p><p>We also completed an alternative approach where we crossed the AtCMT3-L1T5 transgene expressing line to wild type (non-transgenic) to segregate out the transgene. We analyzed two F2 progeny where the transgene was segregated out and one F2 progeny that still contained the transgene. In the F2 progeny that did not encode the transgene, the ectopic genic CHG and CHH methylation that was present in the in the transgenic parent was lost but the genic CG methylation was maintained, similar to the line where the transgene was silenced. In contrast, the F2 progeny that still encoded the transgene maintained similar levels of genic methylation in all contexts as the transgenic parent. This result is included in the new Figure 5—figure supplement 1E. We also verified that the levels of newly methylated genic CG sites in these lines, as well as the lines where AtCMT3 was silenced (AtCMT3-L2T5-T6), were higher than background (due to bisulfite non-conversion or epimutations that occur independently of CMT3), by comparing control sets of un-methylated genes that did not gain CHG methylation and by comparing to an additional, non-transgenic accession of <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> (Yukon). These controls are included in new Figure 5—figure supplement 2.</p><p>These new results are described in the text in subsection “Ectopic genic CG methylation is preferentially maintained following loss of AtCMT3 expression”, fourth paragraph.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>2) Plants expressing CMT3 show body CHG methylation, but not body H3K9me2. The authors seem to interpret this observation as H3K9me2 recruiting CMT3 but H3K9me2 being removed by IBM1. An alternative interpretation of the results could be that H3K9me1, rather than H3K9me2, recruits CMT3. CMT3 binds not only to H3K9me2 but also to H3K9me1, even though CMT2 does not bind to H3K9me1 (Stroud et al., 2014, Figure 2D). Therefore, it seems possible that preexisting H3K9me1 guides CMT3, but not CMT2, to introduce CHG methylation in gene bodies.</p><p>To address this point we request the comparison of H3K9me1 in transgenic and non-transgenic control plants.</p></disp-quote><p>This is an intriguing hypothesis, however, we conducted H3K9me1 ChIP-seq in transgenic and non-transgenic lines and found that, similar to H3K9me2, there does not appear to be an enrichment of H3K9me1 in genes that gain CHG methylation before or after the introduction of the transgene (see new supplementary Figure 3—figure supplement 2A-C).</p><p>These new results are discussed in the text in the last paragraph of the subsection “CHG methylation in gene bodies is not associated with stable H3K9 methylation”.</p><p>We do agree with the reviewer that the possibility of an initial presence of H3K9me1, even if transient, could help explain the phylogenetic correlation between encoding CMT3, but not CMT2, and the presence gene body methylation across plant species. Once CMT3 methylates CWG cytosines, H3K9 methylation may then be stabilized as H3K9me2, which could be bound by CMT2, promoting CWA methylation. We have included this possibility in our Discussion and hypothetical model. See new model Figure 6 and the Discussion section.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>3) In Figure 5A, the authors compared CHG methylation gain and expression change in each gene in the T4 plant with body CHG methylation. Their interpretation of the results is that &quot;genic CHG methylation in AtCMT3-expressing lines is uncoupled from heterochromatin formation and transcriptional silencing, similar to gbM.&quot; A possible complication can be that transcriptome should reflect both primary effects of the body CHG methylation and indirect effects from those primary effects. The indirect effects would not correlate with CHG methylation.</p><p>Furthermore, the proportion of CHG methylated genes in downregulated genes (X&lt;-2) seems significantly higher than those in upregulated genes (2&lt;X) and control genes (-2&lt;X&lt;2). The results look consistent with transcriptome analyses in ibm1 mutants in Arabidopsis (Inagaki et al., 2017). According to that literature, genes downregulated in ibm1 mutants have significant levels of CHG methylation, while upregulated genes do not. In addition, GO analyses of upregulated genes suggest their link to immune responses. The interpretation by Inagaki et al. was that CHG methylation induces downregulation for a subset of genes, and that the upregulation of many genes reflects indirect effects, likely due to primary changes in expression of some key factor involved in immune responses.</p><p>As the results in Figure 5A seem consistent with the transcriptome of ibm1 mutants (downregulation as primary effects and upregulation as indirect effects), we suggest GO analysis of upregulated genes, and statistical test for the overrepresentation of CHG gain in downregulated genes. If GO analysis of upregulated genes show some tendency, even if not immune response, that would suggest indirect effects involved.</p><p>More generally, the question is if body CHG methylation affects gene expression. That could be clarified by examining other plants without the gain of CHG methylation, such as other transgenic lines or other generations of plants in the same line, as controls (in addition to the non-transgenic wild-type plants). Especially interesting controls might be T6 plants of the line that lost body CHG methylation while keeping body CG methylation, because that might disentangle effects of body CG and CHG methylation.</p></disp-quote><p>We conducted RNA sequencing of nine of the <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expressing plants we analyzed, including the T6 plant that demonstrated loss of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression, and in each case, we found most of the CHG-gain genes showed little to no change in expression (Figure 4A, Figure 4—figure supplement 1). As suggested by the reviewer, in each of these lines we conducted a statistical test to determine if the CHG gain genes are enriched in either down- or up- regulated genes identified genome-wide, using a cutoff of a +/- 2 log<sub>2</sub> fold change. We found no enrichment in either down- or up- regulated genes (see new Supplementary file 7).</p><p>To assess the possibility of indirect effects of AtCMT3 expression, we conducted a GO enrichment analysis of up and down regulated genes in each line. We found that in each line, both up and down regulated genes showed significant enrichments in various abiotic stress response GO terms, but did not see an overrepresentation of immune response genes (see new Supplementary file 8). Despite this general trend for abiotic stress response genes, we found that there was no GO term consistently identified across all lineages, which lead us to conclude that it is unlikely that these changes in expression are related to the transgene expression either directly or indirectly. These results are discussed in the text in the subsection “CHG methylation in gene bodies is not associated with transcriptional silencing”.</p><p>With these additional results, we believe our original conclusion that &quot;genic CHG methylation in AtCMT3-expressing lines is uncoupled from heterochromatin formation and transcriptional silencing, similar to gbM,&quot; is still valid. An important distinction of the genic CHG methylation we identified in AtCMT3-expressing <italic>E. salsugineum</italic> and that found in <italic>A. thaliana ibm1</italic> mutants is that we did not detect stable H3K9 methylation associated with genic CHG methylation in the <italic>Eutrema</italic> lineages. Our prediction is that <italic>Eutrema</italic> IBM1 is actively removing H3K9 methylation, which prevents DNA methylation from leading to heterochromatin formation and silencing (See model Figure 6). This contrasts with <italic>A. thaliana ibm1</italic> mutants, where both heterochromatin signals (DNA and histone methylation) are established over genes, which affects transcription.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Other points:</p><p>Please address the following additional points raised by the three reviewers as much as possible.</p><p>Reviewer #1:</p><p>4) The manuscript suggests that an increase of CMT3 expression leads to an increase of CHG methylation (subsection “Expression of AtCMT3 in E. salsugineum results in increased CHG methylation”, third paragraph). It is surprising why the authors did not use the AtCMT3-L3 for their analysis, as CMT3 is higher expressed in this line than in AtCMT3-L1 (Supplementary file 4). If the model is correct, AtCMT3-L3 should exhibit a higher methylation level than lines -L1 or -L2. As the authors have generated the methylome of this line (Figure 1—figure supplement 1), they should analyze gbM in this line. In fact, it would be advisable to include also the data for the other lines, since based on Figure 1—figure supplement 1 the authors produced methylome data for all lines until the second generation.</p></disp-quote><p>Our initial inclination was to include all lines in the main figures. However, simply due to space constraints, including all the data resulted in crowded figures that were difficult to read. We wanted to avoid confusion in our discussions of the dynamics of DNA methylation over generational time and chose to focus the main figures on the two lineages that we had samples over the full course of six generations while limiting the analyses of additional lineages to the supplementary figures.</p><p>Our analyses of the additional lineages included in the supplementary material confirmed the results presented in the main text figures and we agree with the reviewer that this should be stated more emphatically. We have therefore discussed these results more explicitly in the main text to emphasize that the two L3 individuals with the highest CMT3 expression also had the highest levels of CHG methylation and number of genes gaining CHG methylation:</p><p>“The results demonstrated a significant correlation between the levels of AtCMT3 expression and genome-wide CHG methylation levels (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.8828, p = 1.669 x 10<sup>-4</sup>, Figure 1—figure supplement 5, see Supplementary file 4 for FPKM values). This was especially notable for two T2 generation plants of AtCMT3-L3, which had the highest AtCMT3 expression levels (233.7 and 372.5 FPKM for AtCMT3-L3T2 and T2b, respectively) and the highest genome-wide percent CHG methylation (27% and 32%, for T2a and T2b, respectively).”</p><p>and:</p><p>“Indeed, based on RNA-seq assessment of AtCMT3 expression, the levels of AtCMT3 expression and number CHG-gain genes were correlated (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.7951, p = 0.001) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2, Supplementary file 4). Again, two T2 generation individuals of the AtCMT3-L3 lineage, which had the highest AtCMT3 expression (Supplementary file 4), also had the highest number of CHG-gain genes (5,566 and 6,346 CHG-gain genes for AtCMT3-L3T2 and T2b, respectively) (Supplementary file 5).”</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>5) Figure 4: The choice of the generations used in the analysis requires justification; why analyzing generations 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11 for Col-0 and generations 5, 13 for suv4/5/6 ? At least they should include the 13th Col-0 generation in the analysis, since the DNA methylation pattern can be significantly affected after few generations (Figure 1, AtCMT3-L2). It is also advisable to include additional explanations to this paragraph to allow the reader to follow what has been analyzed.</p></disp-quote><p>At the request of reviewer #3, we have removed this analysis so as not to distract from the main conclusions of the paper.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>6) It is unclear how the RNA seq data were analyzed (subsection “RNA sequencing mapping and analyses”).</p></disp-quote><p>We have expanded this section of the Materials and methods to make this clearer:</p><p>“Quality-filtering and adapter-trimming were performed using Trimmomatic v0.33 with default parameters (Bolger, Lohse, and Usadel, 2014). […] Genes with zero FPKM values were removed from expression analyses. A cutoff of +/- 2 Log<sub>2</sub> fold change was used to identify genes undergoing substantial changes in expression.”</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>7) For the ChIP-seq analysis, input seems to have been retrieved (subsection “Chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq)”) but apparently was not used for the normalization, neither have H3 data been used to normalize (subsection “ChIP-sequencing mapping and analyses”). The analysis has to be described in more detail or repeated.</p></disp-quote><p>We added in more detail to the Materials and methods section to clarify how we analyzed the ChIP-seq data:</p><p>“Quality-filtering and adapter-trimming were performed using Trimmomatic v0.33 (Bolger et al., 2014) with default parameters. […] Finally, the average bin values were normalized to account for the number of loci.”</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Reviewer #2:</p><p>8) In regard to the ways of presentation of the ChIP-seq results, they showed metaplot and browser view for H3K9me2. It might also be informative to see scatter plot, comparing H3K9me2 level between the T4 and non-transgenic plants, to see if the signal increases in a subset of genes or TE genes.</p></disp-quote><p>Since our ChIP experiments were conducted at time points separated by months, due to the multi-generational nature of the study, we focused our analyses on major trends in enrichment over certain genomic features of interest (heterochromatin and genes that gained CHG methylation in transgenic lines). We appreciate there are certainly many ways to display these data, but ultimately decided that metaplots and representative browser views were the best way to accurately portray the general trends while remaining conservative in our approach.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>9) Based on results in Figure 4, authors discussed that gain of CG methylation rate was significantly lower in Arabidopsis suvh4/5/6 mutant than in WT, but loss of CG methylation was not significantly different. The background statistics was not clear to me.</p></disp-quote><p>At the request of reviewer #3, we have removed this analysis so as not to distract from the main conclusions of the paper.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Reviewer #3:</p><p>10) The manuscript often refers to &quot;targeting&quot; of CMT3 to genes, which to me implies an active process. But the authors reach the conclusion (Discussion, last paragraph) that gbm is likely a passive byproduct of having a functional CMT3 enzyme. It's not that CMT3 is specifically targeted to genes, but that CMT3 acts in non-heterchromatic regions with some low frequency. It is suggested that the authors reconsider their use of the word targeting.</p></disp-quote><p>We agree this terminology can be confusing and we have removed “targeting” from our references to CMT3-localization to genes.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>11) One of the results that most strongly supports the authors' model is that CG methylation is retained (and CHG and CHH methylation is lost) in CHGhyper genes after CMT3 is silenced in line L2 (Figure 6A and 6B). This led me to wonder why Eutrema lacks all gbm – presumably the loss of CMT3 occurred relatively recently in its evolutionarily history since its closest relatives retain CMT3 and gbm. Shouldn't some CG methylation still be present? Can the authors date the loss of CMT3 in Eutrema and does the total absence of gbm in this species fit with the timing of that loss and what we know about rates of mCG gain and loss in gene bodies over time?</p></disp-quote><p>This is an interesting question; however, we would require additional phylogenetic sampling to estimate when in evolutionary history the ancestors of modern <italic>Eutrema salsugineum</italic> lost CMT3.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>12) Based on analysis of repeat methylation, the authors suggest that AtCMT3 preferentially targets heterochromatin over genes. There are alternative interpretations for these data. DNA methylation was reduced in all contexts in L2T6 in heterochromatin (Figure 6C), although it remained higher than in genes (Figure 6B). But the remaining methylation could be due to other maintenance and de novo pathways also being more active in those regions (MET1, RdDM, CMT2), rather than any residual CMT3 activity preferentially being directed to heterochromatin.</p></disp-quote><p>This is a good point and we have conducted an additional experiment that has allowed us to test this more thoroughly. We crossed the AtCMT3-L1T5 line to wild type in order to segregate out progeny that no longer encode the transgene to better evaluate maintenance of transgene induced ectopic methylation following transgene removal. We found that, similar to the L2T6 lineage, transgene induced methylation was maintained at higher levels in heterochromatin than it was in genes in the CHG and CHH contexts in progeny with the transgene crossed out. This supports the reviewer’s hypothesis that other pathways can preferentially maintain methylation in these regions. However, we also note that the relative CHG methylation in particular was reduced by a further ~50% when the transgene was completely removed compared to the L2T6 lineage which supports the possibility that the residual CMT3 activity remaining in this line was preferentially directed to heterochromatic regions.</p><p>We have included these results in Figure 5—figure supplement 1F and discussed them in the last paragraph of the subsection “AtCMT3 preferentially methylates heterochromatin relative to genes”.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>13) The portion of the manuscript about epimutations rates in suvh4/5/6 in Arabidopsis was a distraction from the main message. The effects on CG methylation gain, while statistically significant, do not appear particularly strong. I recommend removing this section from the paper.</p></disp-quote><p>We have removed this section from the paper to avoid distraction and updated the text and figures accordingly. We have also opted to change the title since we are now focusing the paper mainly on the role of CMT3 in the initiation of gbM. Our new title is: “Epimutations are associated with CHROMOMETHYLASE 3-induced de novo DNA methylation”.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>14) The right panel of Figure 1—figure supplement 5 does not support the conclusion that higher levels of CMT3 expression are correlated with increased global CHG methylation. The R2 value of 0.59 is driven by two points and many samples have high CHG methylation but relatively low CMT3 expression. This doesn't seem like a key conclusion of the paper, and the authors should be more cautious in their interpretation.</p></disp-quote><p>We agree that the correlation of <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression and genome-wide CHG methylation was not as strong when measured by qRT-PCR compared to RNA-seq (0.59 vs. 0.88 R2, respectively). However, taken together, we think the results do support the likelihood that variation in <italic>AtCMT3</italic> expression is a contributing factor to overall CHG methylation levels, which has been noted previously in <italic>A. thaliana</italic> mutant backgrounds that alter <italic>CMT3</italic> expression (e.g. Cell. 2014 Jul 3; 158(1): 98–109). We have altered the text to present this conclusion more cautiously:</p><p>“We also examined the relationship between genome-wide CHG methylation and AtCMT3 expression using qRT-PCR, including plants from additional lineages, and found a weaker although significant relationship (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.5932, p = 0.025, Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and Figure 1—figure supplement 5). Taken together, AtCMT3 expression is likely one factor contributing to genome-wide CHG levels in these lines.”</p></body></sub-article></article>