Letter | Published:

Dynamic and static maintenance of epigenetic memory in pluripotent and somatic cells

Nature volume 513, pages 115119 (04 September 2014) | Download Citation


Stable maintenance of gene regulatory programs is essential for normal function in multicellular organisms. Epigenetic mechanisms, and DNA methylation in particular, are hypothesized to facilitate such maintenance by creating cellular memory1,2,3,4 that can be written during embryonic development5,6 and then guide cell-type-specific gene expression7. Here we develop new methods for quantitative inference of DNA methylation turnover rates, and show that human embryonic stem cells preserve their epigenetic state by balancing antagonistic processes that add and remove methylation marks rather than by copying epigenetic information from mother to daughter cells. In contrast, somatic cells transmit considerable epigenetic information to progenies. Paradoxically, the persistence of the somatic epigenome makes it more vulnerable to noise, since random epimutations can accumulate to massively perturb the epigenomic ground state. The rate of epigenetic perturbation depends on the genomic context, and, in particular, DNA methylation loss is coupled to late DNA replication dynamics. Epigenetic perturbation is not observed in the pluripotent state, because the rapid turnover-based equilibrium continuously reinforces the canonical state. This dynamic epigenetic equilibrium also explains how the epigenome can be reprogrammed quickly8 and to near perfection9 after induced pluripotency.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

Data deposits

Raw data have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE53610.


  1. 1.

    DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev. 16, 6–21 (2002)

  2. 2.

    & Programming of DNA methylation patterns. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 81, 97–117 (2012)

  3. 3.

    , & Epigenetic dynamics of stem cells and cell lineage commitment: digging Waddington’s canal. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 526–537 (2009)

  4. 4.

    & Genetics and epigenetics: stability and plasticity during cellular differentiation. Trends Genet. 25, 129–136 (2009)

  5. 5.

    et al. Dynamic CpG island methylation landscape in oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Nature Genet. 43, 811–814 (2011)

  6. 6.

    et al. A unique regulatory phase of DNA methylation in the early mammalian embryo. Nature 484, 339–344 (2012)

  7. 7.

    et al. Transcriptional and epigenetic dynamics during specification of human embryonic stem cells. Cell 153, 1149–1163 (2013)

  8. 8.

    et al. Deterministic direct reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency. Nature 502, 65–70 (2013)

  9. 9.

    et al. Epigenetic memory in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 467, 285–290 (2010)

  10. 10.

    , , , & Clonal inheritance of the pattern of DNA methylation in mouse cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 79, 61–65 (1982)

  11. 11.

    & Eukaryotic cytosine methyltransferases. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74, 481–514 (2005)

  12. 12.

    et al. In vivo control of CpG and non-CpG DNA methylation by DNA methyltransferases. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002750 (2012)

  13. 13.

    & TET enzymes, TDG and the dynamics of DNA demethylation. Nature 502, 472–479 (2013)

  14. 14.

    et al. 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine in the mammalian zygote is linked with epigenetic reprogramming. Nature Commun. 2, 241 (2011)

  15. 15.

    et al. Epigenetic polymorphism and the stochastic formation of differentially methylated regions in normal and cancerous tissues. Nature Genet. 44, 1207–1214 (2012)

  16. 16.

    et al. Counting absolute numbers of molecules using unique molecular identifiers. Nature Methods 9, 72–74 (2012)

  17. 17.

    et al. Preparation of reduced representation bisulfite sequencing libraries for genome-scale DNA methylation profiling. Nature Protocols 6, 468–481 (2011)

  18. 18.

    & Spontaneous mutation accumulation studies in evolutionary genetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 151–172 (2009)

  19. 19.

    et al. Frequent switching of Polycomb repressive marks and DNA hypermethylation in the PC3 prostate cancer cell line. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 12979–12984 (2008)

  20. 20.

    et al. Polycomb-mediated methylation on Lys27 of histone H3 pre-marks genes for de novo methylation in cancer. Nature Genet. 39, 232–236 (2007)

  21. 21.

    et al. Domain organization of human chromosomes revealed by mapping of nuclear lamina interactions. Nature 453, 948–951 (2008)

  22. 22.

    et al. Sequencing newly replicated DNA reveals widespread plasticity in human replication timing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 139–144 (2010)

  23. 23.

    et al. DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature 480, 490–495 (2011)

  24. 24.

    et al. Identification of genetic elements that autonomously determine DNA methylation states. Nature Genet. 43, 1091–1097 (2011)

  25. 25.

    et al. Genome-wide mapping of nucleosome positioning and DNA methylation within individual DNA molecules. Genome Res. 22, 2497–2506 (2012)

  26. 26.

    , & Genome-wide kinetics of nucleosome turnover determined by metabolic labeling of histones. Science 328, 1161–1164 (2010)

  27. 27.

    et al. Increased methylation variation in epigenetic domains across cancer types. Nature Genet. 43, 768–775 (2011)

  28. 28.

    et al. Regions of focal DNA hypermethylation and long-range hypomethylation in colorectal cancer coincide with nuclear lamina-associated domains. Nature Genet. 44, 40–46 (2012)

  29. 29.

    et al. Consolidation of the cancer genome into domains of repressive chromatin by long-range epigenetic silencing (LRES) reduces transcriptional plasticity. Nature Cell Biol. 12, 235–246 (2010)

  30. 30.

    et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 462, 315–322 (2009)

  31. 31.

    et al. Prolonged culture of telomerase-immortalized human fibroblasts leads to a premalignant phenotype. Cancer Res. 63, 7147–7157 (2003)

  32. 32.

    & Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011)

  33. 33.

    et al. The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2014 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D764–D770 (2014)

  34. 34.

    et al. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012)

  35. 35.

    & ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nature Methods 9, 215–216 (2012)

  36. 36.

    , & Primate CpG islands are maintained by heterogeneous evolutionary regimes involving minimal selection. Cell 145, 773–786 (2011)

Download references


We thank E. Kenigsberg, E. Yaffe and the Tanay group for discussions. Research in the Tanay group was supported by the European Research Council (EVOEPIC), the EU BLUEPRINT project, the Israel Science Foundation (1050/12 and I-Core) the Israel Ministry of Science and the Helen and Martin Kimmel Award.

Author information

Author notes

    • Zohar Shipony
    •  & Zohar Mukamel

    These authors contributed equally to this work.


  1. Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, and Department of Biological Regulation, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

    • Zohar Shipony
    • , Zohar Mukamel
    • , Netta Mendelson Cohen
    • , Gilad Landan
    • , Elad Chomsky
    •  & Amos Tanay
  2. Department of Molecular Genetics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

    • Elad Chomsky
  3. Department of Immunology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

    • Shlomit Reich Zeliger
    •  & Nir Friedman
  4. Department of Biological Services, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

    • Yael Chagit Fried
    •  & Elena Ainbinder


  1. Search for Zohar Shipony in:

  2. Search for Zohar Mukamel in:

  3. Search for Netta Mendelson Cohen in:

  4. Search for Gilad Landan in:

  5. Search for Elad Chomsky in:

  6. Search for Shlomit Reich Zeliger in:

  7. Search for Yael Chagit Fried in:

  8. Search for Elena Ainbinder in:

  9. Search for Nir Friedman in:

  10. Search for Amos Tanay in:


Z.S., Z.M. and A.T. designed the study. Z.S. and Z.M. performed the experiments. Z.S., N.M.C. and A.T. developed the algorithms. Z.S., Z.M. and A.T. analysed the data. G.L. and E.C. helped in developing the experimental protocol and analytical framework. Y.C.F. and E.A. generated ES-cell clones. S.R.Z. and N.F. generated CD8+ T-cell clones. Z.S., Z.M. and A.T. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amos Tanay.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-2.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.