The causes and consequences of human-specific DNA methylation

  1. Zhenzhen Ma
  2. Alexander L. Starr
  3. David Gokhman
  4. Hunter B. Fraser

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    This study presents an important examination of the role of cis-acting versus trans-acting genetic variation on DNA methylation divergence between humans and chimpanzees, including its consequences for gene expression. By differentiating fused interspecies tetraploid cell lines into multiple cell types, the study provides compelling evidence for the importance of cis-acting changes, but incomplete evidence that these changes are of importance for adaptive trait evolution in humans. This work will be of interest to biologists and evolutionary anthropologists studying the evolution and genetics of gene regulation, particularly in primates.

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The vast collection of human-specific traits– such as our unique morphology, cognition, behavior, and diseases– has long been attributed to gene expression divergence between us and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees. Theory suggests that changes to cis -regulatory elements such as promoters and enhancers may drive evolutionary adaptation, and DNA methylation is a key factor in transcriptional cis -regulation. However, we still lack an understanding of 1) how species-specific methylation patterns arise; 2) their downstream effects; and 3) whether they are a common target of natural selection. In this study, we investigated these three questions. By combining a novel hypothesis testing framework with DNA methylation data from six human and chimpanzee cell types, as well as fused interspecies hybrid cells, we disentangled cis - vs. trans -acting methylation divergence across the genome. Across cell types, we found that methylation divergence is primarily driven in cis , which can be linked in some cases to nearby sequence variants such as CpG gains and losses. Although less common, regions with trans -acting methylation divergence were enriched for specific transcription factor (TF) binding motifs, suggesting a role of TFs such as FOXM1 in these differences. Having established these causes of methylation divergence, we then examined the functional consequences of differential methylation. Although methylation lacks a consistent relationship with transcription, we observed that associations between methylation and gene expression are stronger for genes with cis -regulatory divergence. Moreover, we identified lineage-specific selection shaping promoter methylation at the level of entire pathways including those affecting human-specific traits such as speech, cognition, and susceptibility to infection with hepatitis C. Collectively, our findings provide a mechanistic framework suggesting that DNA methylation may occupy a key position, mediating the effects of both cis - and trans -acting factors on transcriptional networks, including those contributing to human-specific traits.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This study presents an important examination of the role of cis-acting versus trans-acting genetic variation on DNA methylation divergence between humans and chimpanzees, including its consequences for gene expression. By differentiating fused interspecies tetraploid cell lines into multiple cell types, the study provides compelling evidence for the importance of cis-acting changes, but incomplete evidence that these changes are of importance for adaptive trait evolution in humans. This work will be of interest to biologists and evolutionary anthropologists studying the evolution and genetics of gene regulation, particularly in primates.

  2. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Ma et al. use human-chimpanzee tetraploid cells across different cell types to identify the genetic causes and then transcriptomic consequences of divergence in DNA methylation. They conclude that the evolution of DNA methylation is driven primarily by cis-regulatory changes, and that the evolution of CpG sites contributes to cis-regulation, while transcription factor expression underlies some trans changes. They then argue that divergence in DNA methylation is associated with changes in gene expression and may contribute to human phenotypes.

    The tetraploid model is able to provide compelling evidence that most regulatory evolution occurs due to cis-regulatory changes. My only concern is that the extent of trans-changes may be overstated, as almost all are eliminated by changing from a nominal p-value criterion to even a 25% false discovery rate. The follow-up analyses are incomplete with major gaps. The authors focus on single potential mechanisms for cis- and trans-changes, but it is not clear to what degree these mechanisms explain the extent of cis and trans changes. There are also other mechanisms which are not investigated, such as the importance of TF binding sites for cis-regulatory evolution. While likely beyond the scope of this work, communicating these areas for future work would have helped define the niche for this manuscript.

    Next, the authors seek to show that differences in DNA methylation are functionally relevant. Consistent with previous results, they show that differences in DNA methylation are (weakly) associated with changes in gene expression. They hypothesize that genes with concordant regulatory elements should exhibit greater methylation-expression coupling than other genes and show that cis-expression/cis-methylation pairs are more strongly correlated than trans/trans pairs. However, I worry that this result could be confounded by larger effect sizes for cis-changes than trans effects. I also think that looking at cis/trans or trans/cis changes would have been useful to directly test the driving hypothesis. Another limitation is that this analysis is limited to promoter regions. It is not clear how many divergent DMRs are included and how many of those genes have differences in expression. The key question is whether differences in DNA methylation are functionally important, and the answer provided by these analyses is "sometimes".

    Finally, the authors make a case for lineage-specific selection on DNA methylation that is connected to human traits. This evidence was not convincing. In fact, it is even said that these tests cannot be interpreted as evidence of lineage-specific selection (lines 399-401), so I am confused why these results are framed as testing for selection. The evidence better supports an argument connecting DNA methylation to human phenotypes.

    In conclusion, I think this study provides a valuable resource for differences in DNA methylation between humans and chimpanzees across tissues, and provides important insight into the relative abundance of cis and trans regulatory evolution. Additional research is necessary to investigate the underlying regulatory mechanisms, and more care needs to be taken in exploring the functional consequences.

  3. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    This manuscript investigates the causes and consequences of human-specific DNA methylation divergence relative to chimpanzees. The main aim of this study is to disentangle cis- and trans-regulatory contributions to DNA methylation differences, which the authors address using an innovative interspecies hybrid cell system differentiated into multiple cell types. This design allows them to control for trans-acting environments and directly compare allelic regulation.

    The authors show that cis-regulatory mechanisms dominate DNA methylation divergence and that methylation-expression coupling is strongest when both are cis-regulated. They further explore potential mechanisms underlying these patterns, including CpG-disrupting mutations and transcription factor-associated trans effects, and identify pathways that may reflect lineage-specific regulatory evolution.

    This study provides a valuable dataset and a compelling framework for understanding how local sequence variation contributes to epigenetic and transcriptional divergence, with likely broad impact in comparative and evolutionary genomics.

    Strengths:

    A major strength of this study is the use of human-chimpanzee hybrid cells, which provides a powerful system to disentangle cis- and trans-regulatory effects in a shared cellular environment. This experimental design allows for a more definitive assessment of regulatory mechanisms than traditional cross-species comparisons.

    The study also benefits from the inclusion of multiple differentiated cell types, increasing the robustness and generality of the conclusions. The consistent observation that cis-regulatory mechanisms dominate methylation divergence across these contexts is well supported by both CpG-level and DMR-level analyses.

    Another important contribution is the finding that methylation-expression coupling is strongest when both are cis-regulated. This provides a mechanistic explanation for previously observed weak global correlations between methylation and gene expression. Given that the nature of regulatory evolution is likely highly heterogeneous, this study adds valuable insights and guidelines for future investigations. I recommend that the authors provide a list of cis-cis-regulated promoters and their associated genes, which would be a valuable resource for the field.

    The application of the two-step sign test identifies biologically relevant pathways, suggesting links between epigenetic divergence and human-specific traits.

    The dataset itself, namely, comprehensive DNA methylation and gene expression across multiple cell types in shared cellular contexts, as well as a primary cell type, is a valuable resource for the field. Additionally, the application of the two-step sign test identifies biologically relevant pathways, suggesting links between epigenetic divergence and human-specific traits.

    Weaknesses:

    Although the authors identify transcription factors associated with differential methylation, it is unclear what proportion of differentially methylated CpGs or DMRs can be attributed to these factors. Providing a quantitative estimate would help assess the relative contribution of trans-acting regulation.

    The analysis of CpG-disrupting mutations is interesting but raises two concerns. First, other classes of variants-such as transcription factor binding site-disrupting mutations-could also influence local methylation patterns and are not considered here. Second, the causal direction remains ambiguous: CpG-disrupting mutations may result from methylation-associated mutational processes (e.g., C→T transitions at methylated CpGs) rather than being the primary drivers of methylation divergence. While additional analyses may not be necessary, explicitly acknowledging these alternative explanations would strengthen the interpretation.

    Regarding the discussion comparing the distance between CpG-disrupting SNVs and trans-DMRs, without information on the absolute or relative distance distributions, it was difficult to assess the magnitude of the observed differences. Moreover, trans-DMRs, by definition, are not driven by local (cis) variation, and the lack of proximity to CpG-disrupting SNVs is expected. Clarifying what additional insight this analysis provides beyond this expectation may improve this section.

    One potential extension would be to examine whether the same cis-acting SNVs are consistently associated with methylation differences across multiple cell types. If these variants are mechanistically causal, one might expect their effects to be reproducible across contexts, or at least more frequent than expected by chance. Such an analysis could further support the proposed link between sequence variation and methylation divergence.

    Regarding their two-step sign test analysis, because enrichment-based approaches can sometimes overemphasize statistical significance without reflecting effect size, I wonder if incorporating the magnitude of methylation change would provide additional information or strengthen these findings. While the authors highlight some cases, such as TUBB2 and GRIK, a more general overview and/or integration of effect size into the analysis or discussion would improve interpretability.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    Summary:

    Ma et al. use human-chimpanzee tetraploid cells to examine species differences in DNA methylation. They identify differentially methylated regions under cis or trans regulation. Cis-DMRs are enriched near SNVs that disrupt or create CpGs, providing a plausible mechanism for cis changes in methylation. They also seek to identify transcription factors that might affect methylation in trans, as well as gene sets with evidence for consistent changes in methylation and expression between humans and chimpanzees.

    Strengths:

    The authors have generated a new dataset across multiple cell types, examining differences in DNA methylation between humans and chimpanzees using human diploid cells, chimpanzee diploid cells, and human-chimpanzee tetraploid cells. Using this dataset, they identify that cis-DMRs are enriched near SNVs that disrupt or create CpGs compared to trans-DMRs, and identify transcription factors as candidate trans-acting factors. Both identified SNVs and transcription factors are good candidates for future experimentation. Further, they find that cis-DMRs are more highly correlated with cis-expressed genes than trans-DMRs with trans-expressed genes, providing evidence that methylation and expression are linked genome-wide.

    Weaknesses:

    The authors could greatly improve the manuscript by focusing on two issues.

    (1) Strengthening their cis/trans analysis, including:
    a) only showing or analyzing genomic regions that pass FDR correction;
    b) clarifying how cis genes are defined (Figure 2B shows some genes labeled as cis where the direction-of-effect differs between hybrid and parent cells);
    c) assessing how well powered they are to perform each analysis.

    (2) Softening claims about human evolution or human specificity for several reasons:
    a) Their comparison lacks tetraploid controls (e.g. human-human tetraploids and chimp-chimp tetraploids) or experimental follow-up in diploid cells, making it hard to be certain that observed effects are not due to ploidy.
    b) There are no outgroup species included in the analysis.
    c) The use of no or very loose FDR corrections with the sign test makes it difficult to draw conclusions.
    d) Experimental data to link SNVs to changes in cis methylation or identified transcription factors to changes in trans methylation would be needed to validate the authors' predictions.

  5. Version published to 10.64898/2026.01.20.700710 on bioRxiv