DNA methylation is a major epigenetic modification of the genome that regulates crucial aspects of its function. Genomic methylation patterns in somatic differentiated cells are generally stable and heritable. However, in mammals there are at least two developmental periods-in germ cells and in preimplantation embryos-in which methylation patterns are reprogrammed genome wide, generating cells with a broad developmental potential. Epigenetic reprogramming in germ cells is critical for imprinting; reprogramming in early embryos also affects imprinting. Reprogramming is likely to have a crucial role in establishing nuclear totipotency in normal development and in cloned animals, and in the erasure of acquired epigenetic information. A role of reprogramming in stem cell differentiation is also envisaged. DNA methylation is one of the best-studied epigenetic modifications of DNA in all unicellular and multicellular organisms. In mammals and other vertebrates, methylation occurs predominantly at the symmetrical dinucleotide CpG (1-4). Symmetrical methylation and the discovery of a DNA methyltransferase that prefers a hemimethylated substrate, Dnmt1 (4), suggested a mechanism by which specific patterns of methylation in the genome could be maintained. Patterns imposed on the genome at defined developmental time points in precursor cells could be maintained by Dnmt1, and would lead to predetermined programs of gene expression during development in descendants of the precursor cells (5, 6). This provided a means to explain how patterns of differentiation could be maintained by populations of cells. In addition, specific demethylation events in differentiated tissues could then lead to further changes in gene expression as needed. Neat and convincing as this model is, it is still largely unsubstantiated. While effects of methylation on expression of specific genes, particularly imprinted ones (7) and some retrotransposons (8), have been demonstrated in vivo, it is still unclear whether or not methylation is involved in the control of gene expression during normal development (9-13). Although enzymes have been identified that can methylate DNA de novo (Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b) (14), it is unknown how specific patterns of methylation are established in the genome. Mechanisms for active demethylation have been suggested, but no enzymes have been identified that carry out this function in vivo (15-17). Genomewide alterations in methylation-brought about, for example, by knockouts of the methylase genes-result in embryo lethality or developmental defects, but the basis for abnormal development still remains to be discovered (7, 14). What is clear, however, is that in mammals there are developmental periods of genomewide reprogramming of methylation patterns in vivo. Typically, a substantial part of the genome is demethylated, and after some time remethylated, in a cell- or tissue-specific pattern. The developmental dynamics of these reprogramming events, as well as some of the enzymatic mechanisms involved and the biological purpose...

Large-scale chromosome structure and spatial nuclear arrangement have been linked to control of gene expression and DNA replication and repair. Genomic techniques based on chromosome conformation capture assess contacts for millions of loci simultaneously, but do so by averaging chromosome conformations from millions of nuclei. Here we introduce single cell Hi-C, combined with genome-wide statistical analysis and structural modeling of single copy X chromosomes, to show that individual chromosomes maintain domain organisation at the megabase scale, but show variable cell-to-cell chromosome territory structures at larger scales. Despite this structural stochasticity, localisation of active gene domains to boundaries of territories is a hallmark of chromosomal conformation. Single cell Hi-C data bridge current gaps between genomics and microscopy studies of chromosomes, demonstrating how modular organisation underlies dynamic chromosome structure, and how this structure is probabilistically linked with genome activity patterns.Chromosome conformation capture 1 (3C) and derivative methods (4C, 5C and Hi-C) [2][3][4][5][6] have enabled the detection of chromosome organisation in the 3D space of the nucleus. These methods assess millions of cells and are increasingly used to calculate conformations of a range of genomic regions, from individual loci to whole genomes 3,[7][8][9][10][11] . However, fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analyses show that genotypically and phenotypically identical cells have non-random, but highly variable genome and chromosome conformations 4,12,13 probably due to the dynamic and stochastic nature of chromosomal structures [14][15][16] . Therefore, whilst 3C-based analyses can be used to estimateCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to PF (peter.fraser@babraham.ac.uk) for the single cell Hi-C method, AT (amos.tanay@weizmann.ac.il) for the statistical analysis, or EDL (e.d.laue@bioc.cam.ac.uk) for the structural modelling.. Author Contributions TN and PF devised the single cell Hi-C method. TN performed single cell Hi-C and DNA FISH experiments. SS carried out ensemble Hi-C experiments. WD microscopically isolated single cells. YL, EY and AT processed and statistically analyzed the sequence data. TJS and EDL developed the approach to structural modelling and analysed X chromosome structures. TJS wrote the software for 3D modeling, analysis and visualisation of chromosome structures. TN, YL, TJS, EDL, AT and PF contributed to writing the manuscript, with inputs from all other authors.Data deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (Nagano et al., 2013) and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE48262 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE48262).The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests. an average conformation, it cannot be assumed to represent one simple and recurrent chromosomal structure. To move from probabilistic chromosome conformations averaged from millions of cells towards determinati...

SummaryGenome-wide DNA methylation reprogramming occurs in mouse primordial germ cells (PGCs) and preimplantation embryos, but the precise dynamics and biological outcomes are largely unknown. We have carried out whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (BS-Seq) and RNA-Seq across key stages from E6.5 epiblast to E16.5 PGCs. Global loss of methylation takes place during PGC expansion and migration with evidence for passive demethylation, but sequences that carry long-term epigenetic memory (imprints, CpG islands on the X chromosome, germline-specific genes) only become demethylated upon entry of PGCs into the gonads. The transcriptional profile of PGCs is tightly controlled despite global hypomethylation, with transient expression of the pluripotency network, suggesting that reprogramming and pluripotency are inextricably linked. Our results provide a framework for the understanding of the epigenetic ground state of pluripotency in the germline.

Dynamic epigenetic modification of the genome occurs during early development of the mouse. Active demethylation of the paternal genome occurs in the zygote, followed by passive demethylation during cleavage stages, and de novo methylation, which is thought to happen after implantation. We have investigated these processes by using indirect immunofluorescence with an antibody to 5-methyl cytosine. In contrast to previous work, we show that demethylation of the male pronucleus is completed within 4 h of fertilisation. This activity is intricately linked with and not separable from pronucleus formation. In conditions permissive for polyspermy, up to five male pronuclei underwent demethylation in the same oocyte. Paternal demethylation in fertilised oocytes deficient for MBD2, the only candidate demethylase, occurred normally. Passive loss of methylation occurred in a stepwise fashion up to the morulae stage without any evidence of spatial compartmentalisation. De novo methylation was observed specifically in the inner cell mass (ICM) but not in the trophectoderm of the blastocyst and hence may have an important role in early lineage specification. This is the first complete and detailed analysis of the epigenetic reprogramming cycle during preimplantation development. The three phases of methylation reprogramming may have roles in imprinting, the control of gene expression, and the establishment of nuclear totipotency.

Epigenetic marking systems confer stability of gene expression during mammalian development. Genome-wide epigenetic reprogramming occurs at stages when developmental potency of cells changes. At fertilization, the paternal genome exchanges protamines for histones, undergoes DNA demethylation, and acquires histone modifications, whereas the maternal genome appears epigenetically more static. During preimplantation development, there is passive DNA demethylation and further reorganization of histone modifications. In blastocysts, embryonic and extraembryonic lineages first show different epigenetic marks. This epigenetic reprogramming is likely to be needed for totipotency, correct initiation of embryonic gene expression, and early lineage development in the embryo. Comparative work demonstrates reprogramming in all mammalian species analysed, but the extent and timing varies, consistent with notable differences between species during preimplantation development. Parental imprinting marks originate in sperm and oocytes and are generally protected from this genome-wide reprogramming. Early primordial germ cells possess imprinting marks similar to those of somatic cells. However, rapid DNA demethylation after midgestation erases these parental imprints, in preparation for sex-specific de novo methylation during gametogenesis. Aberrant reprogramming of somatic epigenetic marks after somatic cell nuclear transfer leads to epigenetic defects in cloned embryos and stem cells. Links between epigenetic marking systems appear to be developmentally regulated contributing to plasticity. A number of activities that confer epigenetic marks are firmly established, while for those that remove marks, particularly methylation, some interesting candidates have emerged recently which need thorough testing in vivo. A mechanistic understanding of reprogramming will be crucial for medical applications of stem cell technology.