Mapping Human Pluripotent-to-Cardiomyocyte Differentiation: Methylomes, Transcriptomes, and Exon DNA Methylation “Memories”

Abstract

The directed differentiation of human cardiomyocytes (CMs) from pluripotent cells provides an invaluable model for understanding mechanisms of cell fate determination and offers considerable promise in cardiac regenerative medicine. Here, we utilize a human embryonic stem cell suspension bank, produced according to a good manufacturing practice, to generate CMs using a fully defined and small molecule-based differentiation strategy. Primitive and cardiac mesoderm purification was used to remove non-committing and multi-lineage populations and this significantly aided the identification of key transcription factors, lncRNAs, and essential signaling pathways that define cardiomyogenesis. Global methylation profiles reflect CM development and we report on CM exon DNA methylation “memories” persisting beyond transcription repression and marking the expression history of numerous developmentally regulated genes, especially transcription factors.

Highlights

• •Pluripotent-derived-cardiomyocytes from scalable and defined cultures were used for transcriptome and methylome studies.
• •Mesoderm cell purification was conducted with ROR2 and PDGFRα surface markers removing heterogeneous cell contaminants.
• •Residual differentiation induced exon DNA methylation constitutes a developmental “memory” of transcription

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) represent a theoretically unlimited cell replacement source in cardiac regenerative medicine. In this report, Tompkins et al. describe the derivation, differentiation stage-specific purification, and genome-wide analysis of cardiomyocytes derived from hESCs. Key features of the molecular programs that define human cardiac muscle cell differentiation are characterized and researchers observed that cells may harbor epigenetic DNA methylation “memories” that reflect the gene activation history of important developmental genes.

1. Introduction

As a model system of human cardiomyogenesis and for cardiac cell replacement-based regenerative medicine, pluripotent-to-cardiomocyte differentiation strategies have recently undergone rapid advancement. In parallel, strategies for isolating mesoderm cells, a prerequisite lineage for cardiomyocytes (CMs), have also been under development. Such controlled cell fate specification, coupled with differentiation stage-specific cell isolation, provides not only an opportunity to describe molecular programs of cardiomyogenesis, but also an essential tool for investigating fundamental epigenetic mechanisms.

Pathological cardiac remodeling, often following myocardial infarction (MI), is marked by extensive CM hypertrophy and death. As a potentially unlimited cell replacement source, pluripotent-derived-CMs have been shown to electrically couple with host CMs, promote paracrine mediated cell survival, and aid widespread cardiac remuscularization post-MI in non-human primate models (Chong et al., 2014, Carpenter et al., 2012). hESC-derived-CMs were first isolated from regions of spontaneous contraction in embryoid bodies (Kehat et al., 2001), and CM differentiation has since been gradually improved via manipulation of key developmental pathways including: TGF-β, WNT, hedgehog (HH), FGF, and Notch signaling, among others (Freire et al., 2014, Lian et al., 2013). For clinical adoption, fully defined, serum and growth-factor-free differentiation strategies have evolved to include small molecule mimics of WNT signal modulators with yields of up to 98% pure CMs (Lian et al., 2013). Primitive mesoderm (PMESO) has been isolated using the cell surface marker ROR2 (Drukker et al., 2012) and cardiac mesoderm (CMESO) is known to express PDGFRα (Mummery et al., 2012). However, most candidate markers are, to variable extents, expressed on alternative cell types, and distinct lineages can require multiple surface markers for isolation (Evseenko et al., 2010). To date, no studies have globally assessed pluripotent-to-CM commitment using purified mesoderm cells.

It is widely understood that localized and genome-spanning networks of hierarchical epigenetic features dictate nucleosome positioning, chromatin architecture, and ultimately the interpretation of the genetic code. Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation and ncRNAs as related to cardiac development and disease, have been recently reviewed by Tompkins and Riggs (2015). DNA methylation, or more specifically 5-methylcytosine (5mc) typically in CpG sequences, is essential for normal development, and plays major roles in X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), imprinting, transposable element suppression, and tissue-specific gene expression (Smith and Meissner, 2013). Three enzymes are known to form 5mC, of which DNMT1 is generally considered the maintenance methyltransferase responsible for maintaining DNA methylation patterns through replication. DNMT3A and 3B, on the other hand, exhibit strong de novo activity (Goll and Bestor, 2005). Three enzymes, TET1, 2, and 3, are now known to actively demethylate DNA via oxidation of 5mC to 5-hydroxymethylC, which can be removed by base excision repair enzymes, such as TDG glycosylase (Kohli and Zhang, 2013). It has become clear that global DNA methylation patterns are, for the most part, stably maintained. However, methylation patterns can be dynamically altered during differentiation and presumably involve de novo methylation, active demethylation, and restriction of maintenance methylation activities.

The inverse relationship between promoter methylation and gene expression has been long known, extensively documented (reviewed by Smith and Meissner, 2013), and recently noted in hESC-derived-CMs at cardiac structural genes (Gu et al., 2014). In contrast, positive correlations exist between gene body methylation and expression, with models favoring transcription coupled DNA methylation and involving DNMT3B (Jjingo et al., 2012, Baubec et al., 2015). Considerable work remains, however, to comprehensibly understand functional roles for DNA methylation, especially outside of promoter contexts. Here, we use a state-of-the art, fully defined and scalable, good manufacturing practice (GMP)-compliant CM differentiation strategy and purify PMESO and CMESO cells to improve our understanding of global DNA methylation patterns over multiple stages of CM differentiation. We address lncRNA, gene expression, and transcription factors (TFs) that define human cardiomyogenesis, providing important genome-wide data sets. Lastly, we observed transcription and differentiation associated exon methylation to be enriched specifically at developmental TFs and to persist beyond gene silencing as a transcriptional “memory” of cellular differentiation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. hESC Cultures Through CM Differentiation

From an H7 hESC GMP suspension bank, CMs were derived under fully defined, GMP compliant conditions (City of Hope, Center for Biomedicine and Genetics) (Chen et al., 2012) (Fig. 1a) with adaptations from Lian et al. (2013).

Fig. 1.

CM differentiation, sample preparation, and validation. a) Experimental strategy with 4 target populations marked red. Briefly, suspension hESCs were adhered to Synthemax II plates and CM differentiation induced by CHIR99021 and IWP4. CMs were Percoll density purified and PMESO and CMESO by FACS. b) Pilot time course of known developmental markers. Left to right: pluripotent, mesoderm, cardiac progenitor, and CM marker expression. c) Differential expression of PMESO and CMESO compared to D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−), respectively. Black bars = upregulated; gray = downregulated. Top 10 ontology terms are displayed (BP term, EASE p-value).

2.2. Flow Cytometry, Cell Sorting

~ 2–2.5E5 accutase dissociated cells were washed with PBS 0.5% BSA, resuspended in 10 μl of antibody solution (30 min at 4 °C), washed again in PBS with 0.5% BSA (3 ×) and subjected to flow cytometry. Cell counts were conducted on a BD Accuri C6 Flow Cytometer (Cflow Plus). PMESO and CMESO sorts were performed on a BD FACS ARIA II Cell Sorter (FACS Diva V6.1.3).

See supplemental experimental procedures for additional details on CM differentiation, antibodies used, immunofluorescence, methyl binding domain (MBD) reactions, MBD-seq and RNA-seq library preparation, data processing, and validation.

3. Results

3.1. Differentiation of hESCs into PMESO, CMESO, and CMs

To globally describe in vitro human cardiomyogenesis, we prepared highly pure populations of hESCs, primitive mesoderm (PMESO), cardiac mesoderm (CMESO), and CMs. Importantly, a scalable GMP suspension bank of hESCs was coupled with fully defined, small molecule, GMP compliant differentiation (Fig. 1a). By flow cytometry, > 98% of banked hESCs were positive for pluripotency markers SSEA-4, Tra-1-60, and POU5F1, whereas, < 2% presented SSEA-1, ROR2, and PDGFRα differentiation markers (Fig. S1a and b). A pilot 31 day RNA-seq time course demonstrated progressive downregulation of pluripotency and rapid early upregulation of mesoderm genes from day 1 (D1) to D4, and subsequent delayed expression of cardiac progenitor (CP) and finally CM markers (Fig. 1b). Candidate mesoderm markers ROR2 and PDGFRα peaked from D2 to D4 and D4 to D6, respectively. Based on these expression patterns, we selected D3 and D4 for isolation of PMESO and CMESO, respectively (Fig. S1e). Duplicate hESC, PMESO, CMESO, and Percoll density purified CM samples (D31) were subsequently prepared as well as D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−) cells. CM cell fate was confirmed by synchronized beating activity, > 94% cTnT content by FACS (Fig. S1c), immunofluorescence for cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and myosin heavy chain 7 (MYH7) (Fig. S1d), and hierarchical clustering of RNA-seq data with published adult cardiac tissue data (Fig. S1g; (Lindskog et al., 2015). A double-positive ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(+) sort was used to purify maturing mesoderm (D4, CMESO) and validated with PMESO (D3) for target population enrichment (Figs. 1c and S1f).

RNA-seq results demonstrated PMESO cells to be clearly enriched for early mesoderm and mesendoderm markers and CMESO cells for CMESO and CP markers (Figs. 1c and S1f). By hierarchical clustering of all RNA-seq samples, both PMESO and CMESO sub-clustered together (Fig. S5a), and displayed significantly lower residual pluripotent gene expression, minimal trophoblast and ectoderm gene expression, and increased epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) expression (ie: loss of CHD1, increased TWIST, SNAI2, FN1) (Kovacic et al., 2012). By CMESO stage, some CM genes were already upregulated (Fig. S1f). Relative to D3 ROR2(−) cells, PMESO exhibited 1163 differentially expressed genes (3 × fold change, p-value < 0.05). By gene ontology (GO) analysis, upregulated transcripts were clearly enriched for heart and skeletal system development (mesoderm derivatives; Fig. 1c). PMESO terms also included: pattern specification process (p = 7.53E − 15), gastrulation (p = 2.0E − 09), and mesoderm development (p = 1.3E − 05) (Table S1). Upregulated CMESO genes, relative to D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−), were predominately enriched for cardiac development terms (1248 differentially expressed genes), showing clear transition towards CM cell fate. D3 ROR2(−) cells, in distinct contrast, were enriched for neuron development (p = 1.3E − 7; Fig. 1c), and at D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−) cells displayed enrichment for multiple developmental pathways including: endocrine system development (p = 4.6E − 05), neuron differentiation (p = 8.5E − 05), and epithelial cell differentiation (p = 1.4E − 04), among others. Taken together, FACS-based purification of PMESO and CMESO populations removes otherwise contaminant transcriptional, and by extension, epigenetic signatures from heterogeneous multi-lineage and non-committing cells.

3.2. Dynamic Gene-coding Transcriptional Programs During Stage-specific CM Differentiation

To investigate temporal patterns of gene expression over our 4 point time-series (hESCs, PMESO, CMESO, CM), we used Grid Analysis of Time-Series Expression (GATE) (MacArthur et al., 2010). GATE dynamically colors time-series data according to transcript level, grouping genes with common expression patterns across a 2-dimensional array. A “snap shot” of PMESO and CM stages of all differentially expressed genes (2917) is displayed in Fig. 2a. By selecting stage-specific up or downregulated transcripts, it becomes evident that CM differentiation is marked by progressive upregulation of heart development genes and concomitant downregulation of mitotic and organelle fission genes. Pathway specific regulation of the cell cycle is highlighted in Fig. S2m. Genes enriched for glycolysis (Table S2; BP: glycolysis) were suppressed during mesoderm stages, but were generally increased within CMs which demonstrated massive upregulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation genes (Fig. 2a; Table S2; Fig. S2n–p). Collectively, these observations are well in line with differentiation associated CM cell cycle exit (Sdek et al., 2011), mitochondrial fission gene downregulation, and switches to predominately mitochondrial oxidative metabolism from anaerobic glycolysis (Chung et al., 2007). Besides obvious CM stage pathway upregulation (e.g., cardiac muscle contraction, p = 2.52E − 5), cellular component GO demonstrates cardiac structural gene upregulation. Contractile fiber, myofibril, I band, Z disk, A band, and sarcomere were among the most highly enriched terms at each differentiation stage (Table S2). Lastly, we identified 289 alternatively spliced genes between CMs and earlier time points. Significant overlap was observed with published results of alternative splicing in human cardiac precursors (Fig. S3i; (Salomonis et al., 2009)) and transcripts were enriched for functions in muscle tissue development and contraction. Gene lists and GO results are provided in Table S2 and alternative splicing at TPM1 is shown in Fig. S3h.

Fig. 2.

Differential expression during hESC-to-CM commitment. a) “Snap shot” of PMESO and CM stages by GATE visualization and top 5 ontology terms for up- and downregulated genes (BP term, EASE p-value). Hexagons are individual genes clustered by temporal differentiation expression patterns. Red hexagons = upregulated; green = downregulated. b–d) Expression hierarchical clustering of Wnt (b), TGF-β (c), and HH (d) pathway genes. Most individual sub-clusters were clearly defined by stage-specific expression (i.e., early, late) and individual genes were colored based on enrichment in PMESO and/or CMESO stages relative to alternative lineage cells. At PMESO and/or CMESO, red genes = enrichment; green genes = suppression; no color = no or unclear enrichment. Scale = row z-score. e–f) Expression distribution of predicted MEF2a (e) and PHC1 (f) targets during CM differentiation. Center lines = medians; box limits = 25th and 75th percentiles with whiskers extended 1.5 × the interquartile range from those percentiles (R software); outliers = open circles. (*p < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U-test). Blue dashed lines = MEF2a (E) and PHC1 (F) expression.

3.3. Transcription Factor and miRNA Regulation of Coding Gene Expression

Wnt, TGF-β, and hedgehog (HH) pathways were significantly enriched among all differentially expressed transcripts over the 4 point time series and in PMESO and CMESO samples relative to alternative lineage cells (e.g., D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−); Table S1, Table S2). These critical developmental pathways are intimately connected (Fig. S2a–c) (Freire et al., 2014) and several distinct subclasses were uniquely enriched at each differentiation stage (Figs. 2b–d; S2L).

Differential gene expression was also investigated with GATEs integrated databases of transcription factor (TF) interactions by predicted protein binding (TFs_predicted_binding_sites.gmt), by prior chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) studies (TFs_chip_interactions.gmt), and for miRNA regulation (predicted_microRNAs.gmt). The highest ranked predicted TF was myocyte-specific enhancer factor 2 A (MEF2a) (V$RSRFC4_01; p < 0.0001). MEF2a is preferentially expressed at PMESO and CMESO stages, highly upregulated in CMs (Figs. 2e, S1f, S2d), and positively correlated with predicted target gene expression. In contrast, polycomb complex (PRC) 1 member, polyhomeotic homolog I (PHCI), was preferentially silenced over CM commitment and inversely correlated with target gene expression (Figs. 2f and S2e). The ~ 13 fold reduction in PMESO, relative to hESCs and D3 ROR2(−) cells (Fig. S1f), is consistent with a developmental repressive PHC1 function. Both MEF2a and PHC1 targets are involved in CM development and contraction functions; the highest ranked GO term for MEF2a and PHC1 were striated muscle tissue development (p = 1.27E − 5) and heart development (p = 3.3E − 15), respectively (Fig. S2d and e; Table S3). For potential miRNA regulation, much like repressive PHC1, miR-302/367 silencing-marked differentiation, was enriched in alternative lineage cells, and was inversely correlated with strong target gene induction (Fig. S2h–k).

3.4. lncRNA Associations with Coding Gene Transcription

lncRNAs, defined as non-coding transcripts > 200 bp in length, have previously been reported to be expressed at lower levels than coding genes (Cabili et al., 2011, Chakraborty et al., 2014). If we consider > 1 FPKM as an expressed transcript, it is clear that relative to the wide expression range of coding genes, most lncRNA expression falls within a narrow range (> 1 and < 10 FPKM) with subtle range widening by CM stage (Figs. 3a and S5h). In general, hESC-to-CM differentiation was marked by increasing densities of expressed coding genes and to a lesser extent lncRNAs, and decreasing proportions of silent coding genes (FPKM < 1). lncRNAs paired in cis with the nearest coding gene were hierarchically clustered, and a number of sub-clusters emerged with clear stage-specific enrichment or exclusion (Fig. 3b). For each sub-cluster, a positive correlation exists between lncRNAs and cis paired coding gene expression (Fig. 3c). For these lncRNA associated genes, the highest ranked GO term was cell fate determination (p = 0.004) and ~ 15% of lnc-associated genes were classified under regulation of transcription, DNA dependent (53/370; p = 0.004). In line with the high tissue specificity of lncRNAs (Cabili et al., 2011), numerous cis-associated developmental TFs were identified, including MEIS1 and 2 (Fig. 3d), TBX2 (Fig. 5G), GATA3 (Fig. 6c), and BMP4 (Table S4). Differentiation-induced lncRNA-coding gene pairs are also involved in cell adhesion (e.g., CDH1, CDH11, COL4A6) and cell cycle functions (e.g., CDC16, CDK10, CCND1), and overall, results suggest stage-specific lncRNA expression to be functionally correlated with coding genes regulating key aspects of CM differentiation.

Fig. 3.

lncRNA expression and CM differentiation. a) The frequency of FPKM values (density profile) for coding and lncRNA gene expression was plotted for each differentiation stage (expanded in Fig. S5h). b) Hierarchical clustering of lncRNAs by expression. Scale = row z-score. c) Stage-specific lncRNA sub-clusters were correlated with nearest cis matched coding gene expression. Box plots display paired coding gene expression (Fig. 2f for box plot description). d) Positive association of lncRNA (MEIS1-AS3) and higher level MEIS1 expression.

Fig. 5.

Differential DNA methylation and CM commitment. a) All CM promoter DMRs by hyper- or hypomethylation and b) those corresponding to selected enriched ontology terms (Table S6) were assessed for gene expression over CM differentiation. For all box plots in this figure, see Fig. 2f for methods. The color legend in panel a applies to all box plots. c) CM promoter hypomethylation at cardiac structural genes. Light green = promoter. MYH6 is one of the most highly expressed CM genes and hypomethylation extends into the first several exons. Light blue = bisulfite sequencing validation region. Rows of circles represent consecutive CpG sites of individual sequences. Black circles = methylated. Additional validation at TBX2 is shown in panel g. d–f) Expression distribution of genes with multiple types of CM gene body DMRs. Annotated 5′ and 3′ UTR exon DMRs were combined with coding DNA sequence exon DMRs for ontology and gene expression correlations. d) All CM exon or intron DMRs by methylation change. e and f). Dual promoter-exon methylation gains compared to those with CM exon gains, but lacking promoter hypermethylation DMRs for all genes and f) for CM exon methylated genes enriched for embryonic morphogenesis (Table S6). g) TBX1 (restrictive promoter methylation gain) and TBX2 (permissive methylation loss) exhibit differentiation associated intragenic hypermethylation. H) Validation of RNA-seq data at MYH6 and TBX2 genes, which undergo differential methylation. Both qRT-PCR and RNA-seq data are normalized to internal control TPTI and expressed as log2 fold change relative to PMESO time point. For these genes, there was no detectable amplification of transcripts from hESCs. qRT-PCR data for all RNA-seq samples is provided in Fig. S5c and d.

Fig. 6.

Exon methylation as a transcriptional “trace.” a) 46 high stringency CM exon methylated genes were clustered by expression. 2/48 candidate genes had FPKM values < 1 at every sampled time point and were removed. b) CM exon hypermethylated DMRs functionally enriched for regulation of transcription. 7/66 were filtered out prior to clustering (1 pseudogene and 6 FPKM < 1 at all sampled time points). Hierarchical clustering by correlation with centroid linkage, gene ordering by peak time (dChIP, 2010.01; (Li, 2008)). Scale = standardized expression level. c) Examples of exon methylation as a “memory” of developmental transcription history. GATA3, FOXF2, SHH, SP6, and GATA2 are repressed by CM stage, the latter 3 being promoter hypermethylated. Gray = regions of intragenic methylation gains; green = promoter regions. Blue RNA-seq data = CMESO-CM intervening time points. Red box = GATA3 associated lncRNA expression.

3.5. Global DNA Methylation Patterns and CM Differentiation

To investigate both global and region specific DNA methylation features of CM differentiation, methyl binding domain (MBD)-seq was conducted for hESCs, PMESO, CMESO, and CMs. We find that CG island (CGI) methylation progressively increases during CM differentiation, with lncRNA genes harboring elevated CGI methylation relative to coding genes (Fig. 4a). DNA methylation was mapped to a composite model of all annotated transcripts, and both lncRNA and coding genes were observed to be hypomethylated at TSS-centered promoters (Fig. 4b). For both species, promoter methylation was inversely correlated with expression, but lncRNA genes on average were significantly more methylated through promoter and intragenic regions (Figs. 4b, S4c–d). Coding and lncRNA genes transiently lost methylation upstream of the TSS and within intragenic regions at mesoderm stages, notably more so for CMESO lncRNA genes. This observation extended into mesoderm methylation losses at SINE and Alu repetitive elements. By contrast, satellite elements increased methylation throughout differentiation (Fig. 4d). Likely reflecting CM cell cycle exit (Fig. 2a), DNMT1 expression dropped significantly from CMESO-to-CM stages (Fig. 4e). DNMT3A expression approximately doubles from hESCs-to-PMESO and converges with pronounced DNMT3B downregulation. Although lower DNMT3B de novo methyltransferase activity may be responsible for transient mesoderm hypomethylation, it is striking that TDG DNA glycosylase is maximally expressed at PMESO and CMESO stages and SMUG1 glycosylase at CMESO, accompanying dynamic changes in TET gene expression (Fig. 4f). These results suggest targeted DNA demethylation to be a natural feature of mesoderm and CM differentiation.

Fig. 4.

Global methylation and CM commitment. a) Percent CGI methylation over differentiation. Methylated CGI = MBD/input ratio of greater than 1.5 across the island. b) Normalized methylation enrichment was plotted across promoter, gene body, and downstream bins representing a composite model of coding or lncRNA genes. c) Hierarchical clustering of promoter methylation and gene expression. Genes or lncRNAs differentially expressed over differentiation were clustered by expression (Exp) and matched MBD-seq values (Me) for promoter window − 5 kb to + 1 kb of the TSS. Scale = row z-score. d) Bar graph of total MBD-seq reads mapped to each repetitive element e) Expression of DNA methyltransferases and f) demethylation pathway members by differentiation stage.

3.6. Differential DNA Methylation and CM Differentiation

Differentially methylated regions (DMRs) were identified between samples (see supplemental experimental procedures), annotated and quantified by genomic location, assessed for genome and gene ontology, and correlated with gene expression. DMRs numbered the highest between CMESO-to-CM stages (11,236,27 days), yet even the single day PMESO-to-CMESO transition resulted in 5380 DMRs. Thus DNA methylation at earlier stages of differentiation is particularly dynamic. DMR-based genome ontology results overall reflect CM differentiation (e.g., CMESO-CM = cardiac muscle cell differentiation, p = 3.7E − 14; see Table S5 and Fig. S3a). Genes were quantified for DMR gains or losses within defined regions (promoters, exons, introns, etc), and consistent with global methylation trends, demonstrated a bias for PMESO-to-CMESO hypomethylation and CMESO-to-CM hypermethylation (Fig. S3b).

CM hypermethylated promoter DMRs, relative to preceding time points, were associated with decreasing or restrained gene expression and hypomethylated DMRs with increasing gene expression (Figs. 5a; S3c, OCT4, Nanog). By CM stage, the median expression of genes with promoter methylation gains was 5.04 fold lower than those with methylation loss (p < 0.05). Promoter regulation extended across functional gene groups involved in CM development, structure, and contraction (Fig. 5b). Both methylation gains (p = 0.03) and losses (p = 0.018) were enriched for heart development; whereas, the top ranked GO term was contractile fiber (hypo, p = 6.75E − 5), complementing muscle cell contraction (p = 6.52E − 3) and correlating with massive CM stage upregulation (Fig. 5b). CM hypermethylated promoters were also enriched for basolateral plasma membrane (p = 4.0E − 3), hypomethylated promoters for focal adhesion pathway (p = 6.1E − 3), and both gains and losses at cell adhesion promoters (Fig. 5b). CM Promoter DMRs therefore also reflect fundamental changes in cell architecture, including cell–cell and cell-extracellular matrix interactions that are known to occur over hESC-to-CM differentiation. CM promoter hypomethylation at cardiac muscle MYH6 and MHY7 is displayed in Fig. 5c.

Consistent with global expression results, several WNT, HH, and TGF-β genes also underwent promoter methylation changes, with the latter pathway being CM stage hypomethylated and upregulated (Fig. 5b). Differentially methylated WNT and HH genes tended to acquire promoter methylation post-transient mesoderm induction (Figs. 5b and S3d) and often harbor gene body DMRs as well (Fig. S2a–c). Methylation changes among pathway members may also interface with expected cell cycle (Table S6, CMESO hypo, M phase; p = 3.7E − 2) and apoptotic regulation with connections to Rho-Rock signaling as cells differentiate and approach terminal states (Fig. S2a–c, expanded in Fig. S3e).

3.7. Gene Body Methylation and Expression

We and others have previously observed positive correlations between intragenic DNA methylation levels and gene expression, although this strong, positive correlation only holds up to mid-level expression and actually inverts at highly expressed genes (Tompkins et al., 2012, Jjingo et al., 2012). These observations are highly consistent with transcription coupled methylation activity. It remains unclear, however, whether elevated transcription activity and dense RNAPII occupancy inhibits linked methylation deposition (Jjingo et al., 2012) and/or if targeted demethylation is requisite to maximum transcription (Veloso et al., 2014, Baubec et al., 2015). Here, both CM intragenic methylation DMR gains and losses were positively correlated with differentiation associated increases in gene expression (Fig. 5d). Yet, consistent with transcription linked DNA methylation, intragenic methylation gains tend to occur at genes expressed at low levels during preceding differentiation stages, whereas methylation losses tend to occur at genes already expressed at moderate levels at prior stages. These observations in the context of transcription associated histone modifications are revisited within the discussion. GO results also suggest genes with intragenic methylation changes have roles in CM differentiation and function including 66 TFs (regulation of transcription, p = 2.7E − 4, Table S6). Top ranked GO terms for CM exon methylation gains and losses were cell adhesion (p = 4.7E − 9) and induction of apoptosis, respectively (1.4E-2). For introns, these terms were ion transport (hypermethylation, p = 3.7E − 5) and intracellular signaling cascade (hypomethylation, 2.9E-5), respectively. Differential intragenic methylation at the focal adhesion pathway is also expanded (Fig. S3f–g).

In higher eukaryotes regulation of splicing is enigmatic, but recent evidence has implied a role for DNA methylation. Evidence suggests that splicing may be co-transcriptional and involve epigenetic interpretation, nucleosome positioning, and/or involve the recruitment of chromatin binding proteins including DNA methylation associated binding of MeCP2 (Maunakea et al., 2013, Lev Maor et al., 2015). In our study, we see clear evidence for both alternative splicing (Fig. S and Table S) and differential intragenic methylation changes over CM differentiation, and further, alternatively spliced genes are overrepresented among genes with DMRs (Fig. S3j). However, the overwhelming majority of genes with intragenic DMRs show no evidence for splicing, and exon methylation changes among alternatively spliced genes do not significantly occur (Fig. S3k). Although our results imply a connection between differential methylation and splicing, a direct methylation change to splicing event correlation was not identified.

3.8. Exon Methylation as a “Memory” of Developmental History

Similar to CM promoter methylation gains, exon hypermethylated DMRs were also enriched at embryonic morphogenesis (p = 4.3E–8) and heart development (9.9E-3) genes. As many CM exon methylated genes were observed to also have undergone promoter methylation (35.2% overall; 126/358), this presented an opportunity to investigate “dual methylation” events for correlations with gene expression (Fig. 5e). For embryonic morphogenesis genes with exon methylation gains, 11/22 also gained promoter methylation (Fig. 5f; Table S6; p = 2.1E − 3). TBX1 and TBX2 provide clear examples. Both underwent progressive and extensive differentiation associated exon methylation and yet had widely divergent promoter and gene expression activity (Fig. 5g). As such, promoter hypermethylation with resulting reduction of transcription, appears to override otherwise positive intragenic methylation correlations with gene expression (Fig. 5e–f). This interpretation however, raises an important question regarding transcription coupled DNA methylation: How can one explain exon methylation gains in the absence of transcription? With this in mind, we re-examined gene expression at 7 additional time points between hESC and PMESO and CMESO and CM stages, focusing on gene sets undergoing exon hypermethylation by CM stage (Fig. 6a and b). Genes were re-sampled with increased stringency, requiring exon DMR gains in CMs versus hESCs and PMESO or CMESO. Of the resulting 48 exon methylated candidates, most were developmental TFs and most were transcriptionally induced late in differentiation, positively correlating CM exon methylation with transcription (Fig. 6a). Given these candidates, we also interrogated the aforementioned 66 TFs from CM exon hypermethylated DMR GO results (Table S6; Fig. 6b). These methylation changes were independent of gene splicing (Fig. S3l, legend) and although a significant portion of CM exon methylated genes were downregulated or silenced by this stage (~ 1/2 of TFs), virtually all (92%; 105/114), including TBX1, were expressed at FPKM > 1 during differentiation (by comparison, 16,873/41,495 or 40.7% of all annotated genes exceeded 1 FPKM). Merely the timing of expression had fallen between CMESO and CM methylation sampled time points. This collectively indicates that 1) exon methylation is generally correlated with elevated gene transcription during CM differentiation and 2) exon methylation can persist beyond the time of gene silencing marking developmental history. Residual exon methylation “memories” were enriched specifically among developmental TFs. Examples span from expected exon-expression correlations (Fig. 5g-TBX2, Fig. 6c-TBX3, CBX4, FZD1) to those silenced by CM stage and harboring transcriptional methylation “traces” (Fig. 5c-SHH, SP6, GATA2, GATA3, FOXF2). This “exon methylation memory” was also observed among the HOX genes, in which the HOXB cluster was uniquely expressed over CM differentiation and was the only HOX cluster with significant exon methylation, including persistent methylation beyond gene silencing (Fig. S4a and b).

4. Discussion

4.1. CM Differentiation Strategies for the Clinic

Pluripotent-derived-CMs promise an unlimited source of replacement cells for cardiac regeneration. In this report, we have utilized a fully defined, xeno-free, scalable GMP suspension hESC bank, and driven differentiation by small molecule WNT signal manipulation under defined and GMP compliant conditions. Such culture strategies are a pre-requisite to realizing clinical potential (Chen et al., 2012, Tompkins et al., 2012) and were built through manipulation of established regulators of cardiac development (e.g., Wnt signaling). In this study, scalability aided FACS purification of PMESO and CMESO cells for global transcription and DNA methylation studies and has provided a rich resource of candidate transcription factors, lncRNAs, and miRNAs, that represent a next generation of targets for improving the efficiency and perhaps maturity of derived CMs. As a next step for widespread clinical use, ongoing pre-clinical work is focused on a similar, but entirely suspension-based CM differentiation protocol.

4.2. Purification of Target Cell Populations for Genome-wide Studies

Mesoderm purification is a necessary step towards more clearly understanding human cardiomyogenesis and may also prove useful in the treatment of cardiac pathologies. For the latter, other groups have observed that relatively immature CMs or progenitors improve transplant engraftment, with evidence for in vivo maturation (Carpenter et al., 2012, Fujimoto et al., 2011, Tompkins and Riggs, 2015), and therefore, transplantation of PMESO or CMESO isolates might also improve cell retention and mediate pro-survival paracrine signaling in vivo.

Two groups, Paige et al. (2012) (hESCs-to-CMs) and Wamstad et al. (2012) (mESCs-to-CMs) have profiled global histone modifications and gene expression in prior studies of CM differentiation. However, cellular heterogeneity, including final CM preparations that were ~ 25–30% cTnT(−) cells, significantly confounded epigenomic results (Parmacek and Epstein, 2013). Here, we can estimate that at minimum, 26% of D3 cells would be ROR2(−), 30% of D4 cells ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−), and 21% of D31 cells (final CM time point) cTnT(−) (Fig. S1c–e). These potential contaminants were removed and found to contain both non-committing and multi-lineage differentiating cells (Fig. 1c; Table S1). By comparison, in hESC-to-CM studies, Paige et al. specifically noted the presence of smooth muscle and endothelial cells in CM preparations with a minimum of 50% cTnT + CMs in sample preparations for genome-wide studies (Paige et al., 2012). Nonetheless, several important features of cardiomyogenesis were observed. Among key findings were the activation of Wnt, HH, and TGFβ gene families, similar to our results, as well as differentiation associated increases in transcription coupled with increased promoter H3K4me3 and TSS downstream H3K36me3. These modifications are well known to correlate with decreased promoter DNA methylation and increased intragenic DNA methylation (Baubec et al., 2015, Morselli et al., 2015, Paige et al., 2012), respectively, in agreement with results from our study.

4.3. lncRNAs and Candidates for Functional CM Manipulation

Wamstad et al. (2012) observed that lncRNA expression in mESC-derived-CMs positively correlates with cis paired coding gene expression, and we extend this here for hESC-to-CM differentiation (Fig. 3c). Aided by PMESO and CMESO purification, we find that the overwhelming majority of examined lncRNAs are enriched unambiguously by differentiation stage, in line with known high tissue-specific lncRNA expression (Fig. 3b) (Cabili et al., 2011). Unique expression within PMESO and CMESO populations suggests functional roles within CM development (e.g., linc-MEIS1-1, linc-MEIS2-2, linc-BMP4-1, etc) and this logic was also applied to identify key signaling pathway members (Fig. 2b–d), TF targets (Fig. S2d–e), and miRNAs (Fig. S2h–k). These results provide a diverse array of major candidate sets for future functional genetic and epigenetic manipulation studies of CM development and disease. Although functional lncRNA roles in murine cardiac development have been identified (Fatica and Bozzoni, 2014, Klattenhoff et al., 2013), the poor conservation between mouse and human lncRNAs (Ulitsky et al., 2011) and the dysregulation of lncRNA expression in human cardiomyopathies (Papait et al., 2013), strengthen further the importance of identifying lncRNAs specific to human cardiomyogenesis.

4.4. lncRNAs and DNA Methylation

Both lncRNA and coding genes exhibit a negative correlation between promoter methylation and gene expression and generally positive correlations between gene body methylation and expression (Figs. 4c and S4d). Interestingly, lncRNA genes exhibit higher methylation at TSS centered regions, at CGIs, and across intragenic regions (Figs. 4a–b, S4c–d). Higher TSS centered methylation relative to coding genes is consistent with the lower average expression of lncRNAs (Fig. 3a) and the well known inverse relationship between promoter methylation and transcription. With regards to intragenic methylation, lncRNAs have little overall expression range and therefore increases to gene body methylation with increasing expression percentiles, though evident, become muted relative to the wide intragenic methylation and expression range of coding genes (Figs. 3a and S4d). Recent identification and annotation strategies for describing lncRNAs have been necessarily improving, addressing complexities associated with handling diverse arrays of lncRNAs at a variety of overlapping genomic elements. In the future, our data can be revisited to identify novel lncRNAs, lncRNA subtype distributions, and functional correlations with distinct methylation events. Indeed, some lncRNAs are specifically associated with common features involving DNA methylation such as CGI, repetitive element, imprinting methylation, and MeCP2 binding (Forne et al., 1997, Chakraborty et al., 2014, Nan et al., 1997, Cabili et al., 2011) and physical associations may exist between DNMTs and lncRNAs (Wang et al., 2015).

4.5. DNA Methylation, Transcription, and Development

DNA methylation changes, both increases and decreases, occur throughout development and it is now well established that a combination of maintenance, de novo, and demethylating activities are required for proper methylation distribution both globally and specifically within promoters, enhancers, and gene bodies. Highlighting the essential role for DNA methylation in mammalian development, Dnmt1 −/− mouse embryos die shortly after gastrulation and Dnmt3b −/− or Dnmt3a −/− mice die at embryonic day 9.5 and shortly after birth, respectively (Jurkowska et al., 2011). Deletion of DNMT1 is not tolerated in hESCs (which are more epiblast like than mESCs), and Dnmt1 −/− mESCs die upon differentiation. Interestingly, in mESCs (Jurkowska et al., 2011, Takebayashi et al., 2007), and recently demonstrated in hESCs (Liao et al., 2015), neither DNMT3A nor DNMT3B are required for ESC viability, but additional passaging of Dnmt3a or Dnmt3b knockout ESCs is associated with global hypomethylation and prevents differentiation. Both de novo transferases display considerable global binding redundancy and target SINE and LINE elements (Jin et al., 2011), but Liao et al. (2015) observed that DNMT3B knockout hESCs specifically lose satellite element methylation. However we find that despite virtual DNMT3B silencing by CM stage, satellite element methylation is highest in CMs where DNMT3A expression, but not 3B, predominates (Fig. 4d–e). Although the specificity of DNA methyltransferases and demethylase enzymes is limited (e.g., CpG or 5mC), specificity for extended sequences is directed by chromatin structure and/or specific cofactors, which can include lncRNAs as well as transcription factors (Smith and Meissner, 2013). Future studies will continue to delineate the molecular details of DNA methylation regulation and will no doubt be aided by tracking methylation dynamics through cellular differentiation.

4.6. Histone Methylation, Transcription, and Gene Body Methylation

Recently a clear connection between histone methylation and intragenic DNA methylation has been established in which de novo methyltransferase DNMT3B binds H3K36me3, which marks regions of active transcription (Morselli et al., 2015, Baubec et al., 2015), and this may help explain positive correlations between gene body methylation gains and increasing gene transcription (Fig. 5d). Morselli et al. (2015) have shown in yeast, which normally has no 5mC, that H3K36me3 introduced by SET2 histone methyltransferase dictates the location of DNA methylation by recruiting DNMT3B (exogenously introduced). This same study shows that H3K4me3, which is located preferentially at active promoters, strongly prevents DNMT3B recruitment. Thus, DNMT3B activity and resulting methylation patterns are strongly influenced by intragenic H3K36 methylation patterns. Our working hypothesis is that transcription of both coding and lncRNA genes leads to an increase in H3K36me3 by action of SET2 histone methyltransferase and this in turn leads to an increase in DNA methylation over the transcribed region. Therefore, transcription coupled DNA methylation requires preceding H3K36me deposition. At high transcription levels the transcribed region can become less methylated (ex: MYH6, but not MYH7 in Fig. 5c), but we assume that this is by a different mechanism that applies to relatively rare, highly transcribed regions (Fig. S5f). Reduced exon methylation in highly expressed genes might be due to tandem RNAPII blocking of maintenance methylation activity (Jjingo et al., 2012), or increased active demethylation. Indeed, the TET enzymes, TDG, and SMUG1 glycosylases are generally induced upon CM differentiation with the glycosylases transiently peaking at CMESO stage and corresponding to transient hypomethylation within gene bodies (Fig. 4b and f).

4.7. Exon Methylation, Transcriptional “Memory Traces” and Development

The linking of intragenic methylation with transcription likely explains why gene body DNA methylation is a better predictor of cell identity than promoter methylation (Illingworth et al., 2010). In this study, we observed CM hypermethylated DMRs to be enriched at exons of developmental TFs, including many TBOX (TBX1-5) and many HOXB cluster genes. Of the 4 HOX clusters, only HOXB became hypermethylated within the CM lineage and, strikingly, aside from low level HOXA1 transcription, we observe only the HOXB cluster to be expressed (Figs. S4a–b; 6b). These and other developmental genes (Fig. 6) were observed to maintain exon methylation post-gene silencing, in effect establishing a transcriptional “memory.” These transcription factor genes may be uniquely protected during re-establishment of the methylome in the inner cell mass of early embryo and the establishment of the cell line. Further, hESCs are known to be more epiblast-like than naïve mESCs (Liao et al., 2015), so it remains possible that an examination of a more naïve hESC line would yield additional candidate genes exhibiting transcriptional “traces” at earlier developmental windows.

How persistent is transcription linked exon methylation after transcription is reduced or stopped? Why do we see this phenomenon enriched at developmental TFs? These are important questions for future studies, however, study of evolutionary sequence changes have already demonstrated that “pro-epigenetic” selection has functioned to preferentially preserve CG sites in coding regions of HOX and other master developmental genes, as well as the retention of CGI clusters near these genes (Branciamore et al., 2010). Indeed, exon methylation, not promoter or CGI methylation, is over evolutionary time the most highly conserved feature of the DNA methylation system, conserved in both plants and animals, even among most insects, including honey bees where it is involved in the control of queen bee development (Lyko et al., 2010). Further, TF binding sites are rich within gene bodies, tend to be GC rich, often overlap CGIs, and many TFs display distinct methyl DNA binding affinities (Deaton and Bird, 2011). This raises the possibility that exon methylation “memories” serve to maintain global TF distributions, support chromatin networks, and additionally regulate cryptic promoters or enhancers. For the latter possibility, these elements are also enriched among CG-rich gene bodies and highlight a long-standing idea that intragenic DNA methylation may reduce transcriptional noise, including antisense transcription (Deaton and Bird, 2011, Illingworth et al., 2010). Although this does not explain all intragenic methylation (Jjingo et al., 2012), like conventional gene promoters, gene body promoters are subject to DNA methylation silencing. Therefore, an attractive possibility is that developmentally important switches can be stabilized by the exon methylation system. For example, transcription through an intragenic, potentially active promoter, will result is methylation of that promoter and thereby prevent inappropriate antisense and sense transcription. Such a system seems to have value for establishing stable cell states.

DNA methylation epigenetic “memories” have been described previously, but the focus was on promoter methylation. For example, during iPSC generation the incomplete erasure of somatic epigenetic marks, including promoter DNA methylation, constitute a residual “memory” of somatic tissue origins. As these “memories” are lost with additional iPSC passaging, it is likely that they simply reflect incomplete iPSC reprogramming (Kim et al., 2010). Well before these concepts, however, and still widely accepted today, DNA methylation is thought to “lock-in” stably silent states at promoters and repetitive elements (Razin and Riggs, 1980). Though we again observe promoter methylation to be associated with gene silencing (Figs. 4c, 5a–c, e–g, 6c) this is not a reflection of preceding transcriptional activity. Importantly, our results suggest that one must now consider exon methylation as a likely player in cellular memory. These “exon memories” reflect preceding transcription and as such raises the possibility that developmental or pathological history might be predicted from exon methylation patterns. Indeed, heart failure is marked by the reactivation of improper fetal developmental gene networks (reviewed by Tompkins and Riggs, 2015) and the hijacking of developmental programs is a common feature of many cancer types. For example, HOX cluster CGI hypermethylation marks patients with coronary heart disease (Nazarenko et al., 2015) and is frequently observed in cancer (Shah and Sukumar, 2010). Insight into the transcriptional disease etiology through “exon memory” studies may prove to be quite powerful in understanding and treating these conditions.

In closing, the replacement of lost CMs will be required for cardiac regenerative medicine strategies and the scalability of pluripotent cell sources, including suspension cultures, offers an unlimited cell replacement source in cardiac medicine. This naturally hinges on researcher controlled CM differentiation, which continues to improve, and as highlighted in this report also provides an essential in vitro model of human cardiac muscle development. Here, the multi-stage global analysis of hESC differentiation provides a comprehensive understanding of CM generation through the lenses of transcription and epigenetic patterns and led to observations of transcription “memories” in CM products.

Data generated from this study is available through NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) through GEO series accession number GSE76525 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE76525). Authors declare no conflict of interest.

The following are the supplementary data related to this article.

Fig. S1

hESC bank, CM characterization, and PMESO and CMESO isolation. a–b) A H7 hESC bank was assessed for multiple markers of a) pluripotency and b) differentiation by flow cytometry. c) CMs post-differentiation were quantified by cardiac troponin T (cTnT) expression before and after Percoll density purification. Peaks in red are isotype controls. d) D31 CMs, prior to purification, were immunostained for CM marker troponin I (TpI) and cardiac myosin heavy chain 7 (MYH7). DAPI staining in blue. e) Isolation of PMESO, CMESO, and alternative lineage cells by FACS. D3 cells were isolated by ROR2(+) (PMESO) sorting and D4 by ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(+) (CMESO). Isotype controls are displayed. D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−) cells were also collected. As with hESCs and CMs, 2 biological replicates were prepared. f) Heat map of pluripotent, early differentiation, EMT, and cardiac lineage specific markers by expression. Log2 FPKM values were conditionally formatted with a blue-red color scale. *GATA4 and GATA6 are often considered markers for both early and later stages of CM development and are listed twice. g) Hierarchical clustering of the 4 time point series with published data on adult cardiac tissue. Briefly, Lindskog et al. (2015) identified genes uniquely enriched in adult cardiac tissue (283 genes among 28 tissue types). Results indicate pluripotent-derived-CMs to cluster with adult cardiac tissue samples, but not hESC or mesoderm time points. Scale = standardized expression level. GO of a subcluster of genes upregulated in adult cardiac tissue, but not in hESC-derived-CMs, suggests additional enrichment of contractile and contractile regulation genes in adult tissue. Coupled with the small size, slightly rounded morphology, and general lack of multinucleation (d) results collectively suggest an immature cardiomyocyte phenotype expected for pluripotent-derived-CMs (Robertson et al., 2013).

Fig. S2

Key developmental pathways, predicted transcription factors (TFs), and miRNAs during CM differentiation. a–c) Members of WNT (a), TGF-β (b), and HH (c) signaling pathways variably expressed over hESC-to-CM differentiation. All differentially expressed genes were assessed by KEGG pathway analysis. Those signaling members differentially expressed or differentially methylated over the time course are marked with colored stars.*indicates WNT signaling members upregulated over CM differentiation and predicted to be under PHC1 transcriptional regulation. The figure legend in b corresponds to each pathway in a–c. d–g) Expanded assessment of MEF2a and PHC1 TFs. Predicted targets of MEF2a (d) and PHC1 (e) were subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering by expression. Scale = row z-score. Enriched target genes were analyzed by gene ontology (GO). PHC1 target genes, in particular, were significantly enriched for mesoderm morphogenesis (p-4.3E-7) and a multitude of TFs previously enriched by expression over CM differentiation (e.g., GATA4, HAND1). These included several Tbox and Hox gene members, and the reoccurring Wnt signaling pathway (p-2.0E − 7), especially the canonical pathway (Table S3, b, S1F, and a). F) Expression levels of polycomb complex 1 and 2 members over the 4 point time series and within D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−) cells. G) Expression levels of polycomb members over the entire 31 day time course. Whereas EED and SUZ12 expression appears relatively low and static over the time course, RNF2 expression rises slowly to D8 and drops at later stages of CM differentiation. Most notably, PRC1 member PHC1 was drastically downregulated by day 1 of differentiation, but remained essentially unchanged from hESC levels in D3 ROR2(−) cells (Figs. 2f, f, and g).Several additional developmental TFs, including WNT and/or TGFβ pathway members MEIS1, PITX2, SMAD3, and LEF-1, were upregulated over CM differentiation, enriched by expression in PMESO and CMESO cells (Figs. 2b–d, S1F, a and b), and ranked among the highest predicted TFs at each developmental stage (Table S3). By known ChIP interactions, in addition to the 4 polycomb members in f, we see a number of common factors identified by predictive analysis (e.g., CREB, MYC, P53) as well as core pluripotency factors (POU5F1, Nanog, SOX2, KLF4; Table S3). h–k) Assessment of miRNA gene expression and putative regulation in CM differentiation. h) Example of precursor miRNA transcription. MIR143HG expression was induced at CMESO stage and was significantly upregulated in CMs. I) Clustering of immature miRNAs by differentiation stage and including alternative lineage samples. Transcripts enriched at PMESO and/or CMESO stages relative to alternative lineages are denoted with red text. Those preferentially silenced are in green text. *previously documented to be highly expressed during mammalian pluripotent-to-CM differentiation; ** previous suggested role in mammalian cardiac development or disease (see additional details below). Scale = row z-score j) GATE snap shot of MIR302b targets at CM stage showing clear bias towards increased expression. Blue hexagons represent individual predicted target genes of MIR302B. Red clusters represent increasing expression at CM stage; green clusters = decreasing expression at CM stage k) Expression distribution of predicted targets for MIR302B by box plot over CM differentiation. See Fig. 2f for box plot description. Blue dashed lines display MIR302/367 expression levels. Additional details: Given that a small RNA library was not prepared, we assess only mapped miRNA precursors purified during total RNA isolation. Over the 4 time point series we observed 10 miRNAs precursors to be differentially expressed (h and i). These immature transcripts represent a small subset of total processed miRNAs and correlations between mature miRNA levels and precursor transcription can be weak (Bartel, 2009, Wang et al., 2015); however, several pre-miRNA transcripts were uniquely enriched in or suppressed from particular stages of CM differentiation (i). Of those highly expressed within CMs and/or enriched at PMESO or CMESO stages all have documented roles in cardiac function or disease. MIR22, MIR210, MIR1-1/MIR-133A-1, and MIR143 have all been shown to be upregulated during mammalian CM differentiation and have been implicated in cardiac development and disease, whereas, MIR503 and MIR17 have been implicated in the latter processes only (Chinchilla et al., 2011, Papadopoulos et al., 2009; Sirish et al., 2012; Horie et al., 2009, Deacon et al., 2010, Synnergren et al., 2011, Huang and Wang). Both MIR17HG and MIR503HG show transient increases at PMESO and CMESO stages and MIR503HG is clearly enriched at CMESO stage indicating potential roles earlier in CM development. MIR3648 has an expression profile similar to MIR17HG and has yet to be implicated in CM differentiation or cardiac development in general, however, Marco et al. have argued that the read pattern of MIR3648 is incompatible with processing of small RNAs and therefore may not represent a true miRNA (Marco et al., 2012). Identified miRNAs were cross-referenced with those predicted by GATEs integrated analysis of miRNA targeting of differentially expressed genes (13 candidates; Table S4). From the MIR302/367 cluster, MIR302B (p = 0.028) was uniquely identified by both approaches and the only miRNA precursor repressed at both PMESO and CMESO stages (Fig. S2i; Table S4). Putative targets for this miRNAs were significantly upregulated within CMs (Fig. S2j), including several previously noted regulators of this developmental pathway (e.g., SMAD3, WNT3, ALCAM, PDGFRα (Table S4; Figs. 2b–d and S1f), and inversely correlated with MIR302/367 precursor transcript levels (Fig. S3k). Given the role the miR-302/367 upregulation plays in promoting iPSC generation (Zhang et al., 2013) it appears that, much like PHC1 repression, early miR-302/367 silencing may facilitate pluripotent-to-CM differentiation. l–m) Wnt and cell cycle pathways (KEGG) were additionally visualized with expression changes by time point indicating dynamic Wnt expression changes over differentiation and clear downregulation of the cell cycle over CM differentiation. p-values are from CM stage ontology results for each corresponding term. N) Line graph of expression changes for glycolysis genes over the 4 time-point differentiation series (GO:0006096; BP). O) Expression dynamics are also indicated for the oxidative phosphorylation pathway (adapted from KEGG) reflecting increased metabolic demand for the mitochondrial electron transport chain by CM stage. See legend in l–m. p) Line graph demonstrating massive upregulation of mitochondrial specific oxidative phosphorylation gene expression over CM differentiation.

Fig. S3

DNA methylation supplement 1. a) DMR distribution by gain or loss of methylation. DMRs were annotated by HOMER software which defines the TSS as − 1 kb to + 100 bp of the TSS and the TTS as − 100 bp to + 1 kb of the TTS. Most DMRs were annotated to larger intron and intergenic regions. The top 5 enriched genome ontology terms (biological process) for all DMRs between sample comparisons are ranked by p-value (Heinz et al., 2010). Both hESC-CM and CMESO-CM ontology terms illustrate heart development, with CMESO-CM terms clearly reflective of later cardiomyogenesis stages (ex: cardiac muscle cell differentiation; p = 3.70E − 14; a). Early differentiation stages (hESC-PMESO and PMESO-CMESO) were associated with early developmental terms (positive regulation of tissue remodeling; p = 2.09E − 7) and may reflect common origins for blood and lymph system development from the mesoderm and/or potential competition with extraembryonic mesoderm contributions to these systems as well as to the amnion, the chorion, and the interface with placenta functions (labyrinthine layer blood vessel development; p = 8.34E − 5, gas transport; p = 6.76E − 14, Positive regulation of T cell mediated immunity; p = 8.56E − 5; Fig. S3a). b) Genes with at least one DMR gain or loss by sample comparison were quantified by gene context DMR location. c) IgV viewer “snap shots” of OCT4 (POU5F1) and Nanog promoter methylation and associated gene silencing by CM stage d) Expression of WNT (top) and HH (bottom) signaling members promoter methylated by CM stage over the 4 point time series. e Promoter hypermethylation in hESCs and hypomethylation in CMs was enriched for regulation of apoptosis by GO analysis (Table S6). Expression distributions were assessed for genes with these marks by box plot analysis. See Fig. 2f for box plot description. We observed promoter GO enrichment for regulation of apoptosis at both hESC (hypermethylation, 40 genes; p = 2.1E − 2) and CM stages (hypomethylation, 57 genes; p = 3.5E − 4) noting the highest CM stage median expression for those promoters both hypermethylated in hESCs and hypomethylated in CMs (n = 13, e; Table S6). Also, it is well known that the Rho-Rock signaling pathway is important for controlling cell proliferation and cell death, but also regulates adhesion, migration, and contraction functions through regulation of cytoskeleton dynamics (Loirand et al., 2006; Etienne-Manneville and Hall, 2002). Coupling this with our use of Y27632 ROCK inhibitor in hESC cultures prior to directed differentiation (see supplemental experimental procedures) provides a logical basis for observations of differential methylation of this pathway at all stages of the time course (Table S6; Fig. 5b-regulation of small GTPase mediated signal transduction). f) CM DMRs enriched for focal adhesion pathway (KEGG) were enriched for both gains and losses at exons and introns (Table S6). Corresponding genes were assessed for correlations with gene expression over CM differentiation. See Fig. 2f for box plot description. g) Differential intragenic methylation within the focal adhesion pathway (KEGG) is marked with red stars. h) Visualization of alternative splicing at TPM1. TPM1 was the highest ranked transcript for alternative splicing between CMs and hESCs (p = 6.63E-9). Normalized exon read coverage and junction reads demonstrate exon 8 skipping in CMs. Alternatively spliced exons are highlighted in blue. A downstream intronic DMR is shown in gray. RNA-seq data is scaled to highlight alternative exon usage. i) Venn diagram illustrating significant overlap between a prior study on alternative splicing in cardiac precursors relative to hESCs (Salomonis et al., 2009) relative to alternatively spliced genes in the current study. Salamonis et al. initially identified 872 alternatively spliced genes in cardiac precursors. After filtering out genes with < 1 FPKM at hESC, PMESO, CMESO, or CM time points, 621 genes remained for comparison. From the current study, the 289 alternatively spliced genes refer to those differentially spliced between CMs and any preceding time point of the 4 time point series. Complete gene lists can be found in Table S2. j) Venn diagram illustrating the significant overlap between genes that demonstrate differential methylation in CMs and those identified as alternatively spliced. Genes with DMRs were considered such if having a DMR between -5kb of the TSS and the TTS. k) Venn diagram of genes with exon DMRs in CMs compared with those both alternatively spliced and harboring a DMR (not statistically significant). p-values were calculated using a hypergeometric probability test. l) Visualization of FAM210B and HMG20B genes with CM alternative splicing and exon hypermethylation. These were the only 2 genes that both exhibited CM exon DMRs and had evidence of alternative splicing, but methylation changes (gray highlights) appear to reflect changes in transcript levels rather than correlate with the upstream alternative splicing (blue highlight).

Fig. S4

DNA methylation supplement 2. a) Methylation and expression visualization at the HOX clusters. b) The HOXB cluster is displayed and expanded for regions of active transcription during CM differentiation. Among clusters, HOXB is uniquely expressed and shows increasing methylation by CM stage in regions of or preceding active transcription. HOXB1 illustrates retained exon methylation post gene silencing. Light green highlights promoter regions and gene body methylation gains are highlighted in gray. c) Promoter binning strategy extended 2 kb into the gene body of coding genes and lncRNAs. Initial binning strategies to control for variable gene body sizes selected coding genes and lncRNAs ≥ 3.6 kb in length (allowing for 20 bp minimum window lengths). To confirm that elevated gene body methylation wasn't unique to longer lncRNAs, we continued our promoter binning approach (100 bp windows) up to 2 kb into a gene or lncRNA body allowing for the inclusion of lncs of smaller sizes. d) Methylation profiles for different expression classes of genes and lncRNAs. As in Fig. 4b, normalized methylation enrichment was plotted for each window over a composite gene structure, but this was repeated several times for multiple expression percentiles of coding genes and lncRNAs. TSS centered promoter regions are expanded for better resolution.

Fig. S5

RNA-seq and MBD-seq sample clustering and validation of results by qRT-PCR and conventional bisulfite sequencing, respectively. a) Hierarchical clustering of RNA-seq by biological replicate. Reads were aligned to hg19 using TopHat v2.0.4 and raw counts normalized by trimmed mean of M value method implemented in Bioconductor “edgeR” package. Log2 transformed average coverage was then subjected to hierarchical clustering using Cluster v3.0, correlation dissimilarity as distance metric and average linkage. Heatmaps were visualized with Java Treeview. b) PCA analysis was conducted with array studio (version 6.0) and results demonstrate high consistency between biological replicates and clear separation of samples by time point. Briefly, normalized read values for RNA-seq (b) and MBD-seq (f) were scaled and 3 components were utilized to generate a 3DScatterView. Samples are colored by biological replicate. c–d) qRT-PCR results are strongly correlated with RNA-seq data. Briefly, qRT-PCR data was generated using the comparative Ct method normalized to internal control TPT1 gene and expressed as mean log2 fold change relative to hESCs (reactions in triplicate). c) A bar graph illustrates consistency between changes in gene expression observed by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR across all sampled time points. d) When plotting all log2 fold change qRT-PCR data versus RNA-seq data a clear linear relationship emerges with Pearson correlation coefficient R = 0.81(p < 0.0001). Additional qRT-PCR validation of RNA-seq is shown in h. Hierarchical clustering of MBD-seq by biological replicate. Paired reads for MBD and Input fractions were aligned to hg19 using Novoalign (http://novocraft.com). Read coverage for each non-overlapping 1 kb window genome-wide was counted using custom R scripts. Log2 transformed read coverage was used to generate the hierarchical clustering diagram in the same manner as RNA-seq data (a), but with a red-blue color scheme. f) PCA analysis of MBD samples (see S5B). g) Positive correlation between MBD-seq data at selected regions and conventional bisulfite sequencing. Regions of dynamic methylation changes were selected at MYH6 and TBX2 genes for validation with bisulfite sequencing (Fig. 5c and g). Average MBD values were extracted from IgV viewer for MBD tracks corresponding to regions spanning bisulfite primer targets and plotted against bisulfite sequencing results. R = 0.90 (p < 0.0001). h) Expanded density profiles of coding and lncRNA expression. Data is identical to Fig. 3a, but each time point is displayed separately for easier visualization. i) The number of expressed genes at increasing FPKM thresholds is displayed for each time point. Over differentiation, the number of expressed genes increases (FPKM > 1), but numbers of highly expressed genes decreases (FPKM > 100). Highly expressed genes are rare relative to all genes.

Table S1

PMESO and CMESO gene expression GO results: samples isolated as PMESO at D3 and CMESO at D4 were compared pair-wise to alternative lineage cells at the same time point (D3 ROR2(−) and D4 ROR2(+)/PDGFRα(−)). Differentially expressed transcripts at D3 and D4 were assessed for GO using DAVID. BP (top) and KEGG pathway (bottom) databases were utilized. See supplemental experimental procedures for term inclusion guidelines. Tabs correspond to terms associated with up or downregulated genes.

Table S2

GO results for all differentially expressed genes and by up or downregulation by each developmental time point (first 4 tabs). GO was conducted using DAVID from BP (top), CC, MF, and KEGG pathway (bottom) databases. Terms are displayed by database in the order written. See supplemental experimental procedures for term inclusion guidelines. Tabs correspond to all differentially genes and those differentially expressed by developmental stage as extracted from GATE results. For developmental stages upregulated GO results are displayed left and downregulated GO results are displayed right. Additional tabs display GO results for all alternatively spliced genes between any time points and those alternatively spliced from hESC- to-mesoderm time points or from mesoderm time points-to-CMs. All identified alternatively spliced genes between time points are also provided with ranked p-values (t-test and Benjamini corrected).

Table S3

Transcription factor analysis and GO for MEF2a and PHC1 target genes. Differentially expressed transcripts were investigated with GATEs integrated databases of TF interactions by predicted protein binding (TFs_predicted_binding_sites.gmt) and by prior chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) studies (TFs_chip_interactions.gmt). Tabs are labeled accordingly. Enriched TFs are ranked by p-value significance (Fisher exact test) and followed by values denoting the number of known or predicted genes the factor regulates as the denominator under the number of genes identified in our GATE series. Ontology tabs: GATE identified targets of MEF2a and PHC1 were assessed by GO using DAVID. See supplemental experimental procedures for GO approach and thresholds. Enriched terms are ranked by p-value for each database utilized.

Table S4

Non-coding RNA supplemental table. miRNA and lncRNA associations with expression regulation were investigated further. Using GATEs integrated mRNA binding by miRNA enrichment pipeline (www.targetscan.org http://microrna.sanger.ac.uk/sequences) we identified several potential miRNA regulators of CM differentiation (left). MIR-302B was significantly downregulated over the time series and predicted target genes are included within the table. Annotated lncRNAs by nearest cis coding gene (gencode.v18.long_noncoding_RNAs.gtf.gz) differentially expressed over CM commitment are listed as well as the paired coding genes by time point. For GO, gene lists for each stage-specific cluster (Fig. 3b) were merged to obtain sufficient numbers for GO. GO results for coding genes are displayed far right corresponding to all differentially expressed lncRNAs.

Table S5

Differential methylation genome ontology results. Results from DMR genome ontology analysis are provided. HOMERv4.7 (annotatePeaks.pl) was used for DMR annotation by gene proximity and functional region. Biological process terms are displayed top and genome repeat terms are displayed bottom. Terms are ranked by p-value.

Table S6

Complete results for DMR GO by time point. GO results of all DMRs annotated by gene region (promoters, exons, introns) are provided by each developmental stage relative to any of the other 3 stages. Tabs denote the developmental time point. See supplemental experimental procedures for GO approach. Promoter definition was adjusted from default settings to − 5kb to + 1kb of the TSS. Terms corresponding to hypermethylated DMRs are located at the top of the spreadsheet and hypomethylated terms at the bottom. Terms are ranked by p-value for each database.

Table S7

RNA-seq and MBD-seq read alignments, validation primers, and PCR conditions: MBD-seq (top) read alignment statistics are provided followed by RNA-seq samples. Following read alignments, bisulfite PCR primer details including target size, PCR annealing temperature, CG coverage are provided. Primer design for bisulfite sequencing was performed with MethPrimer (Li and Dahiya, 2002). Bottom: amplicon lengths and target genes of pre-validated primers for qRT-PCR target transcripts from BioRad’s PrimePCR catalog.

Supplementary material