Re often not methylated (5mC) but hydroxymethylated (5hmC) [80]. However, bisulfite-based methods of cytosine modification detection (including RRBS) are unable to distinguish these two types of modifications [81]. The presence of 5hmC in a gene body may be the reason why a fraction of CpG dinucleotides has a significant positive SCCM/E value. Unfortunately, data on genome-wide distribution of 5hmC in humans is available for a very limited set of cell types, mostly developmental [82,83], preventing us from a direct study of the effects of 5hmC on transcription and TFBSs. At the current stage the 5hmC data is not available for inclusion in the manuscript. Yet, we were able to perform an indirect study based on the localization of the studied cytosines in various genomic regions. We tested whether cytosines demonstrating various SCCM/E are colocated within different gene regions (Table 2). Indeed,CpG “traffic lights” are located within promoters of GENCODE [84] annotated genes in 79 of the cases, and within gene bodies in 51 of the cases, while cytosines with positive SCCM/E are located within promoters in 56 of the cases and within gene bodies in 61 of the cases. Interestingly, 80 of CpG “traffic lights” jir.2014.0001 are located within CGIs, while this fraction is smaller (67 ) for cytosines with positive SCCM/E. This observation allows us to speculate that CpG “traffic lights” are more likely methylated, while cytosines demonstrating positive SCCM/E may be subject to both MedChemExpress Hesperadin methylation and hydroxymethylation. Cytosines with positive and negative SCCM/E may therefore contribute to different mechanisms of epigenetic regulation. It is also worth noting that cytosines with insignificant (P-value > 0.01) SCCM/E are more often located within the repetitive elements and less often within the conserved regions and that they are more often polymorphic as MedChemExpress INK-128 compared with cytosines with a significant SCCM/E, suggesting that there is natural selection protecting CpGs with a significant SCCM/E.Selection against TF binding sites overlapping with CpG “traffic lights”We hypothesize that if CpG “traffic lights” are not induced by the average methylation of a silent promoter, they may affect TF binding sites (TFBSs) and therefore may regulate transcription. It was shown previously that cytosine methylation might change the spatial structure of DNA and thus might affect transcriptional regulation by changes in the affinity of TFs binding to DNA [47-49]. However, the answer to the question of if such a mechanism is widespread in the regulation of transcription remains unclear. For TFBSs prediction we used the remote dependency model (RDM) [85], a generalized version of a position weight matrix (PWM), which eliminates an assumption on the positional independence of nucleotides and takes into account possible correlations of nucleotides at remote positions within TFBSs. RDM was shown to decrease false positive rates 17470919.2015.1029593 effectively as compared with the widely used PWM model. Our results demonstrate (Additional file 2) that from the 271 TFs studied here (having at least one CpG “traffic light” within TFBSs predicted by RDM), 100 TFs had a significant underrepresentation of CpG “traffic lights” within their predicted TFBSs (P-value < 0.05, Chi-square test, Bonferoni correction) and only one TF (OTX2) hadTable 1 Total numbers of CpGs with different SCCM/E between methylation and expression profilesSCCM/E sign Negative Positive SCCM/E, P-value 0.05 73328 5750 SCCM/E, P-value.Re often not methylated (5mC) but hydroxymethylated (5hmC) [80]. However, bisulfite-based methods of cytosine modification detection (including RRBS) are unable to distinguish these two types of modifications [81]. The presence of 5hmC in a gene body may be the reason why a fraction of CpG dinucleotides has a significant positive SCCM/E value. Unfortunately, data on genome-wide distribution of 5hmC in humans is available for a very limited set of cell types, mostly developmental [82,83], preventing us from a direct study of the effects of 5hmC on transcription and TFBSs. At the current stage the 5hmC data is not available for inclusion in the manuscript. Yet, we were able to perform an indirect study based on the localization of the studied cytosines in various genomic regions. We tested whether cytosines demonstrating various SCCM/E are colocated within different gene regions (Table 2). Indeed,CpG "traffic lights" are located within promoters of GENCODE [84] annotated genes in 79 of the cases, and within gene bodies in 51 of the cases, while cytosines with positive SCCM/E are located within promoters in 56 of the cases and within gene bodies in 61 of the cases. Interestingly, 80 of CpG "traffic lights" jir.2014.0001 are located within CGIs, while this fraction is smaller (67 ) for cytosines with positive SCCM/E. This observation allows us to speculate that CpG “traffic lights” are more likely methylated, while cytosines demonstrating positive SCCM/E may be subject to both methylation and hydroxymethylation. Cytosines with positive and negative SCCM/E may therefore contribute to different mechanisms of epigenetic regulation. It is also worth noting that cytosines with insignificant (P-value > 0.01) SCCM/E are more often located within the repetitive elements and less often within the conserved regions and that they are more often polymorphic as compared with cytosines with a significant SCCM/E, suggesting that there is natural selection protecting CpGs with a significant SCCM/E.Selection against TF binding sites overlapping with CpG “traffic lights”We hypothesize that if CpG “traffic lights” are not induced by the average methylation of a silent promoter, they may affect TF binding sites (TFBSs) and therefore may regulate transcription. It was shown previously that cytosine methylation might change the spatial structure of DNA and thus might affect transcriptional regulation by changes in the affinity of TFs binding to DNA [47-49]. However, the answer to the question of if such a mechanism is widespread in the regulation of transcription remains unclear. For TFBSs prediction we used the remote dependency model (RDM) [85], a generalized version of a position weight matrix (PWM), which eliminates an assumption on the positional independence of nucleotides and takes into account possible correlations of nucleotides at remote positions within TFBSs. RDM was shown to decrease false positive rates 17470919.2015.1029593 effectively as compared with the widely used PWM model. Our results demonstrate (Additional file 2) that from the 271 TFs studied here (having at least one CpG “traffic light” within TFBSs predicted by RDM), 100 TFs had a significant underrepresentation of CpG “traffic lights” within their predicted TFBSs (P-value < 0.05, Chi-square test, Bonferoni correction) and only one TF (OTX2) hadTable 1 Total numbers of CpGs with different SCCM/E between methylation and expression profilesSCCM/E sign Negative Positive SCCM/E, P-value 0.05 73328 5750 SCCM/E, P-value.