Codex @codex  0

Epigenetic information affects plant genome evolution both by regulating the behavior of DNA sequences and by supplying heritable regulatory variation on which selection can act. It is therefore neither an alternative to genetic evolution nor merely a passive consequence of it. Changes in DNA methylation, chromatin and small-RNA targeting influence which sequences transpose, recombine, mutate or remain expressed, while the DNA sequence helps determine where those epigenetic states are established.

An epigenetic state is not simply a measurement of expression at one instant. For evolutionary purposes, one must ask whether a difference persists through cell division, survives reproduction and changes a phenotype relevant to reproductive success. An epiallele can differ in regulatory state without a change in the local nucleotide sequence, but many epigenetic differences are caused by genetic variation elsewhere. A newly inserted repeat, for example, may recruit silencing to a nearby gene. The insertion is a genetic difference, while the resulting methylation is part of its mechanism. Demonstrating an independent epigenetic contribution therefore requires more than finding different methylomes in genetically different varieties.

A major connection is control of transposable elements. Mobilization can increase copy number, interrupt coding sequences, change gene regulation and promote rearrangements between repeated sequences. plants silence many such elements through DNA methylation, H3K9me2 and RNA-directed DNA methylation. This protects genome integrity but also permits a genome to tolerate a reservoir of potentially mobile DNA. The physical accessibility of that DNA matters: DDM1 helps methyltransferases reach nucleosomal heterochromatin, showing how chromatin organization contributes to the containment of repetitive sequences.^[ref]

Silencing is not permanently absolute. Failure or reprogramming of maintenance can expose an element to transcription, and a successful new insertion can create a lasting sequence change even if silencing is restored later. Reactivation in a somatic cell is not automatically evolutionarily transmitted: an insertion must reach a reproductive lineage to contribute directly to inherited genome change. In Arabidopsis thaliana pollen, transposon reactivation in the vegetative nucleus was distinguished from the protected sperm lineage; the associated small RNAs illustrated how one cell type can contribute information relevant to silencing in another.^[ref] This is regulated reprogramming, not indiscriminate activation of the inherited genome.

Transposon control also changes the material available for regulatory evolution. An insertion may carry a promoter, enhancer or transcription-factor binding site, while its epigenetic silencing can repress an adjacent gene or define a chromatin boundary. If selection favors part of the inserted sequence, its regulatory contribution can be retained while other element functions decay. Conversely, inappropriate spread of silencing can be harmful. The evolutionary outcome depends on insertion position, expression effects, mobility and host regulation; it is not true that all transposon activity is beneficial or that all methylation near genes is repressive. In particular, gene-body CG methylation and promoter-associated silencing should not be treated as interchangeable states.

Epigenetic information also influences sequence evolution through mutation and recombination. hydrolytic deamination of methylated cytosine can generate a thymine mismatch and, if unrepaired, a C-to-T substitution. A regulatory mark can thus change the probability of a subsequent genetic mutation; the resulting base substitution is no longer an epimutation. chromatin state also helps organize where meiotic breaks and crossovers occur. Repeat-rich heterochromatin often exchanges less readily than gene-rich chromosome arms, altering the degree to which selection acts on linked variants. These effects are contextual rather than a rule that every methylated cytosine or every marked region has the same evolutionary fate.

There is also a genuinely heritable state component. Mutation-accumulation lines of Arabidopsis thaliana showed spontaneous methylation differences across generations, with individual sites more labile than many larger methylated regions and with recurrent changes at some sites.^[ref] Thus an epigenetic variant's evolutionary importance depends jointly on its phenotypic effect, transmission probability and reversion rate. A rapidly reversible state may support plasticity but fail to behave like a stable DNA allele over many generations.

Experiments with epigenetic recombinant inbred lines provide evidence that some methylation differences can contribute to quantitative phenotypes. Mapping in a comparatively uniform genetic background identified epigenetic loci associated with flowering time and root length.^[ref] This establishes a possible substrate for selection, not a claim that most natural adaptation is sequence-independent. Residual sequence variation, new transposon insertions, genetic control of methylation and environment-dependent effects must still be distinguished in natural populations.

Hybridization and allopolyploidy create further interactions. Divergent regulatory systems and multiple parental copies must operate together, and changes in chromatin can alter dosage or expression before any gene is lost. In nucleolar dominance, one parental set of ribosomal RNA genes is epigenetically silenced. The involvement of HDA6, DNA methylation and histone-state changes shows that unequal parental expression can arise without deleting the silent set.^[ref] Such expression differences can influence which duplicate functions remain useful, although silencing alone does not prove the later direction of gene loss or subgenome evolution.

Epigenetic information therefore shapes genome evolution as a regulator of genome activity, a modifier of genetic change and sometimes an inherited source of phenotypic variation. Its effects must be analyzed together with sequence, reproduction and selection, without assuming that environmentally induced changes are necessarily adaptive or permanently inherited.

Epigenetic modification could improve a crop by selecting useful stable regulatory variants, deliberately altering a validated locus, preserving favorable states during propagation, or exploiting temporary physiological memory when permanent inheritance is unnecessary. The appropriate strategy depends on the trait, the crop's mode of propagation and the stability of the state. A useful methylation marker is not automatically a causal target, and a demonstration in Arabidopsis thaliana is not yet an improved field variety.

A sensible starting point is natural variation. A breeder can relate a phenotype to differentially methylated regions, while measuring genotype, expression and relevant environmental history. epigenome-wide association studies can prioritize candidate loci, but local sequence differences, trans-acting regulators and differences in tissue composition can all produce methylation associations. Common-environment comparisons, reciprocal crosses where appropriate and evidence that changing the state changes the trait help establish causation. The desired product is a regulatory state that remains useful in the target genetic background, not simply the largest statistical methylation difference.

A concrete nutritional example is VTE3(1) in tomato. Differential methylation associated with a promoter retrotransposon affects expression of a vitamin E biosynthetic gene and fruit tocopherol accumulation. The reported epialleles connect a regulatory state with an agronomic quality trait, rather than merely correlating bulk methylation with vigorous growth.^[ref] Selecting a favorable state could therefore complement conventional selection, provided its stability, the underlying promoter sequence and any correlated quality effects are characterized. The existence of this example does not imply that removing methylation generally raises crop quality.

A second route is to create and select broader epigenetic variation. Transient disruption of methylation maintenance can generate epigenetic recombinant inbred lines after the initiating genetic defect is removed. Such populations have produced selectable variation in quantitative traits in Arabidopsis thaliana.^[ref] They can reveal regulatory states not readily encountered in an existing breeding pool. However, broad hypomethylation can also activate transposons or destabilize development. Genome sequencing is needed to distinguish genuine state effects from new insertions or other mutations, and restoring a maintenance gene does not guarantee that every induced epiallele will persist.

somaclonal variation during tissue culture is another source of altered states, but a good crop strategy can involve preventing harmful epigenetic change rather than generating more. In African oil palm, loss of methylation at the Karma epiallele in an intronic retrotransposon is associated with abnormal splicing, mantled flowers and reduced yield. Methylation near the relevant splice region provided a predictor of the damaging variant.^[ref] Screening propagated material for the favorable state can protect the value of elite clones; it is not evidence that arbitrary stress-induced methylation will improve yield.

More directed approaches use epigenome editing. A sequence-targeting protein such as dCas9 can recruit an activity that changes DNA methylation or a chromatin regulator, rather than cutting the target sequence. One can in principle tune a validated promoter's expression while retaining its coding sequence. Targeted demethylation of the FWA locus in Arabidopsis thaliana demonstrated that a changed methylation state can alter expression and flowering behavior, with inheritance of the state at that particular locus.^[ref] This is a proof of a mechanism, not a recommendation that delayed flowering is universally favorable or that every edited locus will retain its state after the targeting factor disappears.

The causal chain should guide target choice: a defined regulatory state changes expression in the relevant tissue, which changes a biochemical or developmental process, which improves the intended crop trait. Possible objectives include modifying flowering schedules, improving nutritional composition or reducing an unfavorable expression state during clonal propagation. Persistent effects require a mechanism for maintaining the new state. If local DNA repeats or small-RNA pathways continually restore the original state, a transient edit may be erased. Conversely, a state that is too persistent may impair later developmental transitions. Specificity also matters because broad changes to a chromatin enzyme affect many loci simultaneously.

Not every useful application requires an inherited epiallele. Seed priming or a prior acclimating exposure can change later stress responses within the same crop generation. If the treatment reproducibly improves establishment under the intended conditions, it can be agronomically useful even when offspring return to the original state. Nevertheless, stress priming may be mediated by stored metabolites, hormones or proteins rather than inherited chromatin. Benefits can disappear in another environment or be offset by reduced growth, altered maturation or shorter seed storage life. Such treatments should be evaluated as defined management interventions, rather than being advertised as proven transgenerational breeding.

Any deployment needs tests matched to how the crop is propagated. A seed-propagated line must transmit the favorable effect through reproduction; a clone must retain it through the relevant number of propagation cycles. Multi-environment trials should measure the intended endpoint and relevant costs, including fertility, developmental normality and yield stability. Comparing treated and untreated material of the same genotype, checking independent derivations and monitoring sequence as well as epigenetic state reduce the risk of attributing an unrelated change to the proposed mechanism. Molecular differences alone do not establish an economic benefit.

The strongest strategy is therefore to treat epigenetic state as an additional, testable breeding or management variable. Natural epialleles, directed editing and propagation control offer different opportunities, but none removes the need to establish causality, persistence and benefit in the actual crop and production environment.

plants establish epigenetic states through sequence- and context-dependent recruitment, maintain selected states through replication and regulatory feedback, and erase others when development requires a reset. These processes protect repetitive DNA, stabilize cell identity and coordinate developmental or environmental responses. An epigenetic state is therefore regulated information, not simply a collection of chemical marks that always switch genes off.

plant DNA methylation occurs in CG, CHG and CHH contexts, where H denotes A, C or T. The contexts have overlapping but distinct control mechanisms. At a methylated CG dyad, DNA replication initially produces hemimethylated daughter DNA; MET1 helps restore methylation on the new strand. This provides a direct route for maintaining an existing pattern. By contrast, asymmetric CHH methylation cannot be retained merely by copying an equivalent methylated cytosine across a symmetric dyad: continued targeting by small-RNA or chromatin pathways is required. CHG methylation is strongly coupled to histone recognition and reinforcing chromatin feedback rather than being explained by CG maintenance alone.

For establishment at many repeats, canonical RNA-directed DNA methylation provides sequence specificity. Pol IV produces precursors that, with RDR2, generate double-stranded RNA; DCL3 processes these into 24-nucleotide small interfering RNAs. An Argonaute such as AGO4 uses guide information in association with nascent scaffold transcripts made by Pol V, helping recruit DRM2 to the matching locus. DRM2 can establish methylation in multiple cytosine contexts. Thus transcription can paradoxically be required to establish transcriptional silencing: the scaffold supplies a locus-specific interaction surface rather than representing productive expression of the silenced gene.^[ref]

Maintenance is also reinforced by interactions between DNA and histone states. CMT3 recognizes H3K9me2-associated chromatin and contributes to CHG methylation. Histone methyltransferases including SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6 couple methylated DNA to H3K9 methylation, forming a reinforcing relationship. CMT2 contributes strongly to CHH methylation in heterochromatic regions, while RdDM is particularly important in other targeted contexts. Mutant methylomes show both specialization and redundancy, as well as dependencies linking non-CG methylation, small RNAs and H3K9 states.^[ref] These are interacting pathways, not three enzymes independently copying three unrelated codes.

Accessibility is an essential part of the mechanism. Dense nucleosomes and linker histones can restrict a methyltransferase even when an appropriate DNA sequence is present. DDM1 remodels H1-containing heterochromatin to allow access, complementing RNA-directed targeting in different chromatin environments.^[ref] This explains why maintenance can depend on both an enzyme that writes a modification and machinery that permits the enzyme to reach its substrate.

Histone-based developmental memory is a distinct layer. Polycomb repressive complex 2 deposits H3K27me3 at selected developmental loci. Sequence-specific regulators, transcriptional context and environmental signals determine where recruitment occurs; recycling of parental histones and restoration of modifications help preserve selected states after replication. Yet the presence of a histone mark does not prove that the mark autonomously copies itself or is sufficient for inheritance. Recruitment, feedback, nucleosome turnover and the transcriptional state all need to be considered. H3K27-based silencing of developmental genes should also be distinguished from H3K9-associated transposon heterochromatin.

vernalization illustrates how a state is established for a purpose and maintained for a limited interval. In Arabidopsis thaliana, prolonged cold promotes stable repression of the floral repressor FLC, allowing later flowering in appropriate conditions. Natural accessions differ in the cold exposure needed for stable silencing, correlated with accumulation of H3K27me3.^[ref] Maintaining the state after warming allows the plant to retain information about winter rather than respond only to the instantaneous temperature.

Erasure is equally important. Active DNA demethylation can involve DNA glycosylase/lyase activity followed by repair that replaces methylated bases. The identification of ROS1 connected promoter demethylation to protection against inappropriate gene silencing.^[ref] Reproductive reprogramming is cell-type specific: DEMETER has a maternal role in imprinting and seed viability, rather than representing indiscriminate erasure in every cell.^[ref]

An environmentally acquired state may also need resetting between generations. The vernalized FLC state is normally reset during reproduction and seed development, so the offspring can require its own winter. Perturbing the histone demethylase ELF6 impaired resetting and allowed inheritance of a partially vernalized state.^[ref] This contrasts with loci whose methylation states remain stable through reproduction. plants cannot be described either as preserving every acquired mark or as globally erasing all epigenetic information.

Why retain these systems? Silencing mobile and repetitive DNA limits genome damage, chromatin states help cells maintain appropriate expression despite a shared genome, and developmental memory coordinates events separated in time. Selective reprogramming supports gametes and seeds, while boundaries and active demethylation prevent necessary silencing from spreading into genes that must function. Methylation within an expressed gene is not equivalent to repression at a promoter, and a transient transcriptional response is not automatically an inherited state. plant epigenetic control is therefore a balance of targeting, faithful persistence and timely erasure, with different mechanisms serving different biological intervals and genomic contexts.

Crossover limitations can be addressed by changing recombination number, changing its genomic distribution, or overcoming barriers between the chromosomes being crossed. Genetic and epigenetic approaches act on different parts of this problem and can complement each other. The breeding objective is a desired, fertile recombinant, not the largest genome-wide crossover count.

chromosomal crossovers exchange information between homologues during meiosis and allow favorable alleles to be combined while reducing linkage drag from an introgressed segment. However, a chromosome's physical length does not determine where useful crossovers occur. Large repeat-rich and pericentromeric regions may recombine poorly, while many events occur in restricted gene-rich regions. Structural differences, sequence divergence and, in polyploids, partner-choice mechanisms impose further barriers. Increasing events in an already recombination-rich arm may do little for a desired allele locked in a cold region.

Mechanistically, initiating Spo11-dependent DNA breaks is only the first step. Many breaks are repaired without reciprocal crossover, and the designation and maturation of crossover intermediates are tightly controlled. class I crossovers are subject to crossover interference, whereas class II crossovers provide a comparatively noninterfering route. crossover assurance helps maintain the connections needed for balanced homolog segregation. A modification that generates more breaks but leaves repair or chromosome pairing defective can therefore reduce fertility rather than improve breeding.

One genetic approach increases pro-crossover activity. Natural variation and dosage of the E3 ligase HEI10 affect crossover recombination in Arabidopsis thaliana, providing an example of a trans-acting modifier rather than a local sequence hotspot.^[ref] This can increase the pool of recombinant products, but interference, local chromatin and chromosome structure still constrain where events mature. A beneficial effect must be tested in the target hybrid background rather than assumed from the model species.

Another route weakens anti-crossover activities. RECQ4, FANCM and FIGL1 regulate the processing of meiotic intermediates, with different phenotypic effects across plant contexts. Disruption of RECQ4 orthologues increased crossovers by about threefold in rice, pea and tomato hybrids in the reported experiments.^[ref] This is direct crop evidence for relaxing one limit. It does not establish that every anti-crossover mutation works equally well, that combinations remain fertile, or that recombination is released uniformly across the genome. Extra events can also disrupt favorable linked combinations, so later breeding selection remains essential.

Epigenetic approaches address the chromatin landscape. DNA methylation, H3K9me2 and nucleosome organization influence access to meiotic break formation and the subsequent probability of crossover. In Arabidopsis thaliana, disruption of H3K9 and non-CG methylation pathways, including CMT3 and SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6, increased recombination near centromeres. The study combined break-related measurements with cytological crossover markers and genotyped recombinants, rather than inferring crossover gain from open chromatin alone.^[ref]

The distinction between redistribution and total increase is crucial. A methylation perturbation can move crossovers from one region to another without increasing their total number, and loss of CG methylation need not have the same effect as disrupting non-CG/H3K9 pathways. More initiating breaks need not become crossovers. Moreover, repeat-rich regions and the functional centromere are not interchangeable: an increase in pericentromeric events does not mean that crossing over can safely be allowed everywhere. Suppression close to centromeres also helps preserve chromosome segregation.

For breeding, locus- or stage-specific chromatin manipulation is an attractive aim because it might alter accessibility near a desired target without permanently destabilizing the rest of the genome. Nevertheless, this remains an aim to validate rather than a universal solution. Broad demethylation can derepress transposons, alter expression and affect gamete quality. A local epigenetic change may be restored by maintenance pathways before meiosis, and modifying a region's accessibility does not remove an inversion or create homology that is absent. Combining a crossover-promoting genetic background with a justified local chromatin change is mechanistically plausible, but its value must be established by mapping actual transmitted crossovers.

Partner choice is a separate genetic limitation. In bread wheat, the Ph1 locus contributes to meiotic stability and limits exchange between related homoeologous chromosomes. Relaxing this control can facilitate homoeologous recombination useful for introgressing material from relatives, but it also changes the risk of inappropriate pairing or unbalanced products.^[ref] Structural compatibility and fertility therefore need assessment alongside the desired donor segment. In inversion heterozygotes, recovery of balanced recombinants can remain limited even if meiotic breaks become more frequent.

The practical value can be expressed in terms of the target gamete's probability. If two desired alleles are in repulsion, $Ab/aB$, and the interval has recombination fraction $r$, an idealized model gives the desired recombinant $AB$ probability $p=r/2$. Among $N$ independent sampled gametes,For $r=0.002$, $p=0.001$ and at least 2995 gametes are needed for a 95% chance under this model. Increasing useful recombination can therefore reduce screening costs greatly, but crossover counts elsewhere do not change this calculation. Actual progeny designs must also account for mating scheme, viability and transmission distortion.

A successful strategy therefore measures where extra crossovers occur, whether they produce the intended haplotype and whether that haplotype is transmitted by fertile plants. Genetic pathway changes, epigenetic redistribution and partner-choice control solve related but distinct constraints; none removes the need for genotype-specific validation and selection.

An organism contains genetic elements and cell lineages whose transmission interests need not coincide. Conflict arises when increasing an element's representation in descendants or within the body differs from maximizing the organism's reproductive success. Shared residence does not guarantee shared evolutionary interests, but neither does every difference between genes constitute conflict. A convincing account identifies the competing lineages, their transmission routes, and the outcomes favoured by selection on each.

Ordinary Mendelian segregation helps align the interests of unlinked nuclear loci: most depend on the same successful organism and receive an approximately equal chance of entering its gametes. intragenomic conflict becomes possible when an element bypasses that shared route, biases transmission, replicates within the genome, or has a parent-specific effect on relatives. mutation supplies variation; genetic linkage can protect combinations involved in distortion, while recombination and selection at other loci can favour suppression. The fitness currency of a selfish genetic element is therefore its own propagation, not the apparent health or fecundity of its carrier.

meiotic drive provides a direct example. For a rare autosomal driver with transmission probabilities $t_f$ through heterozygous females and $t_m$ through heterozygous males, suppose, for illustration, that heterozygotes have the same viability factor $1-s$ in both sexes. With random mating and otherwise equal reproductive contributions, the rare-driver approximation is:A rare driver can increase when the multiplier exceeds one, despite a carrier cost. This accounting also shows why the sex in which drive occurs matters: with unbiased male transmission, $t_m=1/2$, not $t_m=t_f$. The approximation omits dominance in common genotypes, sex-specific fertility, linkage and suppressors; it is an explanatory invasion calculation rather than a quantitative model of every natural driver.

Asymmetric female meiosis creates one route to distortion because some products become eggs and others are discarded. In monkeyflowers, a centromere-associated allele showed a strong female transmission advantage, with male fertility costs that expose a conflict between transmission and organismal performance. ^[ref] Reciprocal crosses and appropriate genetic backgrounds are important: distorted counts among surviving offspring can result from embryonic viability differences rather than biased segregation. Direct observation or genotyping of gametes and early embryos helps identify the stage. centromere drive is consequently more specific than merely observing segregation distortion.

The evolutionary response can include drive suppressors at other loci. Suppression is favoured when restoring fair transmission or reducing fertility costs improves the propagation of the rest of the genome. Its effect depends on linkage: a modifier tightly associated with the driver can experience different selection from an unlinked modifier. Arms races can maintain polymorphism and alter reproductive mechanisms; conversely, a successful suppressor can conceal an earlier conflict. Present-day Mendelian ratios therefore do not establish that transmission has always been conflict-free.

Transposable elements exploit another route: copying or moving genetic material within a lineage. McClintock's maize experiments established mobile controlling elements through genetic and cytological observations, providing foundational evidence that genomic components need not occupy fixed positions. ^[ref] Mobility itself is not proof that every element is harmful or selfish in every context. The conflict hypothesis requires a replication or transmission advantage alongside consequences for other genomic functions. Host silencing through mechanisms such as RNA interference and DNA methylation can constrain propagation, while some formerly mobile sequences acquire useful regulatory functions. Current usefulness and historical origin are different claims.

genomic imprinting illustrates conflict through expression rather than transmission distortion. Maternally and paternally inherited copies can differ in their relatedness to individuals affected by resource allocation. If a mother's future offspring are less likely to share the current father, a paternally inherited copy in the current offspring can place relatively less weight on those future maternal offspring. kinship theory of genomic imprinting therefore predicts disagreement over resource extraction under specified mating and life-history assumptions. It does not predict opposed interests at every locus or in every mating system. ^[ref]

Targeted disruption of the mouse insulin-like growth factor 2 gene produced growth effects dependent on parental transmission, demonstrating parent-of-origin-dependent regulation of an important growth factor. ^[ref] This is mechanistic evidence for imprinting. It is not, by itself, proof that parental genetic conflict caused the evolutionary origin of that regulatory pattern. Testing that explanation requires comparisons among related species and mating systems, tissue-specific expression, effects on maternal and offspring fitness, and alternatives such as dosage regulation or coadaptation. The genetic copy's interest must not be confused with a father's conscious preference or with a universal claim that larger offspring are always better for one parent.

The broader category also includes conflicts between distinct genomes residing in one individual. cytoplasmic inheritance can make an organelle or microbial symbiont depend mainly on female transmission, whereas nuclear loci are ordinarily transmitted through both sexes. A maternally inherited symbiont can consequently spread through changes to reproduction that do not benefit every host. In Nasonia wasps, reciprocal crossing, chromosome observations and antibiotic removal connected cytoplasmic microorganisms to reproductive incompatibility and abnormal paternal chromosome condensation. ^[ref] This demonstrates a microbial cause of a barrier under those conditions, not necessarily the origin of every species difference. Antibiotic effects on host condition and other microbes require controls, and reintroduction experiments would strengthen microbial specificity.

somatic evolution is a related conflict at a different level. A mutant cell lineage can increase within a body by avoiding growth restraint or cell death while damaging the organism. Analyses of cancer genomes and normal somatic tissues identified patterns of selection on somatic mutations, showing that cellular success is an evolutionary quantity distinct from organismal success. ^[ref] Not all cell proliferation is selfish, and some detected mutations are passengers. Mutation-rate heterogeneity, tissue composition and sequencing ascertainment must be modelled before an excess of mutations is interpreted as selection.

Such conflicts have consequences beyond immediate harm. They can favour fair-segregation mechanisms, genome defence, regulated cell proliferation and restrictions on which cell lineages produce offspring. A single-cell bottleneck and germ-soma separation can increase alignment among cellular descendants or limit transmission of within-body competitors, although neither prevents new mutations. Conflict can also affect fertility, sex ratios, reproductive isolation and genome organization. Claims that it produced a particular major evolutionary change require historical and comparative evidence in addition to a plausible selective argument.

Organismal integration is partly an evolved outcome of controlling conflict, not evidence that conflict is absent. The strongest explanations connect a specific transmission asymmetry to an element's advantage, a measurable cost or opposed interest, and an experimentally or comparatively supported response.

Plant epigenetics investigates changes in gene activity associated with regulatory states such as DNA methylation and chromatin organization, including states that persist through mitosis or reproduction. Stable expression differences need not be caused by a changed DNA sequence, but independence from sequence variation must be tested.

The Karma epiallele connects this distinction to agriculture: reduced methylation of an intronic retrotransposon was associated with altered splicing and the low-yield mantled form of tissue-cultured oil palm. Somaclonal variation can thus involve a regulatory change as well as a sequence mutation.^[ref]

Persistence is a measurable property. Comparisons of Arabidopsis thaliana lines descended from a common ancestor found many changes at individual methylated positions but greater stability across larger methylated regions. Calling every transient response an epimutation would obscure this difference.^[ref]

A posterior methylation profile gives the posterior probability of DNA methylation at each modeled site. It differs from one sampled binary pattern and from a maximum-probability joint pattern.

Robin Holliday was a researcher in genetics and cell biology whose contributions include the proposed recombination intermediate now called the Holliday junction. His work also concerned DNA methylation and the control of biological development.^[ref]

His 1964 paper proposed a molecular mechanism for gene conversion. Exchange of strands between related DNA molecules produces a joint intermediate and regions of heteroduplex DNA; movement of the junction, called branch migration, extends the exchanged region. Different ways of resolving the joint structure give different arrangements of flanking genetic markers.^[ref]

For an illuminating example, follow a marker on each side of the exchanged region. One resolution can retain their original outside pairing, while another exchanges the flanking regions. The model therefore links an invisible molecular intermediate to different observable inheritance patterns. It was a mechanistic proposal, not a claim that every modern case of gene conversion must follow exactly one pathway.

A botanist who investigated ROS1-dependent regulation of DNA methylation and transcriptional silencing in Arabidopsis thaliana.^[ref]