Whole-genome DNA methylation profiling of CD14+ monocytes reveals disease status and activity differences in Crohn’s disease patients
=======================================================================================================================================

* Andrew Y.F. Li Yim
* Nicolette W. Duijvis
* Mohammed Ghiboub
* Catriona Sharp
* Enrico Ferrero
* Marcel M.A.M. Mannens
* Geert R. D’Haens
* Wouter J. de Jonge
* Anje A. te Velde
* Peter Henneman

## Abstract

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a multifactorial incurable chronic disorder. Current medical treatment seeks to induce and maintain a state of remission. During episodes of inflammation, monocytes infiltrate inflamed mucosa whereupon they differentiate into macrophages with a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Here, we sought to characterize the circulating monocytes by profiling their DNA methylome and relate it to the level of CD activity. We gathered an all-female age-matched cohort of 16 CD patients and 7 non-CD volunteers. CD patients were further subdivided into 8 CD patients with active disease (CD-active) and 8 CD patients in remission (CD-remissive) as determined by physician global assessment. We identified 15 and 12 differentially methylated genes (DMGs) when comparing CD with non-CD and CD-active with CD-remissive, respectively. Differential methylation was predominantly found in the promoter regions of inflammatory genes. Comparing our observations with gene expression data on classical (CD14++CD16-), non-classical (CD14+CD16++) and intermediate (CD14++CD16+) monocytes indicated that while 7 DMGs were differentially expressed across the 3 subsets, the remaining DMGs could not immediately be associated with differences in known populations. We conclude that CD activity is associated with differences in DNA methylation at the promoter region of inflammation-associated genes.

## Introduction

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a debilitating disorder belonging to the family of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). CD is characterized by episodes of transmural inflammation that can affect any part of entire gastrointestinal tract. Inflammatory episodes typically manifest as a disproportionate immune response against the commensal microbiota [1], which is accompanied by infiltration of leukocytes into the inflamed intestinal mucosa [2]. Despite the extensive research performed on CD, it remains an incurable disease whose etiology and pathogenesis is not fully understood. Treatment regimens therefore aim to reduce inflammation by inducing and subsequently maintaining a state of remission. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have made it clear that genetics alone does not fully explain heritability in CD [3–5]. As such, CD has been classified as a complex disorder whose etiology is likely a combination of genetic [4], epigenetic [6, 7] and other environmental factors. Epigenetics pertain mitotically heritable changes that affect the readability of the genome that are not caused by changes to the genetic sequence. DNA methylation is one of the most studied epigenetic mark and represents the presence of a methyl group on a cytosine [8]. Functionally, the presence of DNA methylation in the promoter area is often inversely correlated with gene expression [9–11], which in certain cases was found to be a causal relationship [12, 13]. Previous epigenetic studies reported differences in the DNA methylome of peripheral blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), with differentially methylated loci occurring in genes associated to inflammatory pathways [14–16]. Here, we sought to build on the previous studies by focusing on an individual immune cell type: monocytes.

Monocytes can differentiate into macrophages or dendritic cells (DCs), which altogether are known as the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS) [17]. Blood monocytes are typically identified by their cell-surface expression of CD14, a pattern recognition receptor that acts as a co-receptor for detecting bacterial lipopolysaccharides [18]. Further sub-classification based on the expression of CD16, a type III Fcγ receptor, lead to the definition of classical (CD14++CD16-), non-classical (CD14+CD16++) and intermediate (CD14++CD16+) monocytes [19–21]. Where classical monocytes are typified by their phagocytic behavior and innate immune response, intermediate monocytes were found to be involved in cytokine secretion, antigen presentation and apoptosis, while non-classical monocytes are associated with adhesion, complement and Fc gamma-mediated phagocytosis [22– 24].

Circulating monocytes alongside the intestinal macrophages and DCs have been implicated in the pathogenesis of IBD [25–31], with a recent study indicating that 170 CD-associated loci obtained from GWAS coincide with the gene co-expression networks from monocytes [32]. Relative to non-CD individuals or CD patients in remission, blood monocytes obtained from CD patients with active disease were more prone to secrete the inflammatory cytokines IL6 [33], CCL2 [34], and IL1β [34]. Subsequent flow cytometry studies identified fewer non-classical monocytes, but increased classical and intermediate monocytes among CD patients relative to healthy individuals [28, 31]. The same held true when comparing CD patients with active disease (CDAI>150) versus CD patients with quiescent disease (CDAI<150) [28, 31]. It has been suggested that the classical monocytes infiltrate the mucosa during inflammatory episodes of IBD [35] whereupon they differentiate into macrophages that display an inflammatory phenotype [36]. Among IBD patients, such an increased presence of inflammatory macrophages has been observed in the gut, which was more prominent in patients with active CD [27, 28, 37].

In this study, we characterize the DNA methylome of CD14+ monocytes in CD patients. We identify differences in methylation between female CD patients and non-CD volunteers as well as between active and remissive CD patients, and associate them with differences in cellular composition observed in monocytes.

## Materials and Methods

### CD14 cells isolation

Peripheral blood was collected in heparin tubes (BD Vacutainer) after which peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained by density gradient centrifugation using Ficoll (Invitrogen). CD14+ cells were positively selected from PBMCs using CD14 Microbeads according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Miltenyi Biotec). Resulting PBMCs were then stored in PBS (Fresenius Kabi) at -80°C until the cohort was fully assembled.

### DNA isolation and methylation analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and stored at 4°C. Subsequent bisulfite conversion of the DNA was performed using the Zymo EZ DNA Methylation™ kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol prior to hybridization onto the Illumina HumanMethylation 450k BeadChip array for whole-genome DNA methylation profiling.

Raw methylation data was imported into the R statistical programming environment (v3.6.2) [38] using the Bioconductor (v3.10) package minfi (v1.30) [39] after which quality control was performed using MethylAid (v1.18) [40] and shinyMethyl (v1.20) [41]. For statistical analyses, M-values were used ![Graphic][1]</img>, whereas for visualization purposes β-values ![Graphic][2]</img> were used [42].

Differential methylation analyses were performed using limma (v3.36) [43] and DMRcate (v1.16) [44] to identify differentially methylated probes (DMPs) and regions (DMRs), respectively. DMPs were defined as probes with a Benjamini-Hochberg (BH)-adjusted p-value < 0.05. DMRs were defined as regions with a Stouffer statistic < 0.05. Probes were annotated using the annotation file provided by Illumina (v1.2). We constructed two separate linear models where we compared CD with non-CD and the CD-active with CD-remissive while correcting for age using the following formula: *∼CD**status* + *age*. Comparisons included CD patients against non-CD controls, and CD patients with active disease against CD patients in remission. Reported chromosomal coordinates are based on the genome build GRCh37. Differentially methylated genes (DMGs) were identified by aggregating *p*-values of the individual probes associated per gene using Brown’s method [45] as implemented in EmpiricalBrownsMethod (v1.14.0) [46] and identifying the genes with a BH-adjusted *p*-value < 0.05. Briefly, Brown’s method aggregates *p*-values and is therefore used frequently in meta-analyses [45]. Unlike the related Fisher’s combined probability test, which assumes independence between the individual tests, Brown’s method accounts for the dependence between the individual tests [47]. Given the correlated nature of CpGs within close proximity [48], Brown’s method was deemed more suitable than Fisher’s method. Visualizations were generated using the ggplot (v3.2.1) [49] and ggbio (v1.32) [50] packages with gene features obtained from Ensembl (v95) [51].

### Monocyte gene expression data

Gene expression data was obtained from Gene Expression Omnibus [52] dataset GSE107011 [53], which contained a paired-ended RNA-sequencing data from different cell types isolated from peripheral blood from two male and two female healthy individuals. We downloaded the raw reads on the classical (CD14++CD16-), non-classical (CD14+CD16++), and intermediate (CD14++CD16+) monocytes from the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) [54] and aligned them against the human genome (GRCh37) using the STAR short read mapper (v2.7.1a) [55]. Subsequent post-processing was done using SAMtools (v1.9) after which reads mapped per gene were counted using featureCounts (v1.6.4) from the Subread package [56, 57]. Raw counts were imported into the R statistical programming environment after which normalization and statistical analysis was performed using DESeq2 (v1.24) [58]. The downloaded data was used to test which genes were associated with monocyte subsets in general. We therefore utilized a likelihood ratio test where we defined the full model as: *∼individual + manacyte* and the reduced model as represented as: *∼individual*, where individual represents the donor and monocyte subset. Subsequent comparative analyses were done using the default Wald test as implemented in *DESeq2* where we compared classical with non-classical, classical with intermediate and intermediate with non-classical monocytes.

## Results

### CD-associated differential methylation

A cohort of 23 female individuals was assembled, consisting 16 CD patients and 7 non-CD volunteers. CD patients were selected to include 8 active and 8 remissive CD patients that visited the outpatient clinic at the IBD department in Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands. Active CD was determined by physician global assessment and/or C-reactive protein above 4 (Table 1). All individuals had provided written informed consent. The assembly of this cohort was approved by the medical ethics committee of the Academic Medical Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from both the CD patients and control subjects.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/T1)

Table 1. 
Summarized patient characteristics.

### CD-associated differential methylation

We first compared the CD with non-CD samples but found no probes that passed the threshold for statistical significance (Table S1). Notably, the 50 most differentially methylated probes revealed visual, albeit minor, differences between CD and non-CD patients (Fig. 1a). Systematically searching for differentially methylated regions (DMRs) yielded no statistically significant DMRs either. However, visualizing the DMR with the lowest Stouffer statistic (chr7:51,470,953-51,471,981; Stouffer-statistic = 0.50) displayed continuous hypermethylation among the CD samples relative to the non-CD samples for 8 CpGs (Fig. S1). Trying to annotate this DMR to a particular gene proved inconclusive due to its large distance (>100 kb) to the nearest gene, Cordon-Blue WH2 Repeat Protein (COBL).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F1)

Figure 1. 
Comparing CD (n = 7) with non-CD (n = 16). (a) Heatmap organized by hierarchical clustering of the 50 most DMPs annotated with Illumina probe IDs. (b) Barplot depicting the –log10(p-value) obtained from Brown’s method for the DMGs. Significant DMGs are indicated in black, while non-significant genes are indicated in grey. (c) Visualization of the significant DMGs by plotting the difference in percentage methylation relative to the position on the chromosome and the gene features as obtained from UCSC. Dots represent probes on the Illumina HumanMethylation 450k BeadChip array. The blue trend line represents the loess-smoothed average across all methylation probes for the indicated region with surrounding grey area representing the standard error.

We searched for genes that were enriched for CpGs with low *p*-values. To this end, we annotated the CpGs to their respective genes and aggregated the *p*-values by means of the Brown’s method [45]. This approach yielded 15 statistically significant differentially methylated genes (DMGs) (Fig. 1b). Visualization of the difference in methylation suggested visually consistent, yet minor, differences in methylation (Fig. 1c). *MPIG6B, GSTT1, SLFN13, SPI1, ZNF572, LOC150381*, and *G0S2* displayed hypomethylation in the region surrounding the transcription start site (TSS), which we considered the promoter region, whereas *ZADH2, DRD4, MPEG1*, and S*LC26A4* displayed hypomethylation within the gene body. Conversely, *PDCD1* and *MPEG1* displayed promoter hypermethylation with *SLC17A9* and *LOC286002* displaying hypermethylation within the gene body.

### Differential methylation associated with disease activity in CD monocytes

As we had more granular information on CD activity, we investigated the intra-CD differences by comparing CD patients with active disease against CD patients in remission. Like the previous comparisons, none of the individual probes or continuous regions of probes were statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing (Table S2). However, visualizing the top 50 most differentially methylated probes suggested again visible but minor differences (Fig. 2a). Utilizing the Brown’s method for aggregating p-values, we identified 12 DMGs that were significantly associated with CD activity (Fig. 2b). Hypomethylation was observed for *NNAT, TRIP6*, and *LOC387647* in the promoter and for *HCP5* in the gene body (Fig. 2c). By contrast, hypermethylation was observed for *MPIG6B, KRT3CAP, FAM24B, ZNF153* and *PRAP1* in the promoter (Fig. 2c).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F2)

Figure 2. 
Comparing CD-active (n = 8) with CD-remissive (n = 8). (a) Heatmap organized by hierarchical clustering of the 50 most DMPs annotated with Illumina probe IDs. (b) Barplot depicting the –log10(*p*-value) obtained from Brown’s method for the DMGs. Significant DMGs are indicated in black, while non-significant genes are indicated in grey. (c) Visualization of the significant DMGs by plotting the difference in percentage methylation relative to the position on the chromosome and the gene features as obtained from UCSC. Dots represent probes on the Illumina HumanMethylation 450k BeadChip array. The blue trend line represents the loess-smoothed average across all methylation probes for the indicated region with surrounding grey area representing the standard error. (d) Principal component analysis performed on the probes associated to the DMGs for the CD patients only.

While all CD-remissive samples were obtained from patients on some kind of medication (anti-TNF, corticosteroid, thiopurine, mercaptopurine, celecoxib, or questran), two CD-active samples were obtained from patients that were not on any medical treatment at time of sampling. We therefore investigated whether a medication effect was observable for aforementioned DMGs by means of principal component analysis. We observed no separate clustering of the samples on medication relative to the other samples, suggesting that any effect of the medication did not manifest visibly in the methylome of the DMGs (Fig. 2d).

Taken together, we have identified in total 26 genes that were differentially methylated between CD and non-CD or between CD-active and CD-remissive (Table 2). When comparing the DMGs from the CD with non-CD comparison with the DMGs obtained from the active with remissive comparison, we identified one gene that was present in both comparisons, namely *MPIG6B* (Fig. 3a). Somewhat surprisingly, visualizing the methylation pattern of *MPIG6B* for all three groups, indicated that CD patients with active disease displayed a methylome more similar to non-CD patients as compared to CD patients in remission (Fig. 3b).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/T2)

Table 2. 
Overview of all the DMGs found in this study alongside the relevant statistics. In short, *p*-values were obtained using Brown’s method and adjusted for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method against all genes

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F3)

Figure 3. 
Comparison of the DMGs across the two comparisons. (a) Visualization of the Fisher’s combined probability test *p*-values from CD vs non-CD on the x-axis and CD-active vs CD-remissive on the y-axis. Colors represent the genes found to be significant in the different comparisons. (b) Visualization of the percentage *MPIG6B* methylation for non-CD, CD-active and CD-remissive separately with an enlarged visualization below.

### Differences in methylation may be associated with disease dynamics in monocyte populations

From previous studies we know that CD patients compared with non-CD individuals, as well as CD patients with active disease compared with CD patients in remission, present an increased classical and intermediate monocyte population and a reduced non-classical monocyte population in peripheral blood [28, 31]. We therefore sought to identify which DMGs were potentially due to differences in monocyte populations. To investigate this, we analyzed the expression of the DMGs for all the three monocyte subsets using an external RNA-sequencing dataset (GSE107011 [53]).

Monocyte gene expression data was available for 9 CD-associated DMGs, namely *MPEG1, G0S2, ZNF572, ZADH2, SLFN13, PDCD1, SPI1, SLC17A9*, and *MS4A3*, and 7 CD-activity associated DMGs, namely *SERPINF1, HCP5, TRIOBP, KRTCAP3, ZNF154, TRIP6*, and *FAM24B*. By performing a likelihood ratio test we identified that the CD-associated DMGs *MPEG1, G0S2, ZNF572 and ZADH2* (Fig. 4a) and the CD-activity associated DMGs S*ERPINF1* and *HCP5* (Fig. 4b) were significantly differentially expressed among the monocyte populations. Classical monocytes were characterized by high *MPEG1* and *ZNF572* expression, intermediate monocytes were characterized by high *ZADH2* expression, and non-classical monocytes were characterized by low *G0S2* and *HCP5*. Notably, all three subsets expressed SERPINF1 in a different fashion. By contrast, CD-associated DMGs *SLFN13, PDCD1, SPI1, SLC17A9*, and *MS4A3* and CD-activity associated DMGs *TRIOBP, KRTCAP3, ZNF154, TRIP6*, and *FAM24B* were not significantly differentially expressed.

![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.09.20033043/F4)

Figure 4. 
Gene expression of the DMGs across the different monocyte subsets. Visualization of the log2(counts) for classical, intermediate and non-classical annotated with the p-value as obtained from the likelihood ratio test.

## Discussion

In this study, we investigated the DNA methylome of CD14+ monocytes and its relation to CD activity. To this end, we performed two analyses. First, we compared CD14+ monocytes from CD patients with non-CD volunteers and second, we compared CD patients with active disease against those in remission. At a genome-wide level, we identified no statistically significant DMPs and DMRs for both comparisons, suggesting minor differences methylation across the three groups. Despite the lack of genome-wide statistical significance, our search for genes that were enriched for low nominal *p*-values yielded 15 and 12 genes for the CD vs non-CD and CD-active vs CD-remissive comparisons, respectively. Cross-referencing our observations with differences in gene expression among monocyte subpopulations suggested that while 4 out of 9 CD-associated and 2 out of 7 CD-activity associated were potentially associated to changes in the underlying monocyte populations, 5 CD-associated and 5 CD-activity are not.

Functionally, the DMGs were not found to be overrepresented for gene sets using the STRING database [59] (data not shown), indicating that the DMGs do not represent clear functional modules or cellular pathways. Nonetheless, CD-associated DMGs *PDCD1, SPI1, SLC26A4*, and *MPIG6B* as well as CD-activity associated DMGs *TRIP6, SSTR4*, and *SLC17A9* have been implicated in immunological functions. PDCD1 is involved in the programmed cell death pathway [60], whose inhibition benefits sepsis-associated microbial clearing in murine macrophages [61, 62]. SPI1 (also known as PU.1) is a known regulator of myeloid and B-lymphoid cell development [63] but has also been described as pro-inflammatory as it is capable of upregulating IL6 in the presence of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) [64]. *SLC26A4* encodes pendrin, an anion exchange protein whose clinical relevance is mostly described within the context of hearing impairment [65]. Nonetheless, whole genome bisulfite sequencing and RNA-sequencing analysis of mucosal biopsies of UC patients with non-UC patients indicated promoter hypomethylation and upregulated expression [66], which is in agreement with the observations made in this study. *MPIG6B* expression in platelets has been associated with a decreased aggregative capability in vitro [67]. Platelet count is typically positively correlated with CD activity [68] or colonic inflammation [69]. Notably, our results show hypomethylation of the *MPIG6B* promoter when comparing CD with non-CD, yet hypermethylation when comparing CD-active with CD-remissive. This observation would require further mechanistic studies to investigate the role of *MPIG6B* methylation on the inflammatory phenotype in monocytes. TRIP6 encodes a member of the RIP kinase family involved in inflammation through the NOD-like receptor signaling [70]. NOD-like receptors remain an interesting target for auto-inflammatory diseases due to their role in the assembly of the inflammasome [71]. *SSTR4* has been implicated in inflammation and nociception in the gastrointestinal tract [72]. *SLC17A9* encodes a vesicular nucleotide transporter whose primary function is the export of ATP [73]. Knockdown of *SLC17A9* was found to suppress IL6 protein expression THP-1 cells even after LPS stimulation suggesting an amelioration of the pro-inflammatory phenotype [74]. Notably, *SLC17A9* has been found to be associated with bone marrow monopoiesis [75].

By comparing our observations with gene expression data generated by Monaco *et al*. [53], we found that several DMGs were differentially expressed among the three monocyte subsets. By contrast, CD-associated DMGs *SLFN13, PDCD1, SPI1, SLC17A9*, and *MS4A3* and CD-activity associated DMGs *TRIOBP, KRTCAP3, ZNF154, TRIP6*, and *FAM24B* were not statistically different in expression across the three monocyte subsets. However, the correlation between gene expression and promoter methylation is not unequivocally true, nor is the effect size of the correlation known. A more direct approach would therefore be to compare the DNA methylome of the DMGs between non-CD, CD-active and CD-remissive for the three monocyte populations separately. While the dataset GSE73788 [76] does contain such methylation profiles, we found the results incompatible due to the availability of only a single profile per monocyte subtype, coupled with the different DNA methylation platform used. Taken together, future confirmatory and mechanistic studies would be necessary to validate the population-independence of the aforementioned DMGs as well as investigate where the observed difference in methylation comes from as well as its association with CD.

To conclude, we have provided evidence that the DNA methylome of CD14+ monocytes are different between non-CD patients and CD patients, as well as well as between CD patients with active disease and those in remission. While the differences in DNA methylation among CD activity states are minute and the current sample size is too small to properly identify DMPs and DMRs, we observe concordant differences in methylation particular gene promoters. Future studies on the DNA methylome in circulating monocytes would have to take this into consideration when estimating the sample size necessary for a properly powered study. Our observations can to that end serve as a stepping stone in subsequent research on monocyte characteristics in CD.

## Data Availability

The DNA methylation generated in this study has been published under controlled access for research purposes at the European Genome-phenome Archive at EGAD00010001846. All bash and R scripts have been made available on GitHub and can be found at https://github.com/ND91/PRJ0000002_CDMON.

[https://github.com/ND91/PRJ0000002\_CDMON](https://github.com/ND91/PRJ0000002_CDMON) 

[https://ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00010001846](https://ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00010001846) 

## Supplementary Information

**Figure S1**. Visible DMR found at chr7:51,538,650-51,539,678. Visualization of the DMR with colors representing CD and non-CD samples.

**Table S1**. Differential methylation probe analysis comparing CD with non-CD. Columns represent the Illumina CpG ID, the difference in M-values, the difference in Beta-values, t-statistic, *p*-values, BH-adjusted *p*-values, and chromosomal coordinates (hg19).

**Table S2**. Differential methylation probe analysis comparing CD-active with CD-remissive. Columns represent the Illumina CpG ID, the difference in M-values, the difference in Beta-values, t-statistic, *p*-values, BH-adjusted *p*-values, and chromosomal coordinates (hg19).

**Table S3**. Differential expression analysis of the DMGs. Tabs represent the three comparisons: Likelihood Ratio Test, Classical vs Non-classical, Classical vs Intermediate, and Intermediate vs Non-classical. Columns in each tab represent the *p*-values and the BH-adjusted *p*-values obtained through differential expression analysis.

## Data availability

The DNA methylation generated in this study has been published under controlled access for research purposes at the European Genome-phenome Archive at EGAD00010001846. All bash and R scripts have been made available on GitHub and can be found at [https://github.com/ND91/PRJ0000002\_CDMON](https://github.com/ND91/PRJ0000002_CDMON).

## Author Contributions

A.A.V. and P.H. were responsible for the conceptualization of this study, funding acquisition and project administration. N.W.D. was responsible for the isolation of the CD14+ monocytes. A.Y.F.L.Y. was responsible for data curation, analysis and visualization. A.Y.F.L.Y., N.W.D., M.G., C.S., E.F., A.A.V and P.H. were responsible for writing, reviewing and editing the manuscript. W.J.J. and G.R.D. were responsible for sample acquisition. G.R.D, C.S., E.F., W.J.J., M.M.A.M.M., A.A.V. and P.H. were responsible for supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

## Funding

M.G. and A.Y.F.L.Y. were funded by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. ITN-2014-EID-641665.

## Conflicts of Interest

A.Y.F.L.Y., C.S. and E.F. were employed at GlaxoSmithKline. E.F. was employed at Novartis. GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis had no additional role in the study design, data collection, decision to publish or the preparation of the manuscript. W.J.J. was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline, Maed Johnsson and Schwabe. None of the aforementioned funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Vincent Joustra and Ishtu Hageman for constructive criticism of the manuscript. The methylation analyses were supported by the Innovation Exchange Amsterdam Academic Proof of Concept Fund Amsterdam.

*   Received March 9, 2020.
*   Revision received March 9, 2020.
*   Accepted March 12, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.de Souza HSP, Fiocchi C: Immunopathogenesis of IBD: current state of the art. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016, 13:13–27.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrgastro.2015.186&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26627550&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

2.  2.Arseneau KO, Cominelli F: Targeting leukocyte trafficking for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015, 97:22–28.
    
    

3.  3.Gordon H, Trier Moller F, Andersen V, Harbord M: Heritability in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: From the First Twin Study to Genome-Wide Association Studies. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015, 21:1428–34.
    
    

4.  4.Liu JZ, Anderson CA: Genetic studies of Crohn’s disease: Past, present and future. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Gastroenterology 2014:373–386.
    
    

5.  5.Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, et al: Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009, 461:747–753.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature08494&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19812666&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270547500027&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Mateos B, Palanca-Ballester C, Saez-Gonzalez E, Moret I, Lopez A, Sandoval J: Epigenetics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Unraveling Pathogenic Events. Crohn’s Colitis 360 2019, 1.
    
    

7.  7.Fogel O, Richard-Miceli C, Tost J: Epigenetic Changes in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases. In Chromatin Remodelling and Immunity. Volume 106. 1st edition. Elsevier Inc.; 2017:139–189.
    
    

8.  8.Bird A: DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev 2002, 16:6–21.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiZ2VuZXNkZXYiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NjoiMTYvMS82IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDMvMTIvMjAyMC4wMy4wOS4yMDAzMzA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

9.  9.Bird AP: CpG-rich islands and the function of DNA methylation. Nature 1986, 321:209–213.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/321209a0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2423876&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986C330700035&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Deaton AM, Bird A: CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev 2011, 25:1010–1022.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiZ2VuZXNkZXYiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjI1LzEwLzEwMTAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wMy8xMi8yMDIwLjAzLjA5LjIwMDMzMDQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

11. 11.Razin A, Cedar H: DNA methylation and gene expression. Microbiol Rev 1991, 55:451–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoibW1iciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI1NS8zLzQ1MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzAzLzEyLzIwMjAuMDMuMDkuMjAwMzMwNDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

12. 12.Liu XS, Wu H, Ji X, Stelzer Y, Wu X, Czauderna S, et al: Editing DNA Methylation in the Mammalian Genome. Cell 2016, 167:233-247.e17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.056&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27662091&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

13. 13.Lei Y, Zhang X, Su J, Jeong M, Gundry MC,  Huang Y-H, et al: Targeted DNA methylation in vivo using an engineered dCas9-MQ1 fusion protein. Nat Commun 2017, 8(May):16026.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ncomms16026&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28695892&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

14. 14. Li Yim Ayf, Duijvis NW, Zhao J, de Jonge WJ, D’Haens GRAM, Mannens MMAM, et al: Peripheral blood methylation profiling of female Crohn’s disease patients. Clin Epigenetics 2016, 8:65.
    
    

15. 15.Nimmo ER, Prendergast JG, Aldhous MC, Kennedy NA, Henderson P, Drummond HE, et al: Genome-wide methylation profiling in Crohnllls disease identifies altered epigenetic regulation of key host defense mechanisms including the Th17 pathway. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012, 18:889–899.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ibd.21912&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22021194&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000303104700014&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.McDermott E, Ryan EJ, Tosetto M, Gibson D, Burrage J, Keegan D, et al: DNA Methylation Profiling in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Provides New Insights into Disease Pathogenesis. J Crohn’s Colitis 2016, 10:77–86.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv176&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26419460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

17. 17.Hume DA: The mononuclear phagocyte system. Current Opinion in Immunology 2006:49–53.
    
    

18. 18.Kitchens RL: Role of CD14 in Cellular Recognition of Bacterial Lipopolysaccharides. In CD14 in the Inflammatory Response. Basel: KARGER; 1999:61–82.
    
    

19. 19.Ziegler-Heitbrock L, Hofer TPJ: Toward a refined definition of monocyte subsets. Front Immunol 2013, 4(FRB):1–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fimmu.2013.00185&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23355837&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

20. 20.Ziegler-Heitbrock L, Ancuta P, Crowe S, Dalod M, Grau V, Hart DN, et al: Nomenclature of monocytes and dendritic cells in blood. Blood 2010.
    
    

21. 21.Passlick B, Flieger D, Ziegler-Heitbrock H: Identification and characterization of a novel monocyte subpopulation in human peripheral blood. Blood 1989, 74:2527–2534.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJsb29kam91cm5hbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiI3NC83LzI1MjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wMy8xMi8yMDIwLjAzLjA5LjIwMDMzMDQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

22. 22.Gren ST, Rasmussen TB, Janciauskiene S, Håkansson K, Gerwien JG, Grip O: A Single-Cell Gene-Expression Profile Reveals Inter-Cellular Heterogeneity within Human Monocyte Subsets.PLoS One 2015, 10:e0144351.
    
    

23. 23.Loon Wong K, Jing-Yi Tai J, Wong W-C, Han H, Sem X, Yeap W-H, et al: Gene expression profiling reveals the defining features of the classical, intermediate, and nonclassical human monocyte subsets New official nomenclature subdivides human monocytes into 3 subsets: the classical (CD14 CD16), intermediate (CD14 CD16), and nonclassical (CD14 CD16) monocytes. 2011.
    
    

24. 24.Kapellos TS, Bonaguro L, Gemünd I, Reusch N, Saglam A, Hinkley ER, et al: Human monocyte subsets and phenotypes in major chronic inflammatory diseases. Frontiers in Immunology 2019(AUG).
    
    

25. 25.Steinbach EC, Plevy SE: The role of macrophages and dendritic cells in the initiation of inflammation in IBD. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2014.
    
    

26. 26.Na YR, Stakenborg M, Seok SH, Matteoli G: Macrophages in intestinal inflammation and resolution: a potential therapeutic target in IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019, 16:531–543.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

27. 27. Kühl Aa, Erben U, Kredel LI, Siegmund B, Kuhl AA, Erben U, et al: Diversity of intestinal macrophages in inflammatory bowel diseases. Front Immunol 2015, 6(DEC):1–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fimmu.2015.00001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25657648&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

28. 28.Thiesen S, Janciauskiene S, Uronen-Hansson H, Agace W,  Hogerkorp C-M, Spee P, et al: CD14hiHLA-DRdim macrophages, with a resemblance to classical blood monocytes, dominate inflamed mucosa in Crohn’s disease. J Leukoc Biol 2014, 95:531–541.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1189/jlb.0113021&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24212097&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

29. 29.Gren ST, Grip O: Role of Monocytes and Intestinal Macrophages in Crohnllls Disease and Ulcerative Colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016, 22:1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MIB.0000000000000574&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26444104&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

30. 30.Martin JC, Boschetti G, Chang C, Ungaro R, Giri M, Chuang L-S, et al: Single-cell analysis of Crohn’s disease lesions identifies a pathogenic cellular module associated with resistance to anti TNF therapy. bioRxiv 2018, 357:503102.
    
    

31. 31.Koch S, Kucharzik T, Heidemann J, Nusrat A, Luegering A: Investigating the role of proinflammatory CD16+ monocytes in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Exp Immunol 2010, 161:o-no.
    
    

32. 32.Gettler K, Giri M, Kenigsberg E, Martin J, Chuang LS, Hsu NY, et al: Prioritizing Crohn’s disease genes by integrating association signals with gene expression implicates monocyte subsets. Genes Immun 2019, 20:577–588.
    
    

33. 33.Andus T, Gross V, Casar I, Krumm D, Hosp J, David M, et al: Activation of monocytes during inflammatory bowel disease. In Pathobiology. Volume 59; 1991:166–170.
    
    

34. 34.Schwarzmaier D, Foell D, Weinhage T, Varga G, Däbritz J: Peripheral Monocyte Functions and Activation in Patients with Quiescent Crohn’s Disease. PLoS One 2013, 8:8–14.
    
    

35. 35.Geissmann F, Jung S, Littman DR: Blood monocytes consist of two principal subsets with distinct migratory properties. Immunity 2003, 19:71–82.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1074-7613(03)00174-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12871640&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184260400009&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Bain CC, Schridde A: Origin, Differentiation, and Function of Intestinal Macrophages. Front Immunol 2018, 9:2733.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fimmu.2018.02733&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37.Kamada N, Hisamatsu T, Okamoto S, Chinen H, Kobayashi T, Sato T, et al: Unique CD14+intestinal macrophages contribute to the pathogenesis of Crohn disease via IL-23/IFN-γ axis. J Clin Invest 2008, 118:2269–2280.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI34610&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18497880&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256445100030&link_type=ISI) 

38. 38.R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008.
    
    

39. 39.Aryee MJ, Jaffe AE, Corrada-Bravo H, Ladd-Acosta C, Feinberg AP, Hansen KD, et al: Minfi: A flexible and comprehensive Bioconductor package for the analysis of Infinium DNA methylation microarrays. Bioinformatics 2014, 30:1363–1369.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btu049&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24478339&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000336530000004&link_type=ISI) 

40. 40.van Iterson M, Tobi EW, Slieker RC, den Hollander W, Luijk R, Slagboom PE, et al: MethylAid: visual and interactive quality control of large Illumina 450k datasets. Bioinformatics 2014, 30:3435–3437.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btu566&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25147358&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

41. 41.Fortin JP, Fertig E, Hansen K: shinyMethyl: Interactive quality control of Illumina 450k DNA methylation arrays in R. F1000Research 2014, 3.
    
    

42. 42.Du P, Zhang X,  Huang C-C, Jafari N, Kibbe WA, Hou L, et al: Comparison of Beta-value and M-value methods for quantifying methylation levels by microarray analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:587.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2105-11-587&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21118553&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

43. 43.Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, et al: limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res 2015, 43:e47–e47.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkv007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25605792&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

44. 44.Peters TJ, Buckley MJ, Statham AL, Pidsley R, Samaras K, V Lord R, et al: De novo identification of differentially methylated regions in the human genome. Epigenetics Chromatin 2015, 8:6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1756-8935-8-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25972926&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

45. 45.Brown MB: A Method for Combining Non-Independent, One-Sided Tests of Significance. Biometrics 1975, 31:987.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2529826&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1975BA64400018&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Poole W, Gibbs DL: EmpiricalBrownsMethod: Uses Brown’s method to combine p-values from dependent tests. 2015.
    
    

47. 47.Koziol JA, Perlman MD: Combining independent chi-squared tests. J Am Stat Assoc 1978, 73:753–763.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2286276&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1978GA16200016&link_type=ISI) 

48. 48.Zhang W, Spector TD, Deloukas P, Bell JT, Engelhardt BE: Predicting genome-wide DNA methylation using methylation marks, genomic position, and DNA regulatory elements. Genome Biol 2015, 16:14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13059-015-0581-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25616342&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

49. 49.Wickham H: Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York; 2009.
    
    

50. 50.Yin T, Cook D, Lawrence M: ggbio: an R package for extending the grammar of graphics for genomic data. Genome Biol 2012, 13:R77.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/gb-2012-13-8-r77&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22937822&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

51. 51.Zerbino DR, Achuthan P, Akanni W, Amode MR, Barrell D, Bhai J, et al: Ensembl 2018. Nucleic Acids Res 2018, 46:D754–D761.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkx1098&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29155950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

52. 52.Edgar R: Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res 2002, 30:207–210.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/30.1.207&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11752295&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000173077100055&link_type=ISI) 

53. 53.Monaco G, Lee B, Xu W, Mustafah S, Hwang YY, Carré C, et al: RNA-Seq Signatures Normalized by mRNA Abundance Allow Absolute Deconvolution of Human Immune Cell Types. Cell Rep 2019, 26:1627-1640.e7.
    
    

54. 54.Leinonen R, Sugawara H, Shumway M, International Nucleotide Sequence Database C: The sequence read archive. Nucleic Acids Res 2011, 39(Database issue):D19&21.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkq1019&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21062823&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285831700005&link_type=ISI) 

55. 55.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al: STAR: Ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 2013, 29:15–21.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23104886&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000312654600003&link_type=ISI) 

56. 56.Liao Y, Smyth GK, Shi W: featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics 2014, 30:923–930.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btt656&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24227677&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000334078300005&link_type=ISI) 

57. 57.Liao Y, Smyth GK, Shi W: The Subread aligner: fast, accurate and scalable read mapping by seed-and-vote. Nucleic Acids Res 2013, 41:e108.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkt214&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23558742&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

58. 58.Love MI, Anders S, Huber W: Differential Analysis of Count Data - the DESeq2 Package. Volume 15; 2014.
    
    

59. 59.Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Lyon D, Junge A, Wyder S, Huerta-Cepas J, et al: STRING v11: Protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2019, 47:D607–D613.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gky1131&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30476243&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

60. 60.Ishida Y, Agata Y, Shibahara K, Honjo T: Induced expression of PD-1, a novel member of the immunoglobulin gene superfamily, upon programmed cell death. EMBO J 1992, 11:3887–3895.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05481.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1396582&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992JT32800010&link_type=ISI) 

61. 61.Mandelboum S, Manber Z, Elroy-Stein O, Elkon R: Recurrent functional misinterpretation of RNA-seq data caused by sample-specific gene length bias. PLOS Biol 2019, 17:e3000481.
    
    

62. 62.Zhang Y, Zhou Y, Lou J, Li J, Bo L, Zhu K, et al: PD-L1 blockade improves survival in experimental sepsis by inhibiting lymphocyte apoptosis and reversing monocyte dysfunction. Crit Care 2010, 14:R220.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/cc9354&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21118528&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

63. 63.Scott EW, Simon MC, Anastasi J, Singh H: Requirement of transcription factor PU.1 in the development of multiple hematopoietic lineages. Science (80-) 1994, 265:1573 LP – 1577.
    
    

64. 64.Ito T, Nishiyama C, Nakano N, Nishiyama M, Usui Y, Takeda K, et al: Roles of PU.1 in monocyte- and mast cell-specific gene regulation: PU.1 transactivates CIITA pIV in cooperation with IFN-. Int Immunol 2009, 21:803–816.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/intimm/dxp048&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19502584&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

65. 65.Albert S, Blons H, Jonard L, Feldmann D, Chauvin P, Loundon N, et al: SLC26A4 gene is frequently involved in nonsyndromic hearing impairment with enlarged vestibular aqueduct in Caucasian populations. Eur J Hum Genet 2006, 14:773–779.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201611&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16570074&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237806400017&link_type=ISI) 

66. 66.Taman H, Fenton CG, Hensel I V., Anderssen E, Florholmen J, Paulssen RH: Genome-wide DNA Methylation in Treatment-naïve Ulcerative Colitis. J Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12:1338–1347.
    
    

67. 67.Newland SA, Macaulay IC, Floto RA, De Vet EC, Ouwehand WH, Watkins NA, et al: The novel inhibitory receptor G6B is expressed on the surface of platelets and attenuates platelet function in vitro. Blood 2007, 109:4806–4809.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJsb29kam91cm5hbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTA5LzExLzQ4MDYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wMy8xMi8yMDIwLjAzLjA5LjIwMDMzMDQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

68. 68.Harries AD, Fitzsimons E, Fifield R, Dew MJ, Rhoades J: Platelet count: A simple measure of activity in Crohn’s disease. Br Med J 1983, 286:1476.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czozOiJibWoiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjI4Ni82Mzc2LzE0NzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wMy8xMi8yMDIwLjAzLjA5LjIwMDMzMDQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

69. 69.Yan SLS, Russell J, Harris NR, Senchenkova EY, Yildirim A, Granger DN: Platelet abnormalities during colonic inflammation. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013, 19:1245–1253.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MIB.0b013e318281f3df&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23518812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000329353200022&link_type=ISI) 

70. 70.Li L, Bin LH, Li F, Liu Y, Chen D, Zhai Z, et al: TRIP6 is a RIP2-associated common signaling component of multiple NF-κB activation pathways. J Cell Sci 2005, 118:555–563.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiam9jZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTE4LzMvNTU1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDMvMTIvMjAyMC4wMy4wOS4yMDAzMzA0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

71. 71.Zhong Y, Kinio A, Saleh M: Functions of NOD-Like Receptors in Human Diseases. Front Immunol 2013, 4.
    
    

72. 72.Van Op den bosch J, Torfs P, De Winter BY, De Man JG, Pelckmans PA, Van Marck E, et al: Effect of genetic SSTR4 ablation on inflammatory peptide and receptor expression in the non-inflamed and inflamed murine intestine. J Cell Mol Med 2009, 13(9 B):3283–3295.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19426160&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

73. 73.Sawada K, Echigo N, Juge N, Miyaji T, Otsuka M, Omote H, et al: Identification of a vesicular nucleotide transporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:5683–5686.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTA1LzE1LzU2ODMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wMy8xMi8yMDIwLjAzLjA5LjIwMDMzMDQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

74. 74.Sakaki H, Tsukimoto M, Harada H, Moriyama Y, Kojima S: Autocrine Regulation of Macrophage Activation via Exocytosis of ATP and Activation of P2Y11 Receptor. PLoS One 2013, 8:e59778.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0059778&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23577075&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F03%2F12%2F2020.03.09.20033043.atom) 

75. 75.Mello F V., Alves LR, Land MGP, Teodósio C, Sanchez M-L, Bárcena P, et al: Maturation-associated gene expression profiles along normal human bone marrow monopoiesis. Br J Haematol 2017, 176:464–474.
    
    

76. 76.Zawada AM, Schneider JS, Michel AI, Rogacev KS, Hummel B, Krezdorn N, et al: DNA methylation profiling reveals differences in the 3 human monocyte subsets and identifies uremia to induce DNA methylation changes during differentiation. Epigenetics 2016, 11:259–272.

 [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
 [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif