The Conditional Nature of Genetic Interactions: The Consequences of Wild-Type Backgrounds on Mutational Interactions in a Genome-Wide Modifier Screen
The phenotypic outcome of a mutation cannot be simply mapped onto the underlying DNA variant. Instead, the phenotype is a function of the allele, the genetic background in which it occurs and the environment where the mutational effects are expressed. While the influence of genetic background on the expressivity of individual mutations is recognized, its consequences on the interactions between genes, or the genetic network they form, is largely unknown. The description of genetic networks is essential for much of biology; yet if, and how, the topologies of such networks are influenced by background is unknown. Furthermore, a comprehensive examination of the background dependent nature of genetic interactions may lead to identification of novel modifiers of biological processes. Previous work in Drosophila melanogaster demonstrated that wild-type genetic background influences the effects of an allele of scalloped (sd), with respect to both its principal consequence on wing development and its interactions with a mutation in optomotor blind. In this study we address whether the background dependence of mutational interactions is a general property of genetic systems by performing a genome wide dominant modifier screen of the sdE3 allele in two wild-type genetic backgrounds using molecularly defined deletions. We demonstrate that ∼74% of all modifiers of the sdE3 phenotype are background-dependent due in part to differential sensitivity to genetic perturbation. These background dependent interactions include some with qualitative differences in the phenotypic outcome, as well as instances of sign epistasis. This suggests that genetic interactions are often contingent on genetic background, with flexibility in genetic networks due to segregating variation in populations. Such background dependent effects can substantially alter conclusions about how genes influence biological processes, the potential for genetic screens in alternative wild-type backgrounds identifying new loci that contribute to trait expression, and the inferences of the topology of genetic networks.
Vyšlo v časopise:
The Conditional Nature of Genetic Interactions: The Consequences of Wild-Type Backgrounds on Mutational Interactions in a Genome-Wide Modifier Screen. PLoS Genet 9(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003661
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003661
Souhrn
The phenotypic outcome of a mutation cannot be simply mapped onto the underlying DNA variant. Instead, the phenotype is a function of the allele, the genetic background in which it occurs and the environment where the mutational effects are expressed. While the influence of genetic background on the expressivity of individual mutations is recognized, its consequences on the interactions between genes, or the genetic network they form, is largely unknown. The description of genetic networks is essential for much of biology; yet if, and how, the topologies of such networks are influenced by background is unknown. Furthermore, a comprehensive examination of the background dependent nature of genetic interactions may lead to identification of novel modifiers of biological processes. Previous work in Drosophila melanogaster demonstrated that wild-type genetic background influences the effects of an allele of scalloped (sd), with respect to both its principal consequence on wing development and its interactions with a mutation in optomotor blind. In this study we address whether the background dependence of mutational interactions is a general property of genetic systems by performing a genome wide dominant modifier screen of the sdE3 allele in two wild-type genetic backgrounds using molecularly defined deletions. We demonstrate that ∼74% of all modifiers of the sdE3 phenotype are background-dependent due in part to differential sensitivity to genetic perturbation. These background dependent interactions include some with qualitative differences in the phenotypic outcome, as well as instances of sign epistasis. This suggests that genetic interactions are often contingent on genetic background, with flexibility in genetic networks due to segregating variation in populations. Such background dependent effects can substantially alter conclusions about how genes influence biological processes, the potential for genetic screens in alternative wild-type backgrounds identifying new loci that contribute to trait expression, and the inferences of the topology of genetic networks.
Zdroje
1. DowellRD, RyanO, JansenA, CheungD, AgarwalaS, et al. (2010) Genotype to phenotype: a complex problem. Science 328: 469.
2. ThreadgillDW, DlugoszAA, HansenLA, TennenbaumT, LichtiU, et al. (1995) Targeted disruption of mouse EGF receptor: effect of genetic background on mutant phenotype. Science 269: 230–234.
3. NadeauJH (2001) Modifier genes in mice and humans. Nat Rev Genet 2: 165–174.
4. RemoldSK, LenskiRE (2004) Pervasive joint influence of epistasis and plasticity on mutational effects in Escherichia coli. Nat Genet 36: 423–426.
5. DworkinI (2005) A Study of Canalization and Developmental Stability in the Sternopleural Bristle System of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 59: 1500–1509.
6. LamMY, NadeauJH (2003) Genetic control of susceptibility to spontaneous testicular germ cell tumors in mice. Apmis 111: 184–190; discussion 191.
7. SangsterTA, SalathiaN, LeeHN, WatanabeE, SchellenbergK, et al. (2008) HSP90-buffered genetic variation is common in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 2969–2974.
8. PolaczykPJ, GasperiniR, GibsonG (1998) Naturally occurring genetic variation affects Drosophila photoreceptor determination. Development Genes and Evolution 207: 462–470.
9. DworkinI, PalssonA, BirdsallK, GibsonG (2003) Evidence that Egfr contributes to cryptic genetic variation for photoreceptor determination in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Current Biology 13: 1888–1893.
10. ToivonenJM, WalkerGA, Martinez-DiazP, BjedovI, DriegeY, et al. (2007) No influence of Indy on lifespan in Drosophila after correction for genetic and cytoplasmic background effects. PLoS Genet 3: e95.
11. ClancyDJ (2008) Variation in mitochondrial genotype has substantial lifespan effects which may be modulated by nuclear background. Aging Cell 7: 795–804.
12. NerettiN, WangPY, BrodskyAS, NyguyenHH, WhiteKP, et al. (2009) Long-lived Indy induces reduced mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production and oxidative damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 2277–2282.
13. ToivonenJM, GemsD, PartridgeL (2009) Longevity of Indy mutant Drosophila not attributable to Indy mutation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: E53; author reply E54.
14. RoginaB, HelfandSL (2013) Indy mutations and Drosophila longevity. Front Genet 4: 47.
15. GreenbergAJ, MoranJR, CoyneJA, WuCI (2003) Ecological adaptation during incipient speciation revealed by precise gene replacement. Science 302: 1754–1757.
16. CoyneJA, ElwynS (2006) Does the desaturase-2 locus in Drosophila melanogaster cause adaptation and sexual isolation? Evolution 60: 279–291.
17. GreenbergAJ, MoranJR, WuCI (2006) Proper control of genetic background with precise allele substitution: a comment on Coyne and Elwyn. Evolution 60: 623–625; discussion 626–627.
18. JeongS, RebeizM, AndolfattoP, WernerT, TrueJ, et al. (2008) The evolution of gene regulation underlies a morphological difference between two Drosophila sister species. Cell 132: 783–793.
19. MatuteDR, ButlerIA, CoyneJA (2009) Little effect of the tan locus on pigmentation in female hybrids between Drosophila santomea and D. melanogaster. Cell 139: 1180–1188.
20. RebeizM, Ramos-WomackM, JeongS, AndolfattoP, WernerT, et al. (2009) Evolution of the tan Locus Contributed to Pigment Loss in Drosophila santomea: A Response to Matute et al. Cell 139: 1189–1196.
21. ChandlerCH, ChariS, DworkinI (2013) Does your gene need a background check? How genetic background impacts the analysis of mutations, genes, and evolution. Trends Genet 29(6): 358–366.
22. KhanAI, DinhDM, SchneiderD, LenskiRE, CooperTF (2011) Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population. Science 332: 1193–1196.
23. WangY, ArenasCD, StoebelDM, CooperTF (2013) Genetic background affects epistatic interactions between two beneficial mutations. Biol Lett 9(1): 20120328.
24. LalićJ, ElenaSF (2013) Epistasis between mutations is host-dependent for an RNA virus. Biol Lett 9(1): 20120396.
25. GersteinAC (2013) Mutational effects depend on ploidy level: all else is not equal. Biology letters 9(1): 20120614.
26. St JohnstonD (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Rev Genet 3: 176–188.
27. KarimFD, ChangHC, TherrienM, WassarmanDA, LavertyT, et al. (1996) A screen for genes that function downstream of Ras1 during Drosophila eye development. Genetics 143: 315–329.
28. TherrienM, MorrisonDK, WongAM, RubinGM (2000) A genetic screen for modifiers of a kinase suppressor of Ras-dependent rough eye phenotype in Drosophila. Genetics 156: 1231–1242.
29. SimonMA (1994) Signal transduction during the development of the Drosophila R7 photoreceptor. Dev Biol 166: 431–442.
30. DicksonBJ, van der StratenA, DominguezM, HafenE (1996) Mutations Modulating Raf signaling in Drosophila eye development. Genetics 142: 163–171.
31. DagaA, BanerjeeU (1994) Resolving the sevenless pathway using sensitized genetic backgrounds. Cell Mol Biol Res 40: 245–251.
32. NadeauJH (2003) Genetics. Modifying the message. Science 301: 927–928.
33. RutherfordSL (2000) From genotype to phenotype: buffering mechanisms and the storage of genetic information. Bioessays 22: 1095–1105.
34. KeriRA, LozadaKL, Abdul-KarimFW, NadeauJH, NilsonJH (2000) Luteinizing hormone induction of ovarian tumors: oligogenic differences between mouse strains dictates tumor disposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 383–387.
35. NadeauJH (2003) Modifier genes and protective alleles in humans and mice. Curr Opin Genet Dev 13: 290–295.
36. DworkinI, KennerlyE, TackD, HutchinsonJ, BrownJ, et al. (2009) Genomic consequences of background effects on scalloped mutant expressivity in the wing of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 181: 1065–1076.
37. RyderE, BlowsF, AshburnerM, Bautista-LlacerR, CoulsonD, et al. (2004) The DrosDel collection: a set of P-element insertions for generating custom chromosomal aberrations in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 167: 797–813.
38. ThibaultST, SingerMA, MiyazakiWY, MilashB, DompeNA, et al. (2004) A complementary transposon tool kit for Drosophila melanogaster using P and piggyBac. Nat Genet 36: 283–287.
39. ParksAL, CookKR, BelvinM, DompeNA, FawcettR, et al. (2004) Systematic generation of high-resolution deletion coverage of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Nat Genet 36: 288–292.
40. MuraliT, PacificoS, YuJ, GuestS, RobertsGG3rd, et al. (2011) DroID 2011: a comprehensive, integrated resource for protein, transcription factor, RNA and gene interactions for Drosophila. Nucleic Acids Res 39: D736–743.
41. LyneR, SmithR, RutherfordK, WakelingM, VarleyA, et al. (2007) FlyMine: an integrated database for Drosophila and Anopheles genomics. Genome Biol 8: R129.
42. DworkinI, GibsonG (2006) Epidermal growth factor receptor and transforming growth factor-beta signaling contributes to variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 173: 1417–1431.
43. HartwellL (2004) Genetics. Robust interactions. Science 303: 774–775.
44. TweedieS, AshburnerM, FallsK, LeylandP, McQuiltonP, et al. (2009) FlyBase: enhancing Drosophila Gene Ontology annotations. Nucleic Acids Res 37: D555–559.
45. KitzmannP, SchwirzJ, Schmitt-EngelC, BucherG (2013) RNAi phenotypes are influenced by the genetic background of the injected strain. BMC Genomics 14: 5.
46. MackayTFC (2004) Complementing complexity. Nat Genet 36: 1145–1147.
47. WhitlockMC, BourguetD (2000) Factors affecting the genetic load in Drosophila: synergistic epistasis and correlations among fitness components. Evolution 54: 1654–1660.
48. AnselJ, BottinH, Rodriguez-BeltranC, DamonC, NagarajanM, et al. (2008) Cell-to-cell stochastic variation in gene expression is a complex genetic trait. PLoS Genet 4: e1000049.
49. HallMC, DworkinI, UngererMC, PuruggananM (2007) Genetics of microenvironmental canalization in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 13717–13722.
50. ShenX, PetterssonM, RonnegardL, CarlborgO (2012) Inheritance beyond plain heritability: variance-controlling genes in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet 8: e1002839.
51. SgroCM, WegenerB, HoffmannAA (2010) A naturally occurring variant of Hsp90 that is associated with decanalization. P R Soc B 277: 2049–2057.
52. RajA, RifkinSA, AndersenE, van OudenaardenA (2010) Variability in gene expression underlies incomplete penetrance. Nature 463: 913–918.
53. LevyS, SiegalM (2008) Network Hubs Buffer Environmental Variation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Biol 6: e264.
54. Hawley RS, Walker MY (2003) Advanced Genetic Analysis: Finding meaning in a genome. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
55. InamdarM, VijayRaghavanK, RodriguesV (1993) The Drosophila homolog of the human transcription factor TEF-1, scalloped, is essential for normal taste behavior. Journal of Neurogenetics 9: 123–139.
56. RoegiersF, KavalerJ, TolwinskiN, ChouYT, DuanH, et al. (2009) Frequent unanticipated alleles of lethal giant larvae in Drosophila second chromosome stocks. Genetics 182: 407–410.
57. TanakaE (1960) A study on the difference of temperature responses in several vestigial strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Japanese Journal of Genetics 35: 222–227.
58. RohlfFJ (2003) tpsDig. 1.39 ed: Department of Ecology and Evolution. SUNY Stony Brook
59. SmootME, OnoK, RuscheinskiJ, WangPL, IdekerT (2011) Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization. Bioinformatics 27: 431–432.
Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicínaČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Genetics
2013 Číslo 8
- Je „freeze-all“ pro všechny? Odborníci na fertilitu diskutovali na virtuálním summitu
- Gynekologové a odborníci na reprodukční medicínu se sejdou na prvním virtuálním summitu
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Chromosomal Copy Number Variation, Selection and Uneven Rates of Recombination Reveal Cryptic Genome Diversity Linked to Pathogenicity
- Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Analysis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Reveals Persistent Hypomethylation of Interferon Genes and Compositional Changes to CD4+ T-cell Populations
- Associations of Mitochondrial Haplogroups B4 and E with Biliary Atresia and Differential Susceptibility to Hydrophobic Bile Acid
- A Role for CF1A 3′ End Processing Complex in Promoter-Associated Transcription