Use of Pleiotropy to Model Genetic Interactions in a Population

English version České info

Systems-level genetic studies in humans and model systems increasingly involve both high-resolution genotyping and multi-dimensional quantitative phenotyping. We present a novel method to infer and interpret genetic interactions that exploits the complementary information in multiple phenotypes. We applied this approach to a population of yeast strains with randomly assorted perturbations of five genes involved in mating. We quantified pheromone response at the molecular level and overall mating efficiency. These phenotypes were jointly analyzed to derive a network of genetic interactions that mapped mating-pathway relationships. To determine the distinct biological processes driving the phenotypic complementarity, we analyzed patterns of gene expression to find that the pheromone response phenotype is specific to cellular fusion, whereas mating efficiency was a combined measure of cellular fusion, cell cycle arrest, and modifications in cellular metabolism. We applied our novel method to global gene expression patterns to derive an expression-specific interaction network and demonstrate applicability to global transcript data. Our approach provides a basis for interpretation of genetic interactions and the generation of specific hypotheses from populations assayed for multiple phenotypes.

Vyšlo v časopise: Use of Pleiotropy to Model Genetic Interactions in a Population. PLoS Genet 8(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003010
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003010

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. AveryL, WassermanS (1992) Ordering gene function: the interpretation of epistasis in regulatory hierarchies. Trends Genet 8 : 312–316.

2. CarterGW, PrinzS, NeouC, ShelbyJP, MarzolfB, et al. (2007) Prediction of phenotype and gene expression for combinations of mutations. Molecular systems biology 3 : 96.

3. CollinsSR, MillerKM, MaasNL, RoguevA, FillinghamJ, et al. (2007) Functional dissection of protein complexes involved in yeast chromosome biology using a genetic interaction map. Nature 446 : 806–810.

4. CostanzoM, BaryshnikovaA, BellayJ, KimY, SpearED, et al. (2010) The genetic landscape of a cell. Science 327 : 425–431.

5. DreesBL, ThorssonV, CarterGW, RivesAW, RaymondMZ, et al. (2005) Derivation of genetic interaction networks from quantitative phenotype data. Genome Biol 6: R38.

6. SegreD, DelunaA, ChurchGM, KishonyR (2005) Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism. Nat Genet 37 : 77–83.

7. St OngeRP, ManiR, OhJ, ProctorM, FungE, et al. (2007) Systematic pathway analysis using high-resolution fitness profiling of combinatorial gene deletions. Nat Genet 39 : 199–206.

8. LehnerB, CrombieC, TischlerJ, FortunatoA, FraserAG (2006) Systematic mapping of genetic interactions in Caenorhabditis elegans identifies common modifiers of diverse signaling pathways. Nature genetics 38 : 896–903.

9. LehnerB, TischlerJ, FraserAG (2006) RNAi screens in Caenorhabditis elegans in a 96-well liquid format and their application to the systematic identification of genetic interactions. Nature protocols 1 : 1617–1620.

10. HornT, SandmannT, FischerB, AxelssonE, HuberW, et al. (2011) Mapping of signaling networks through synthetic genetic interaction analysis by RNAi. Nature methods 8 : 341–346.

11. YamamotoA, AnholtRR, MacKayTF (2009) Epistatic interactions attenuate mutations affecting startle behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics research 91 : 373–382.

12. AylorDL, ValdarW, Foulds-MathesW, BuusRJ, VerdugoRA, et al. (2011) Genetic analysis of complex traits in the emerging Collaborative Cross. Genome research 21 : 1213–1222.

13. HamptonT (2011) Knockout science: massive mouse project to provide window into human diseases. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 306 : 1968.

14. SolbergLC, ValdarW, GauguierD, NunezG, TaylorA, et al. (2006) A protocol for high-throughput phenotyping, suitable for quantitative trait analysis in mice. Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society 17 : 129–146.

15. SvensonKL, GattiDM, ValdarW, WelshCE, ChengR, et al. (2012) High-resolution genetic mapping using the Mouse Diversity outbred population. Genetics 190 : 437–447.

16. ValdarW, SolbergLC, GauguierD, BurnettS, KlenermanP, et al. (2006) Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Nature genetics 38 : 879–887.

17. IdekerT, GalitskiT, HoodL (2001) A new approach to decoding life: systems biology. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2 : 343–372.

18. ManiR, St OngeRP, HartmanJLt, GiaeverG, RothFP (2008) Defining genetic interaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 : 3461–3466.

19. RitchieMD (2011) Using biological knowledge to uncover the mystery in the search for epistasis in genome-wide association studies. Annals of human genetics 75 : 172–182.

20. WangK, LiM, HakonarsonH (2010) Analysing biological pathways in genome-wide association studies. Nature reviews Genetics 11 : 843–854.

21. BremRB, StoreyJD, WhittleJ, KruglyakL (2005) Genetic interactions between polymorphisms that affect gene expression in yeast. Nature 436 : 701–703.

22. Chaibub NetoE, FerraraCT, AttieAD, YandellBS (2008) Inferring causal phenotype networks from segregating populations. Genetics 179 : 1089–1100.

23. GjuvslandAB, HayesBJ, OmholtSW, CarlborgO (2007) Statistical epistasis is a generic feature of gene regulatory networks. Genetics 175 : 411–420.

24. KapurK, SchupbachT, XenariosI, KutalikZ, BergmannS (2011) Comparison of strategies to detect epistasis from eQTL data. PLoS ONE 6: e28415 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028415.

25. SnitkinES, SegreD (2011) Epistatic interaction maps relative to multiple metabolic phenotypes. PLoS Genet 7: e1001294 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001294.

26. ZhangW, ZhuJ, SchadtEE, LiuJS (2010) A Bayesian partition method for detecting pleiotropic and epistatic eQTL modules. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000642 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000642.

27. ZhuJ, ZhangB, SmithEN, DreesB, BremRB, et al. (2008) Integrating large-scale functional genomic data to dissect the complexity of yeast regulatory networks. Nature genetics 40 : 854–861.

28. WagnerGP, ZhangJ (2011) The pleiotropic structure of the genotype-phenotype map: the evolvability of complex organisms. Nature reviews Genetics 12 : 204–213.

29. FisherRA (1918) The correlations between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinburgh 52 : 399–433.

30. DorerR, BooneC, KimbroughT, KimJ, HartwellLH (1997) Genetic analysis of default mating behavior in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 146 : 39–55.

31. ChangF, HerskowitzI (1990) Identification of a gene necessary for cell cycle arrest by a negative growth factor of yeast: FAR1 is an inhibitor of a G1 cyclin, CLN2. Cell 63 : 999–1011.

32. SpragueGFJr, HerskowitzI (1981) Control of yeast cell type by the mating type locus. I. Identification and control of expression of the a-specific gene BAR1. Journal of molecular biology 153 : 305–321.

33. TaylorRJ, FalconnetD, NiemistoA, RamseySA, PrinzS, et al. (2009) Dynamic analysis of MAPK signaling using a high-throughput microfluidic single-cell imaging platform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 : 3758–3763.

34. ZhanXL, DeschenesRJ, GuanKL (1997) Differential regulation of FUS3 MAP kinase by tyrosine-specific phosphatases PTP2/PTP3 and dual-specificity phosphatase MSG5 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes & development 11 : 1690–1702.

35. StevensonBJ, RhodesN, ErredeB, SpragueGFJr (1992) Constitutive mutants of the protein kinase STE11 activate the yeast pheromone response pathway in the absence of the G protein. Genes & development 6 : 1293–1304.

36. AnderssonJ, SimpsonDM, QiM, WangY, ElionEA (2004) Differential input by Ste5 scaffold and Msg5 phosphatase route a MAPK cascade to multiple outcomes. The EMBO journal 23 : 2564–2576.

37. CherkasovaV, LyonsDM, ElionEA (1999) Fus3p and Kss1p control G1 arrest in Saccharomyces cerevisiae through a balance of distinct arrest and proliferative functions that operate in parallel with Far1p. Genetics 151 : 989–1004.

38. AlterO, BrownPO, BotsteinD (2000) Singular value decomposition for genome-wide expression data processing and modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97 : 10101–10106.

39. ChanRK, OtteCA (1982) Physiological characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mutants supersensitive to G1 arrest by a factor and alpha factor pheromones. Molecular and cellular biology 2 : 21–29.

40. DoiK, GartnerA, AmmererG, ErredeB, ShinkawaH, et al. (1994) MSG5, a novel protein phosphatase promotes adaptation to pheromone response in S. cerevisiae. The EMBO journal 13 : 61–70.

41. BiswasS, StoreyJD, AkeyJM (2008) Mapping gene expression quantitative trait loci by singular value decomposition and independent component analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 9 : 244.

42. LawsonHA, CadyJE, PartridgeC, WolfJB, SemenkovichCF, et al. (2011) Genetic effects at pleiotropic loci are context-dependent with consequences for the maintenance of genetic variation in populations. PLoS Genet 7: e1002256 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002256.

43. DarvasiA, SollerM (1995) Advanced intercross lines, an experimental population for fine genetic mapping. Genetics 141 : 1199–1207.

44. EhrichTH, HrbekT, Kenney-HuntJP, PletscherLS, WangB, et al. (2005) Fine-mapping gene-by-diet interactions on chromosome 13 in a LG/J×SM/J murine model of obesity. Diabetes 54 : 1863–1872.

45. HaleyCS, KnottSA (1992) A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity 69 : 315–324.

46. CarterGW, HaysM, LiS, GalitskiT (2012) Predicting the effects of copy-number variation in double and triple mutant combinations. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 19–30.

47. HeimanMG, WalterP (2000) Prm1p, a pheromone-regulated multispanning membrane protein, facilitates plasma membrane fusion during yeast mating. The Journal of cell biology 151 : 719–730.

48. Guthrie C, Fink GR (1991) Guide to yeast genetics and molecular biology. New York: Academic Press.

49. CollinsTJ (2007) ImageJ for microscopy. BioTechniques 43 : 25–30.

50. KronSJ, StylesCA, FinkGR (1994) Symmetric cell division in pseudohyphae of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Molecular biology of the cell 5 : 1003–1022.

51. Bevington PR (1969) Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

52. HolmS (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 6 : 65–70.

53. CarterGW, RuppS, FinkGR, GalitskiT (2006) Disentangling information flow in the Ras-cAMP signaling network. Genome Res 16 : 520–526.

54. AshburnerM, BallCA, BlakeJA, BotsteinD, ButlerH, et al. (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 25 : 25–29.

55. BornemanAR, Leigh-BellJA, YuH, BertoneP, GersteinM, et al. (2006) Target hub proteins serve as master regulators of development in yeast. Genes Dev 20 : 435–448.

56. MacIsaacKD, WangT, GordonDB, GiffordDK, StormoGD, et al. (2006) An improved map of conserved regulatory sites for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Bioinformatics 7 : 113.

57. ZeitlingerJ, SimonI, HarbisonCT, HannettNM, VolkertTL, et al. (2003) Program-specific distribution of a transcription factor dependent on partner transcription factor and MAPK signaling. Cell 113 : 395–404.

58. SGDProject Saccharomyces Genome Database. http://wwwyeastgenomeorg.