* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download vertebrate genome evolution and function illuminated by chicken
Molecular cloning wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Whole genome sequencing wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression wikipedia , lookup
Gene regulatory network wikipedia , lookup
Deoxyribozyme wikipedia , lookup
Community fingerprinting wikipedia , lookup
Cre-Lox recombination wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Transposable element wikipedia , lookup
Genomic library wikipedia , lookup
Promoter (genetics) wikipedia , lookup
Silencer (genetics) wikipedia , lookup
Transcriptional regulation wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Using vertebrate genome comparisons to find gene regulatory regions Ross Hardison and James Taylor Cold Spring Harbor course on Computational Genomics Nov. 10, 2007 Major goals of comparative genomics • Identify all DNA sequences in a genome that are functional – Selection to preserve function – Adaptive selection • Determine the biological role of each functional sequence • Elucidate the evolutionary history of each type of sequence • Provide bioinformatic tools so that anyone can easily incorporate insights from comparative genomics into their research Types of sequences in mammalian genomes • About 1.5-2% codes for protein – Almost all shows a sign for purifying selection since the primaterodent divergence – Does not preclude positive selection acting on smaller regions or in specific lineages • About 45% is interspersed repeats – 22% in ancestral repeats – Good model for neutral DNA – 23% in lineage-specific repeats • About 53% is noncoding, nonrepetitive – Minimum of 4% of genome is under purifying selection for a function common to mammals, but does NOT code for protein • Regulatory sequences • Non-protein coding genes • Other important sequences – About 49% under no obvious selection: no conserved function? Impact of wholegenome alignments Guide to functional sequences in the human genome. Conserved sequences Sequences under purifying selection Better gene predictions Sequences that look like elements that regulate gene expression Three modes of evolution Negative and positive selection observed at different phylogenetic distances : Genome-wide local alignment chains Human: 2.9 Gb assembly. Mask interspersed repeats, break into 300 segments of 10 Mb. Human Mouse blastZ: Each segment of human is given the opportunity to align with all mouse sequences. Run blastZ in parallel for all human segments. Collect all local alignments above threshold. Organize local alignments into a set of chains based on position in assembly and orientation. Level 1 chain Level 2 chain Net Comparative genomics to find functional sequences Genome size 2,900 Find common sequences blastZ, multiZ 2,400 Human Identify functional sequences: ~ 145 Mbp All mammals 1000 Mbp 2,500 Mouse Rat 1,200 million base pairs (Mbp) Also birds: 72Mb Papers in Nature from mouse and rat and chicken genome consortia, 2002, 2004 Regional variation in divergence rates Implications of co-variation in divergence • Large regions (megabase sized) are changing relatively fast or slow for (almost) all types of divergence – Neutral substitution, insertions (except SINEs), deletion, recombination • This is a consistent property of each region of genomic DNA – See similar patterns for orthologous regions on independent lineages to mouse, rat and human • An aligned segment with a given similarity score in a fast-changing region is MORE significant than an aligned segments with the same similarity score in a slow-changing region. • Must take the differential rate into account in searching for functional DNA = DNA under selection. Use measures of alignment quality to discriminate functional from nonfunctional DNA • Compute a conservation score adjusted for the local neutral rate • Score S for a 50 bp region R is the normalized fraction of aligned bases that are identical – Subtract mean for aligned ancestral repeats in the surrounding region – Divide by standard deviation p = fraction of aligned sites in R that are identical between human and mouse m = average fraction of aligned sites that are identical in aligned ancestral repeats in the surrounding region Waterston et al., Nature n = number of aligned sites in R Decomposition of conservation score into neutral and likely-selected portions Neutral DNA (ARs) All DNA Likely selected DNA At least 5-6% S is the conservation score adjusted for variation in the local substitution rate. The frequency of the S score for all 50bp windows in the human genome is shown. From the distribution of S scores in ancestral repeats (mostly neutral DNA), can compute a probability that a given alignment could result from locally adjusted neutral rate. Waterston et al., Nature Conservation score S in different types of regions Red: Ancestral repeats (mostly neutral) Blue: First class in label Green: Second class in label phastCons: Likelihood of being constrained • Phylogenetic Hidden Markov Model • Posterior probability that a site is among the 10% most highly conserved sites • Allows for variation in rates along lineages c is “conserved” (constrained) n is “nonconserved” (aligns but is not clearly subject to purifying selection) Siepel et al. (2005) Genome Research 15:1034-1050 Larger genomes have more of the constrained DNA in noncoding regions Expected value if coverage by conserved elements is uniform Siepel et al. 2005, Genome Research Some constrained introns are editing complementary regions:GRIA2 Siepel et al. 2005, Genome Research 3’UTRs can be highly constrained over large distances Siepel et al. 2005, Genome Research 3’ UTRs contain RNA processing signals, miRNA targets, other regions subject to constraints Ultraconserved elements = UCEs • At least 200 bp with no interspecies differences – – – – Bejerano et al. (2004) Science 304:1321-1325 481 UCEs with no changes among human, mouse and rat Also conserved between out to dog and chicken More highly conserved than vast majority of coding regions • Most do not code for protein – Only 111 out of 481overlap with protein-coding exons – Some are developmental enhancers. – Nonexonic UCEs tend to cluster in introns or in vicinity of genes encoding transcription factors regulating development – 88 are more than 100 kb away from an annotated gene; may be distal enhancers GO category analysis of UCE-associated genes • Genes in which a coding exon overlaps a UCE – 91 Type I genes – RNA binding and modification – Transcriptional regulation • Genes in the vicinity of a UCE (no overlap of coding exons) – 211 Type II genes – Transcriptional regulation – Developmental regulators Bejerano et al. (2004) Science Intronic UCE in SOX6 enhances expression in melanocytes in transgenic mice UCEs Tested UCEs Pennacchio et al., http://enhancer.lbl.gov/ The most stringently conserved sequences in eukaryotes are mysteries • Yeast MATa2 locus – Most conserved region in 4 species of yeast – 100% identity over 357 bp – Role is not clear • Vertebrate UCEs – More constrained than exons in vertebrates – Noncoding UCEs are not detectable outside chordates, whereas coding regions are • Were they fast-evolving prior to vertebrate/invertebrate divergence? • Are they chordate innovations? Where did they come from? – Role of many is not clear; need for 100% identity over 200 bp is not obvious for any • What molecular process requires strict invariance for at least 200 nucleotides? • One possibility: Multiple, overlapping functions Going beyond stringent selection in noncoding sequence to find cis-regulatory modules Constraint in noncoding sequences • • • Tree from Margulies et al. (2007) Genome Res. Used to predict gene regulatory regions with some success Some sequences conserved between humans and mouse show no apparent function – Is constraint revealing many false positives? Sequences regulating gene expression in restricted lineages are not constrained across mammals – Is pan-mammalian constraint missing many functional sequences? phastCons can find some but not all gene regulatory regions HS1 HS2 LCR HS3 HS4 HS5 phastCons Locus control region, or LCR, is the major distal enhancer fo HBB and related, linked genes. It has 5 DNase hypersensitive sites covering about 20 kb. Two extremes of constraint in CRMs CRMs= cisregulatory modules. DNA sequences needed in cis for regulation of expression, usually transcription E.g. promoters, enhancers, silencers Coverage of human by alignments with other vertebrates ranges from 1% to 91% 5.4 Millions of years Human 91 92 173 220 310 360 450 5% Distinctive divergence rates for different types of functional DNA sequences pTRRs: putative transcriptional regulatory region; likely CRMs Sites identified as occupied by sequence-specific transcription factors based on high-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation assayed by hybridization to high density tiling arrays of genomic DNA= ChIP-chip cis-Regulatory modules conserved beyond mammals • Millions of years 91 173 310 450 • • Human-chicken alignment capture about 6% of pTRRs (likely CRMs) Human-fish alignments capture about 3% of pTRRs. The pan-vertebrate CRMs tend to regulate genes whose products control transcription and development cis-Regulatory modules conserved in eutherian mammals and marsupials Millions of years 91 173 310 450 • Human-marsupial alignments capture about 32% of CRMs (pTRRs) – Tend to occur close to genes involved in aminoglycan synthesis, organelle biosynthesis • Human-mouse alignments capture about 75% of CRMs (pTRRs) – Tend to occur close to genes involved in apoptosis, steroid hormone receptors, etc. • Within aligned noncoding DNA of eutherians, need to distinguish constrained DNA (purifying selection) from neutral DNA. Interferon beta Enhancer-Promoter Expected properties of gene regulatory regions • Can be almost anywhere – 5’ or 3’ to gene – Within introns – Close or far away • Conserved between species (sometimes) – Examine interspecies alignments, noncoding regions – Evaluate likelihood of being under purifying selection, e.g. phastCons score – Some regulatory regions are deeply conserved, others are lineage-specific • Enhancers and promoters: clusters of binding sites for transcription factors (TFBSs) – – – – – – Resources and servers for finding TFBSs TRANSFAC http://www.gene-regulation.com/ JASPAR http://jaspar.cgb.ki.se/cgi-bin/jaspar_db.pl TESS http://www.cbil.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/tess/tess MOTIF (GenomeNet) http://motif.genome.jp/ MatInspector http://www.genomatix.de/ Finding known motifs in a query sequence MatInspector at http://www.genomatix.de/ K. Cartharius et al. (2006) MatInspector and beyond: promoter analysis based on transcription factor binding sites. Bioinformatics 21:2933-2942. Genomatix Software GmbH, Munchen, Germany Query: a UCE in SOX6 1356 bp About 1 in 4 bp is the start of a TFBS match! Conservation of TFBSs between species • • Servers to find conserved matches to factor binding sites – Comparative genomics at Lawrence Livermore http://www.dcode.org/ • zPicture and rVista • Mulan and multiTF • ECR browser – Consite http://mordor.cgb.ki.se/cgi-bin/CONSITE/consite Conserved TFBSs are available for some assemblies of human genome at UCSC Genome Browser Binding site for GATA-1 Clusters of conserved TFBSs: PReMods http://genomequebec. mcgill.ca/PReMod/ Blanchette et al. (2006) Genome Research ESPERR Evolutionary and Sequence Pattern Extraction through Reduced Representation ESPERR: a different approach • Don’t assume a database of known binding motifs • Don’t assume strict conservation of the important sequence signals • Instead, use alignments of validated examples to learn sequence and evolutionary patterns that characterize a class of elements Objective of ESPERR ESPERR overview Represent columns with ancestral distributions Group columns using evolutionary similarity and frequency distribution An agglomerative algorithm Searching for encodings Evaluate “merit” of candidate mappings Iterate until convergence Search convergence behavior Regulatory potential (RP) to distinguish functional classes Variable order Markov models for discrimination Use ESPERR to compute Regulatory Potential Good performance of ESPERR for gene regulatory regions (RP) -1 Experimental tests of predicted cisregulatory modules GATA-1 is required for erythroid maturation Common myeloid progenitor MEP Hematopoietic stem cell G1E cells GATA-1 Myeloblast Common lymphoid progenitor G1E-ER4 cells Basophil Eosinophil Neutrophil Aria Rad, 2007 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hematopoiesis_(human)_diagram.png Monocyte, macrophage Genes Co-expressed in Late Erythroid Maturation G1E-ER cells: proerythroblast line lacking the transcription factor GATA-1. Can rescue by expressing an estrogen-responsive form of GATA-1 Rylski et al., Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Predicted cis-Regulatory Modules (preCRMs) Around Erythroid Genes preCRMs with conserved consensus GATA-1 BS tend to be active on transfected plasmids preCRMs with conserved consensus GATA-1 BS tend to be active after integration into a chromosome Examples of validated preCRMs Correlation of Enhancer Activity with RP Score Validation status for 99 tested fragments preCRMs with High RP and Conserved Consensus GATA-1 Tend To Be Validated Conclusions • Particular types of functional DNA sequences are conserved over distinctive evolutionary distances. • Multispecies alignments can be used to predict whether a sequence is functional (signature of purifying selection). • Patterns in alignments and conservation of some TFBSs can be used to predict some cis-regulatory elements. • The predictions of cis-regulatory elements for erythroid genes are validated at a good rate. • Databases and servers such as the UCSC Table Browser, Galaxy, and others provide access to these data. – http://genome.ucsc.edu/ – http://www.bx.psu.edu/ Many thanks … Wet Lab: Yuepin Zhou, Hao Wang, Ying Zhang, Yong Cheng, David King Alignments, chains, nets, browsers, ideas, … Webb Miller, Jim Kent, David Haussler PSU Database crew: Belinda Giardine, Cathy Riemer, Yi Zhang, Anton Nekrutenko RP scores and other bioinformatic input: Francesca Chiaromonte, James Taylor, Shan Yang, Diana Kolbe, Laura Elnitski Funding from NIDDK, NHGRI, Huck Institutes of Life Sciences at PSU