* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Not all mutant phenotypes are equally informative. Forward genetics
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Saethre–Chotzen syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Behavioural genetics wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy of the human retina wikipedia , lookup
Frameshift mutation wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Gene nomenclature wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Hardy–Weinberg principle wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
Human leukocyte antigen wikipedia , lookup
Genetic drift wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Mutations (changes in DNA): the lifeblood of genetic analysis Mutations (changes in DNA): the lifeblood of genetic analysis fact: it’s easier to mess things up than to make them better Geneticists make mutations that disrupt normal gene functions (thereby creating a functional difference between alleles) to discover what genes do what hence most mutations with any functional consequence (mutant phenotype) disrupt normal (wildtype) gene function …so they can tell biochemists where to look to learn how those genes do what they do (…and sometimes geneticists can learn a thing or two about “how” even before biochemists enter the picture) Mutations (changes in DNA): the lifeblood of genetic analysis Fig. 20.19 examples of some maximally informative mutant phenotypes for understanding metazoan pattern formation Not all mutant phenotypes are equally informative. Krüppel hunchback knirps wildtype Mutations: the lifeblood of genetic analysis Forward genetics: start with mutant phenotype ultimately determine wildtype molecules …to infer wildtype gene functions (functional consequences of disruption) to infer wildtype gene function (learn molecular mechanism) Reverse genetics: start with wildtype molecules (ultimately transcription units a.k.a. genes) Not Mendel’s goal: Not Morgan’s goal: ultimately determine (predict the appearance and breeding behavior of hybrids) (learn how inherited information is transmitted & how it changes) mutant phenotype (functional consequences of disruption) to infer wildtype function (neither had any hope of discovering what gene are) (…and learn molecular mechanism) 1 “What are the genes? What is the nature of the elements of heredity that Mendel postulated as purely theoretical units? … Frankly, these are questions with which the working geneticist has not much concern himself… Mutations: the lifeblood of genetic analysis a Morgan "student": (1) What kinds can we make?(functional categories) Herman Muller (1930s): inferred how mutations can affect gene functioning. T.H. Morgan The Relation of Genetics to Physiology and Medicine Nobel Lecture, June 4, 1934 Muller categorized mutations with respect to change in gene function relative to wildtype (2) How do we make them? (mutagenesis) Muller: spontaneous & radiation-induced (Nobel Prize 1946) (3) How do we find them? (mutant screens & selections) Muller: exploited giant polytene chromosomes & invented balancer chromosomes Loss-of-(wildtype)function (l-o-f) mutant alleles complete lof: amorph(ic) (null) Loss-of-(wildtype)function (l-o-f) mutant alleles generally recessive (a+/a-: one functional copy “suffices”) (1) so long as all other genes ok) Important goal of genetic analysis: define the null phenotype partial lof: hypomorph(ic) (leaky) phenotypic series: (2) so long as we don’t look too hard clear exception: l-o-f mutations in haploinsufficient genes are dominant by definition (Minute mutations in flies; Df(M)/+=M/+) lof alleles causing cancer: identify tumor suppressor genes “Gain”-of-(over wildtype)function (g-o-f) mutant alleles generally dominant (often misexpression, wrong time/place): AntpX/Antp+ fly leg where antenna should be “Gain”-of-(over wildtype)function (g-o-f) mutant alleles too much of a good thing: hypermorph(ic) something new & different: neomorph(ic): different in kind (e.g. fusion protein) wrong time/place: ectopic expression antagonizes (poisons)wildtype: antimorph(ic) gof alleles causing cancer: identify proto-oncogenes Muller did not just define the five basic ways the functioning of a gene can be changed by mutation (without, he noted, changing its ability to faithfully replicate) He gave us operational tests to determine to which class a given mutant allele might belong Loss-of-(wildtype)function (l-o-f) mutant alleles complete lof: amorph(ic) (null) partial lof: hypomorph(ic) (leaky) “Gain”-of-(over wildtype)function (g-o-f) mutant alleles too much of a good thing: hypermorph(ic) something new & different: neomorph(ic): antagonizes (poisons)wildtype: antimorph(ic) (helpful with pleiotropy) set of alleles with progressively less function (dominant negative) Muller’s tests: how does the phenotype change when you: (1) hold the number of mutant alleles constant and change the number of wildtype alleles. (2) hold the number of wildtype alleles constant and change the number of mutant alleles. increased dose of mutant, phenotype more wildtype the white gene started it all, and has kept it all going to this day w+ wapricot w- wa /w a (darker, more “wildtype”) > wa /Df(w) 1 copy w a allele 2 copies w a allele wa /Y (lighter, less “wildtype”) < wa/Y; Dp(wa)/+ 1 copy w a allele 2 copies w a allele 2 Loss-of-(wildtype)function (l-o-f) mutant alleles See how the phenotype changes when you: (1) hold the number of mutant alleles constant and change the number of wildtype alleles. increased dose of wildtype, phenotype more wildtype (2) hold the number of wildtype alleles constant and change the number of mutant alleles. increased dose of mutant, phenotype more wildtype wa /w+ (darker, more “wildtype”) > w a /Df(w) 0 copies w + allele 1 copy w + allele wa /Y (lighter, less “wildtype”) < wa/Y; Dp(w+)/+ 0 copies w + allele 1 copy w + allele hypomorph(ic) (leaky) wapricot “Gain”-of-(over wildtype)function (g-o-f) mutant alleles too much of a good thing: hypermorph(ic) something new & different: neomorph(ic): antagonizes (poisons)wildtype: antimorph(ic) w- Increased dose of mutant: No change in phenotype Increased dose of wildtype: phenotype more wildtype hypomorph(ic) partial lof: Increased dose of mutant: phenotype more wildtype Increased dose of wildtype: phenotype more wildtype But isn’t in RATHER curious then that: hypomorph(ic) wapricot Increased dose of mutant: phenotype more wildtype Increased dose of wildtype: phenotype more wildtype Truth be known, geneticists take shortcuts (c.f. cis/trans test) wa /wa = (same color as) wa /Y O + partial lof: complete lof: amorph(ic) wapricot partial lof: complete lof: amorph(ic) (null) / O v The characterization of a mutant allele as a amorphic (null) vs. hypomorphic is generally made based only on a comparison of the homozygous mutant to the hemizygous mutant (and with the knowledge that the mutant is recessive): whiteX/whiteX vs. whiteX/Df(w) Muller thought so, and realized that he had discovered X-chromosome dosage compensation: XX=XY (more about that later) …potential pitfalls, but a good place to start “Gain”-of-(over wildtype)function (g-o-f) mutant alleles to infer the normal function of a gene: LOF alleles simplest to interpret too much of a good thing: GOF alleles usually more interesting but generally harder to interpret .. especially if don’t know amorph (null) phene. hypermorph(ic) Increased dose of mutant: phenotype more mutant Increased dose of wildtype: phenotype more mutant something new & different: consider the fly gene ovo as a good example of the problems that arise: neomorph(ic): Increased dose of mutant: No change or more mutant in phenotype Increased dose of wildtype: No change in phenotype our friend from the X-files, Antp antagonizes (poisons)wildtype: antimorph(ic) Increased dose of mutant: phenotype more mutant (if possible) Increased dose of wildtype: phenotype more wildtype ovoD(ominant)#1 dominant female-specific sterile antimorph ovoe8K recessive female-specific sterile hypomorph Both X-linked & similar phenotypes, but can't directly map ovoD1 ovoD1 How can we determine whether ovoD1 and ovoe8K are alleles? complementation test? (ovoD1/ovoe8K?) 3 How can we determine whether ovoD1 and ovoe8K are alleles? GOF { Can use GOF alleles to generate LOF alleles relatively easily: “revert” (suppress) the dominance of a GOF allele ovoD1 / + Df(ovo) / + LOF tumorous female germline (dominant) not haploinsufficient wildtype } female germline ovoe8K / + wildtype female germline ovoe8K / ovoe8K tumorous female germline (recessive) LOF allele (make it stop doing something bad by inducing LOF mutation IN CIS) …then establish allelism using the GOF-LOF double mutant alleles -- also helps define the null phenotype can't use the complementation test: wildtype or mutant? neither would tell us anything ovoD1 / ovoe8K …if in same gene, cis phenotype 䍫㻃trans cis-trans test? tumorous less tumorous or wildtype ovoD1 + / + ovoe8K ovoD1 ovoe8K / + + …if in same gene, cis phenotype 䍫㻃trans ovoD1 + / + ovoe8K ovoD1 ovoe8K / + + but how construct? tumorous less tumorous or wt. Consider a slightly different cis/trans situation: tumorous ) ( ovoD1 + / + + …if in different genes, cis phenotype = trans ovoD1 + / + ovoe8K ovoD1 ovoe8K / + + tumorous tumorous tumorous wildtype ovoD1 + / + ovo-null ovoD1 ovo-null / + + Consider a slightly different cis/trans situation: ovoD1 ovo-null / + + ovoD1 + / + + ovoD1 ovo-null / + + but what if true reversion: + +/+ + ? tumorous ovoD1 + / + + what we want to generate: ovoD1 what we have: what we want to generate: what we have: tumorous wildtype ovoD1 + / + ovo-null ovo-null / mutagenize to “revert” the dominance ++ wildtype tumorous mutagenize to “revert” the dominance wildtype look at homozygote ovoD1 ovo-null / ovoD1 ovo-null now do complementation test to distinguish the alternatives: ovoD1 ovo-null / + ovoe8K vs. ++ /+ ovoe8K tumorous wildtype double mutant homozygote will be tumorous 4 ovoD1 + / + + ovoD1 ovo-null / + + tumorous mutagenize to “revert” the dominance wildtype …allowed us to do a complementation test: ovoD1 ovo-null / + ovoe8K vs. ++ / + ovoe8K tumorous wildtype Same for Antp32a5 and Ns1, two GOF mutant alleles that cause the antenna to develop as a leg instead. revert their dominance (one gets a recessive lethal in each case) …the resulting recessive lethal mutant chromosomes fail to complement. Failure to complement with ovoe8K means that we have to lose the gene function that ovoe8K is missing in order to “revert” (suppress) the dominance of ovoD1. ..hence we have established that ovoD1 and ovoe8K are functional alleles (I owe my own success to reverting dominant mutations) 5