* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download S. cerevisiae
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Adaptive evolution in the human genome wikipedia , lookup
Short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Long non-coding RNA wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Last time … * Constraint on transcription factor binding sites Sites with the most ‘information content’ generally evolve slowest * Stabilizing selection via binding site turnover * Gain and loss of orthologous binding sites can correlate with gain and loss of target genes How do regulatory networks evolve? Module = group of genes co-regulated by the same regulatory system * Evolution of individual gene targets * Evolution of activating signals * Wholesale evolution of the entire module Transcription factor sites occur upstream of totally different genes, responding to totally different signals 2 Science 2007 ChIP-chip of two cooperatively-acting TFs in 3 species (S. cerevisiae, S. mikatae, S. bayanus ~20 my diverged) Tec1 Ste12 Pseudohyphal growth Genes Ste12 Ste12 Mating genes (haploid cells only) 3 Only ~20% of orthologous regions bound in all 3 species Scer Ste12 380 Smik 167 Sbay 250 21% bound in all 3 species Tec1 348 185 126 20% bound in all 3 species 4 * non-S. cer but otherwise conserved binding: enriched for Mating Genes 5 Borneman et al. Science 2007 Only 20% of bound fragments conserved over 20 my (75% of these have underlying binding sites conserved) Tec1 Ste12 Substantial ‘rewiring’ of transcriptional circuits: * Gain and loss of individual gene targets * S.cer loss/evolution of the module of mating genes How common will these trends be? Different trends for different functional processes? 6 How common will these trends be? Different trends for different functional processes? PLoS Biol. April 2010 ChIP-chip of 6 developmental TFs in D. mel vs. D. yakuba (5 my) * only 1-5% of genes are variable targets (gene target turnover) * lots of evidence of TF binding site turnover within CONSERVED target regions Nature. March 2010 Science April 2010 ChIP-chip’d Ste12 in 43 S. cerevisiae segregants ChIP-seq (NFB and RNA-Pol II) and RNA-seq in 10 humans from 3 different populations Lots of variation (up to 25% variation in binding levels) 7 How do regulatory networks evolve? Short time-scales: gene target turnover (gain and loss) Cooption of existing network Time Evolved Responsiveness Time 8 Ancestral GAL control likely by Cph1 … S. cerevisiae lineage picked up Gal4 and Mig1 sites upstream of GAL genes 9 In addition to changes in upstream cis-elements … Major changes in the Gal4 transcription factor & upstream along S. cerevisiae lineage: * Gained a domain that interacts with the Galactose-responsive Gal80 protein * Other changes in the upstream response (Gal1-Gal3 duplication) contributed to sensitized pathway 10 How do regulatory networks evolve? Sub/neo-functionalization through TF duplication & divergence TF duplication Time Evolved TF sensitivity, binding specificity, and ultimately targets Time Gene targets can also duplicate (especially in WGD) 11 Example: Arg80 and Mcm1 duplication Tuch et al. 2008. PLoS Biol. Mcm1 is a co-factor that works with many different site-specific TFs Tuch. et al. performed ChIP-chip on Mcm1 orthologs in multiple fungi. * Found dramatic differences in inferred Mcm1-TF interactions and modules One case in particular: Arginine biosynthesis genes Time (>150 my) Mcm1 + Arg81 at arg genes is ancestral Duplication of Mcm1 (Arg80) at WGD Loss of Mcm1 binding at arg genes Presumably taken over by Arg80 12 How do regulatory networks evolve? Conundrum: Clearest cases of regulatory switches are often for highly co-regulated genes, whose co-regulation is high conserved. If co-regulation is so important, then how can tolerate many independent changes 13 in upstream cis-elements? Tanay et al. 2005. PNAS Conservation and evolvability in regulatory networks: the evolution of ribosomal regulation in yeast They argued that a period of redundancy of all 3 systems allowed loss of one system 14 Molecular Cell 2008 Motif predictions in RP genes suggest evolved sites Rap1 S. cerevisiae RPs GTACAYCCRTACAT Ifhl RGE CYRGGCNG GAAATTTT C. albicans RPs AAAATTTT Tbf1 Cbf1 TTAGGGCTA TCACGTG S. cerevisiae Sulfur genes (and centromeres) TCACGTG C. albicans Sulfur genes (and a whole bunch of things) TCACGTG ChIP-chip’d Ca_Tbf1 and Ca_Cbf1 to show binding upstream RP genes 15 Motif analysis prediction: Ancestral regulation by Tbf1, Cbf1, RGE Lineage to S. cerevisiae picked up Rap1 and IFHL regulation 16 Here they ChIP’d 6 TFs implicated in RP regulation in S. cerevisiae and/or C. albicans Ifh1-Fhl1 co-activators are conserved in Sc-Ca (>200 my) Required co-factors have evolved: Hmo1 and Rap1 required for Ifh1-Fhl1 binding in S. cerevisiae * Hmo1 is a ‘generalist’ in C. albicans In C. albicans, Cbf1 (generalist) and Tbf1 (specialist) are required for Ifh1-Fhl1 binding 17 They raise the question: Is wholesale rewiring common to all modules Or facilitated by very strong pressures to keep genes co-regulated? 18