Conserved non-genic sequences - An unexpected feature of mammalian genomes

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 151-157

  Dermitzakis, Emmanouil T ^a   Reymond, Alexandre ^b   Antonarakis, Stylianos E ^c  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSERVED NONGENIC SEQUENCE; EVOLUTION; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; MAMMAL; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHENOTYPIC VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; CONSERVED SEQUENCE; DNA, INTERGENIC; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENOME; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; VARIATION (GENETICS);

MAMMALIA;

EID: 13144295005     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg1527     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Martinez-Cruzado, J. C., Swimmer, C., Fenerjian, M. G. & Kafatos, F. C. Evolution of the autosomal chorion locus in Drosophila. I. General organization of the locus and sequence comparisons of genes s15 and s19 in evolutionary distant species. Genetics 119, 663-677 (1988).
2. Culi, J. & Modolell, J. Proneural gene self-stimulation in neural precursors: an essential mechanism for sense organ development that is regulated by Notch signaling. Genes Dev. 12, 2036-2047 (1998).
3. Renucci, A. et al. Comparison of mouse and human HOX-4 complexes defines conserved sequences involved in the regulation of Hox-4.4. EMBO J. 11, 1459-1468 (1992).
4. Duret, L., Dorkeld, F. & Gautier, C. Strong conservation of non-coding sequences during vertebrates evolution: potential involvement in post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 21, 2315-2322 (1993).
5. Hardison, R. C. Conserved noncoding sequences are reliable guides to regulatory elements. Trends Genet. 16, 369-372 (2000).
6. Hardison, R. C., Oeltjen, J. & Miller, W. Long human-mouse sequence alignments reveal novel regulatory elements: a reason to sequence the mouse genome. Genome Res. 7, 959-966 (1997).
7. Dermitzakis, E. T. et al. Numerous potentially functional but non-genic conserved sequences on human chromosome 21. Nature 420, 578-582 (2002).
8. Waterston, R. H. et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420, 520-562 (2002).
9. Frazer, K. A. et al. Evolutionary conserved sequences on human chromosome 21. Genome Res. 11, 1651-1659 (2001).
10. Mural, R. J. et al. A comparison of whole-genome shotgun-derived mouse chromosome 16 and the human genome. Science 296, 1661-1671 (2002).
11. DeSilva, U. et al. Generation and comparative analysis of approximately 3.3 Mb of mouse genomic sequence orthologous to the region of human chromosome 7q11.23 implicated in Williams syndrome. Genome Res. 12, 3-15 (2002).
12. Loots, G. G. et al. Identification of a coordinate regulator of interleukins 4, 13, and 5 by cross-species sequence comparisons. Science 286, 136-140 (2000).
13. Hardison, R. C. et al. Covariation in frequencies of substitution, deletion, transposition, and recombination during eutherian evolution. Genome Res. 13, 13-26 (2003).
14. Margulies, E. H., Blanchette, M., Haussler, D. & Green, E. D. Identification and characterization of multi-species conserved sequences. Genome Res. 13, 2507-2518 (2003).
15. Meisler, M. H. Evolutionary conserved noncoding DNA in the human genome: how much and what for? Genome Res. 11, 1617-1618 (2001).
16. Thomas, J. W. et al. Comparative analyses of multi-species sequences from targeted genomic regions. Nature 424, 788-793 (2003).
17. Giardine, B. et al. GALA, a database for genomic sequence alignments and annotations. Genome Res. 13, 732-741 (2003).
18. Dermitzakis, E. T. et al. Comparison of human chromosome 21 conserved non-genic sequences (CNGs) with the mouse and dog genomes shows that their selective constraint is independent of their genic environment. Genome Res. 14, 852-859 (2004).
19. Bejerano, G. et al. Ultraconserved elements in the human genome. Science 304, 1321-1325 (2004).
20. Nobrega, M. A., Ovcharenko, I., Afzal, V. & Rubin, E. M. Scanning human gene deserts for long-range enhancers. Science 302, 413 (2003).
21. Kirkness, E. F. et al. The dog genome: survey sequencing and comparative analysis. Science 301, 1898-1903 (2003).
22. Dubchak, I. et al. Active conservation of noncoding sequences revealed by three-way species comparisons. Genome Res. 10, 1304-1306 (2000).
23. Frazer, K. A. et al. Noncoding sequences conserved in a limited number of mammals in the SIM2 interval are frequently functional. Genome Res. 14, 367-372 (2004).
24. Dermitzakis, E. T. et al. Evolutionary discrimination of mammalian conserved non-genic sequences (CNGs). Science 302, 1033-1035 (2003).
25. Keightley, P. D. & Gaffney, D. J. Functional constraints and frequency of deleterious mutations in noncoding DNA of rodents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 13402-13406 (2003).
26. Johnston, M. & Stormo, G. D. Evolution. Heirlooms in the attic. Science 302, 997-999 (2003).
27. Elnitski, L. et al. Distinguishing regulatory DNA from neutral sites. Genome Res. 13, 64-72 (2003).
28. Dermitzakis, E. T. & Clark, A. G. Evolution of transcription factor binding sites in mammalian gene regulatory regions: conservation and turnover. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 1114-1121 (2002).
29. Glazko, G. V., Koonin, E. V., Rogozin, I. B. & Shabalina, S. A. A significant fraction of conserved noncoding DNA in human and mouse consists of predicted matrix attachment regions. Trends Genet. 19, 119-124 (2003).
30. Croft, J. A. et al. Differences in the localization and morphology of chromosomes in the human nucleus. J. Cell Biol. 145, 1119-1131 (1999).
31. Nielsen, J. A., Hudson, L. D. & Armstrong, R. C. Nuclear organization in differentiating oligodendrocytes. J. Cell Sci. 115, 4071-4079 (2002).
32. Tanabe, H. et al. Evolutionary conservation of chromosome territory arrangements in cell nuclei from higher primates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4424-4429 (2002).
33. Muller, H. P. & Schaffner, W. Transcriptional enhancers can act in trans. Trends Genet. 6, 300-304 (1990).
34. Duncan, I. W. Transvection effects in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Genet. 36, 521-556 (2002).
35. Chambeyron, S. & Bickmore, W. A. Does looping and clustering in the nucleus regulate gene expression? Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 16, 256-262 (2004).
36. Boffelli, D. et al. Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. Science 299, 1391-1394 (2003).
37. Nobrega, M. A., Zhu, Y., Plajzer-Frick, I., Afzai, V. & Rubin, E. M. Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature 431, 988-993 (2004).
38. Kioussis, D., Vanin, E., deLange, T., Flavell, R. A. & Grosveld, F. G. β-Globin gene inactivation by DNA translocation in γ-β- thalassaemia. Nature 306, 662-666 (1983).
39. Driscoll, M. C., Dobkin, C. S. & Alter, B. P. γ-δ-β- Thalassemia due to a de novo mutation deleting the 5′ β-globin gene activation-region hypersensitive sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 7470-7474 (1989).
40. Lettice, L. A. et al. A long-range Shh enhancer regulates expression in the developing limb and fin and is associated with preaxial polydactyly. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12, 1725-1735 (2003).
41. Lettice, L. A. et al. Disruption of a long-range cis-acting regulator for Shh causes preaxial polydactyly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7548-7553 (2002).
42. Van Laere, A. S. et al. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in the pig. Nature 425, 832-836 (2003).
43. Kleinjan, D. J. & van Heyningen, V. Position effect in human genetic disease. Hum. Mol. Genet. 7, 1611-1618 (1998).
44. Bishop, C. E. et al. A transgenic insertion upstream of sox9 is associated with dominant XX sex reversal in the mouse. Nature Genet. 26, 490-494 (2000).
45. Wirth, J. et al. Translocation breakpoints in three patients with campomelic dysplasia and autosomal sex reversal map more than 130 kb from SOX9. Hum. Genet. 97, 186-193 (1996).
46. Jamieson, R. V. et al. Domain disruption and mutation of the bZIP transcription factor, MAF, associated with cataract, ocular anterior segment dysgenesis and coloboma. Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 33-42 (2002).
47. de Kok, Y. J. et al. A duplication/paracentric inversion associated with familial X-iinked deafness (DFN3) suggests the presence of a regulatory element more than 400 kb upstream of the POU3F4 gene. Hum. Mol. Genet. 4, 2145-2150 (1995).
48. de Kok, Y. J. et al. Identification of a hot spot for microdeletions in patients with X-linked deafness type 3 (DFN3) 900 kb proximal to the DFN3 gene POU3F4. Hum. Mol. Genet. 5, 1229-1235 (1996).
49. Spitz, F. et al. A t(2;8) balanced translocation with breakpoints near the human HOXD complex causes mesomelic dysplasia and vertebral defects. Genomics 79, 493-498 (2002).
50. Flomen, R. H. et al. Construction and analysis of a sequence-ready map in 4q25: Rieger syndrome can be caused by haploinsufficiency of RIEG, but also by chromosome breaks approximately 90 kb upstream of this gene. Genomics 47, 409-413 (1998).
51. Rose, C. S., Patel, P., Reardon, W., Malcolm, S. & Winter, R. M. The TWIST gene, although not disrupted in Saethre-Chotzen patients with apparently balanced transiocations of 7p21, is mutated in familial and sporadic cases. Hum. Mol. Genet. 6, 1369-1373 (1997).
52. Spitz, F., Gonzalez, F. & Duboule, D. A global control region defines a chromosomal regulatory landscape containing the HoxD cluster. Cell 113, 405-417 (2003).
53. McArthur, M., Gerum, S. & Stamatoyannopoulos, G. Quantification of DNasel-sensitivity by real-time PCR: quantitative analysis of DNasel-hypersensitivity of the mouse β-globin LCR. J. Mol. Biol. 313, 27-34 (2001).
54. Cawley, S. et al. Unbiased mapping of transcription factor binding sites along human chromosomes 21 and 22 points to widespread regulation of noncoding RNAs. Cell 116, 499-509 (2004).
55. Morley, M. et al. Genetic analysis of genome-wide variation in human gene expression. Nature 430, 743-747 (2004).