Does your gene need a background check? How genetic background impacts the analysis of mutations, genes, and evolution

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 358-366

  Chandler, Christopher H ^a,b   Chari, Sudarshan ^a   Dworkin, Ian ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Epistasis; Expressivity; Genetic analysis; Genetic background; Genotype by environment interaction; Penetrance

Indexed keywords

BACKGROUND SELECTION; EVOLUTION; GENE FUNCTION; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETICS; HEREDITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC ASSOCIATION STUDIES; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MUTATION; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE;

EID: 84878167482     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.009     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Dworkin I., et al. Genomic consequences of background effects on scalloped mutant expressivity in the wing of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2009, 181:1065-1076.
2. Chandler C.H. Cryptic intraspecific variation in sex determination in Caenorhabditis elegans revealed by mutations. Heredity 2010, 105:473-482.
3. Matin A., Nadeau J.H. Sensitized polygenic trait analysis. Trends Genet. 2001, 17:727-731.
4. Mcguigan K., et al. Cryptic genetic variation and body size evolution in threespine stickleback. Evolution 2011, 65:1203-1211.
5. Ledon-Rettig C.C., et al. Diet and hormonal manipulation reveal cryptic genetic variation: implications for the evolution of novel feeding strategies. Proc. R. Soc. B 2010, 277:3569-3578.
6. Gibson G., Dworkin I. Uncovering cryptic genetic variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2004, 5:681-690.
7. Sgro C.M., et al. A naturally occurring variant of Hsp90 that is associated with decanalization. Proc. R. Soc. B 2010, 277:2049-2057.
8. Felix M.A. Cryptic quantitative evolution of the vulva intercellular signaling network in Caenorhabditis. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:103-114.
9. Masel J. Cryptic genetic variation is enriched for potential adaptations. Genetics 2006, 172:1985-1991.
10. Chen B., Wagner A. Hsp90 is important for fecundity, longevity, and buffering of cryptic deleterious variation in wild fly populations. BMC Evol. Biol. 2012, 12:25.
11. Le Rouzic A., Carlborg O. Evolutionary potential of hidden genetic variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:33-37.
12. Cao Y., et al. The expression pattern of a rice disease resistance gene xa3/xa26 is differentially regulated by the genetic backgrounds and developmental stages that influence its function. Genetics 2007, 177:523-533.
13. Gibson G., van Helden S. Is function of the Drosophila homeotic gene Ultrabithorax canalized?. Genetics 1997, 147:1155-1168.
14. Remold S.K., Lenski R.E. Pervasive joint influence of epistasis and plasticity on mutational effects in Escherichia coli. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36:423-426.
15. Strunk K.E. Phenotypic variation resulting from a deficiency of epidermal growth factor receptor in mice is caused by extensive genetic heterogeneity that can be genetically and molecularly partitioned. Genetics 2004, 167:1821-1832.
16. Dowell R.D., et al. Genotype to phenotype: a complex problem. Science 2010, 328:469.
17. Wang Y., et al. Genetic background affects epistatic interactions between two beneficial mutations. Biol. Lett. 2012, 9. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120328.long.
18. Lum T.E., Merritt T.J.S. Nonclassical regulation of transcription: interchromosomal interactions at the malic enzyme locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2011, 189:837-849.
19. Huang X.Q., et al. Epistatic natural allelic variation reveals a function of AGAMOUS-LIKE6 in axillary bud formation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2012, 24:2364-2379.
20. Threadgill D.W., et al. Targeted disruption of mouse EGF receptor: effect of genetic background on mutant phenotype. Science 1995, 269:230-234.
21. Dworkin I. A study of canalization and developmental stability in the sternopleural bristle system of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2005, 59:1500-1509.
22. Blount Z.D., et al. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 7899-7906.
23. Blount Z.D., et al. Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population. Nature 2012, 489:513-518.
24. Bloom J.D., et al. Permissive secondary mutations enable the evolution of influenza oseltamivir resistance. Science 2010, 328:1272-1275.
25. Khan A.I., et al. Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations in an evolving bacterial population. Science 2011, 332:1193-1196.
26. Woods R.J., et al. Second-order selection for evolvability in a large Escherichia coli population. Science 2011, 331:1433-1436.
27. Weinreich D.M., et al. Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins. Science 2006, 312:111-114.
28. Salverda M.L.M., et al. Initial mutations direct alternative pathways of protein evolution. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1001321.
29. Kvitek D.J., Sherlock G. Reciprocal sign epistasis between frequently experimentally evolved adaptive mutations causes a rugged fitness landscape. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002056.
30. Camara M.D., Pigliucci M. Mutational contributions to genetic variance-covariance matrices: an experimental approach using induced mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolution 1999, 53:1692-1703.
31. Ungerer M.C., et al. Genotype-environment interactions at quantitative trait loci affecting inflorescence development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 2003, 165:353-365.
32. Van Dyken J.D., Wade M.J. The genetic signature of conditional expression. Genetics 2010, 184:557-570.
33. True J.R., Haag E.S. Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol. Dev. 2001, 3:109-119.
34. Duveau F., Félix M-A. Role of pleiotropy in the evolution of a cryptic developmental variation in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10:e1001230.
35. Meyer J.R., et al. Repeatability and contingency in the evolution of a key innovation in phage lambda. Science 2012, 335:428-432.
36. Milloz J., et al. Intraspecific evolution of the intercellular signaling network underlying a robust developmental system. Genes Dev. 2008, 22:3064-3075.
37. Dworkin I., et al. Evidence that Egfr contributes to cryptic genetic variation for photoreceptor determination in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 2003, 13:1888-1893.
38. Rockman M.V. Reverse engineering the genotype-phenotype map with natural genetic variation. Nature 2008, 456:738-744.
39. Dworkin I. Evidence for canalization of Distal-less function in the leg of Drosophila melanogaster. Evol. Dev. 2005, 7:89-100.
40. Atallah J., et al. The environmental and genetic regulation of obake expressivity: morphogenetic fields as evolvable systems. Evol. Dev. 2004, 6:114-122.
41. Burns J.G., et al. Gene-environment interplay in Drosophila melanogaster: chronic food deprivation in early life affects adult exploratory and fitness traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:17239-17244.
42. Starr D.J., Cline T.W. A host-parasite interaction rescues Drosophila oogenesis defects. Nature 2002, 418:76-79.
43. Markov A.V., et al. Symbiotic bacteria affect mating choice in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77:1011-1017.
44. Gerstein A.C. Mutational effects depend on ploidy level: all else is not equal. Biol. Lett. 2013, 9. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120614.long.
45. Wallrath L.L., Elgin S.C. Position effect variegation in Drosophila is associated with an altered chromatin structure. Genes Dev. 1995, 9:1263-1277.
46. Lalić J., Elena S.F. Epistasis between mutations is host-dependent for an RNA virus. Biol. Lett. 2012, 9. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120396.abstract.
47. Gutteling E., et al. Mapping phenotypic plasticity and genotype-environment interactions affecting life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans. Heredity 2006, 98:28-37.
48. Li Y., et al. Mapping determinants of gene expression plasticity by genetical genomics in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2:e222.
49. Smith E.N., Kruglyak L. Gene-environment Interaction in yeast gene expression. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6:e83.
50. Gerke J., et al. Gene-environment interactions at nucleotide resolution. PLoS Genet. 2010, 6:e1001144.
51. John T., et al. Overview of molecular testing in non-small-cell lung cancer: mutational analysis, gene copy number, protein expression and other biomarkers of EGFR for the prediction of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Oncogene 2009, 28:S14-S23.
52. Sharma S.V., et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007, 7:169-181.
53. Schilsky R.L. Personalized medicine in oncology: the future is now. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9:363-366.
54. Olopade O.I., et al. Advances in breast cancer: pathways to personalized medicine. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14:7988-7999.
55. Sadee W. Pharmacogenetics/genomics and personalized medicine. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2005, 14:R207-R214.
56. Dworkin I., Gibson G. Epidermal growth factor receptor and transforming growth factor-beta signaling contributes to variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2006, 173:1417-1431.
57. de Moed G.H., et al. The phenotypic plasticity of wing size in Drosophila melanogaster: the cellular basis of its genetic variation. Heredity (Edinb) 1997, 79:260-267.
58. de Moed G.H., et al. Environmental effects on body size variation in Drosophila melanogaster and its cellular basis. Genet. Res. 1997, 70:35-43.
59. de Belle J.S., Heisenberg M. Expression of Drosophila mushroom body mutations in alternative genetic backgrounds: a case study of the mushroom body miniature gene (mbm). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93:9875-9880.
60. Williams J., et al. Suppressible P-element alleles of the vestigial locus in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Genet. Genomics 1988, 212:370-374.
61. 21-3, a P-element-induced allele of the vestigial gene in Drosophila. Génome 2012, 55:312-326.
62. Yamamoto A., et al. Epistatic interactions attenuate mutations affecting startle behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. 2009, 1-10.
63. Tijsterman M., et al. The genetics of RNA silencing. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002, 36:489-519.
64. Arbuthnott D., Rundle H.D. Sexual selection is ineffectual or inhibits the purging of deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2012, 66:2127-2137.
65. Long T.A.F., et al. The effect of sexual selection on offspring fitness depends on the nature of genetic variation. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:204-208.
66. Clark S.C.A., et al. Relative effectiveness of mating success and sperm competition at eliminating deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 2012, e37351.
67. MacLellan K., et al. Dietary stress does not strengthen selection against single deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 2011, 108:203-210.
68. Wang A.D., et al. Selection, epistasis, and parent-of-origin effects on deleterious mutations across environments in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat. 2009, 174:863-874.
69. Young J.A., et al. The effect of pathogens on selection against deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 2125-2129.
70. Hollis B., et al. Sexual selection accelerates the elimination of a deleterious mutant in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2009, 63:324-333.
71. Braendle C., et al. Bias and evolution of the mutationally accessible phenotypic space in a developmental system. PLoS Genet. 2010, 6:e1000877.
72. Rutherford S.L. From genotype to phenotype: buffering mechanisms and the storage of genetic information. Bioessays 2000, 22:1095-1105.
73. Houle D., et al. Phenomics: the next challenge. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:855-866.
74. Lewontin R.C. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change 1974, Columbia University Press.
75. Waddington C.H. The Strategy of the Genes 1957, Allen & Unwin.
76. Rogina B., et al. Extended life-span conferred by cotransporter gene mutations in Drosophila. Science 2000, 290:2137-2140.
77. Toivonen J.M., et al. No influence of Indy on lifespan in Drosophila after correction for genetic and cytoplasmic background effects. PLoS Genet. 2007, 3:e95.
78. Swindell W.R., Bouzat J.L. Inbreeding depression and male survivorship in Drosophila: implications for senescence theory. Genetics 2006, 172:317-327.
79. Linnen C., et al. Cultural artifacts: a comparison of senescence in natural, laboratory-adapted and artificially selected lines of Drosophila melanogaster. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2001, 3:877-888.
80. Neretti N., et al. Long-lived Indy induces reduced mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production and oxidative damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:2277-2282.
81. Wang P.Y., et al. Long-lived Indy and calorie restriction interact to extend life span. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:9262-9267.
82. Toivonen J.M., et al. Longevity of Indy mutant Drosophila not attributable to Indy mutation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:E53.
83. Helfand S.L., et al. Reply to Partridge et al.: longevity of Drosophila Indy mutant is influenced by caloric intake and genetic background. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:E54.
84. Rogina B., Helfand S.L. Sir2 mediates longevity in the fly through a pathway related to calorie restriction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101:15998-16003.
85. Burnett C., et al. Absence of effects of Sir2 overexpression on lifespan in C. elegans and Drosophila. Nature 2011, 477:482-485.
86. Viswanathan M., Guarente L. Regulation of Caenorhabditis elegans lifespan by sir-2.1 transgenes. Nature 2011, 477:E1-E2.
87. Burgess D.J. Model organisms: the dangers lurking in the genetic background. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:742.
88. Baumann K. Ageing: a midlife crisis for sirtuins. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12:688.
89. Lombard D.B., et al. Ageing: longevity hits a roadblock. Nature 2011, 410-411.
90. Greenberg A.J., et al. Ecological adaptation during incipient speciation revealed by precise gene replacement. Science 2003, 302:1754-1757.
91. Coyne J.A., Elwyn S. Does the desaturase-2 locus in Drosophila melanogaster cause adaptation and sexual isolation?. Evolution 2006, 60:279-291.
92. Coyne J.A., Elwyn S. Desaturase-2, environmental adaptation, and sexual isolation in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 2006, 60:626-627.
93. Greenberg A.J., et al. Proper control of genetic background with precise allele substitution: a comment on Coyne and Elwyn. Evolution 2006, 60:623-625.
94. Dierick H.A., Greenspan R.J. Molecular analysis of flies selected for aggressive behavior. Nat. Genet. 2006, 38:1023-1031.
95. Venken K.J.T., Bellen H.J. Genome-wide manipulations of Drosophila melanogaster with transposons, Flp recombinase, and φC31 integrase. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 859:203-228.
96. Bakal C. Drosophila RNAi screening in a postgenomic world. Brief. Funct. Genomics 2011, 10:197-205.
97. Seinen E., et al. RNAi-induced off-target effects in Drosophila melanogaster: frequencies and solutions. Brief. Funct. Genomics 2011, 10:206-214.
98. Alic N., et al. Detrimental effects of RNAi: a cautionary note on its use in Drosophila ageing studies. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e45367.
99. Kitzmann P., et al. RNAi phenotypes are influenced by the genetic background of the injected strain. BMC Genomics 2013, 14:5. 10.1186/1471-2164-14-5.