Gene dosage imbalances: Action, reaction, and models

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 309-317

  Veitia, Reiner A ^a,b   Potier, Marie Claude ^c  

^a INSTITUT JACQUES MONOD   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Aneuploidy; Buffering; Compensation; Deletion; Dosage balance; Duplication

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; ANEUPLOIDY; AUTOSOME; CHROMOSOME DELETION; CHROMOSOME DUPLICATION; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; DOWN SYNDROME; GENE DOSAGE; GENE DOSAGE IMBALANCE; GENE DUPLICATION; GENE OVEREXPRESSION; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; NONHUMAN; NONSENSE MEDIATED MRNA DECAY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN AGGREGATION; PROTEIN DEGRADATION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; RNA DEGRADATION; SUPERNUMERARY CHROMOSOME; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; TRISOMY 21; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETICS; MUTATION; NEOPLASM;

ANEUPLOIDY; GENE DOSAGE; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS; PROTEOMICS;

EID: 84929502864     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: 13624326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.03.011     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Blakeslee A.F., et al. Chromosomal duplication and Mendelian phenomena in Datura mutants. Science 1920, 52:388-390.
2. Torres E.M., et al. Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast. Science 2007, 317:916-924.
3. Lindsley D.L., et al. Segmental aneuploidy and the genetic gross structure of the Drosophila genome. Genetics 1972, 71:157-184.
4. Lee E.A., et al. Dosage effects on morphological and quantitative traits in maize aneuploids. Genome 1996, 39:898-908.
5. Stingele S., et al. Global analysis of genome, transcriptome and proteome reveals the response to aneuploidy in human cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2012, 8:608.
6. Williams B.R., et al. Aneuploidy affects proliferation and spontaneous immortalization in mammalian cells. Science 2008, 322:703-709.
7. Niwa O., et al. Growth arrest and chromosome instability in aneuploid yeast. Yeast 2006, 23:937-950.
8. Lejeune J., et al. Study of somatic chromosomes from 9 mongoloid children. C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. 1959, 248:1721-1722. (in French).
9. Patau K., et al. Multiple congenital anomaly caused by an extra autosome. Lancet 1960, 1:790-793.
10. Edwards J.H. The simulation of mendelism. Acta Genet. Stat. Med. 1960, 10:63-70.
11. Boell L., et al. Exploring the effects of gene dosage on mandible shape in mice as a model for studying the genetic basis of natural variation. Dev. Genes Evol. 2013, 223:279-287.
12. Van Bon B.W.M., et al. Disruptive de novo mutations of DYRK1A lead to a syndromic form of autism and ID. Mol. Psychiatry 2015, Published online February 24, 2015. 10.1038/mp.2015.5.
13. Redin C., et al. Efficient strategy for the molecular diagnosis of intellectual disability using targeted high-throughput sequencing. J. Med. Genet. 2014, 51:724-736.
14. Van Bon B.W.M., et al. Intragenic deletion in DYRK1A leads to mental retardation and primary microcephaly. Clin. Genet. 2011, 79:296-299.
15. Veitia R.A. Exploring the etiology of haploinsufficiency. Bioessays 2002, 24:175-184.
16. Birchler J.A., Veitia R.A. Gene balance hypothesis: connecting issues of dosage sensitivity across biological disciplines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:14746-14753.
17. Freeling M. Bias in plant gene content following different sorts of duplication: tandem, whole-genome, segmental, or by transposition. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2009, 60:433-453.
18. Ohno S. Sex Chromosomes and Sex Linked Genes 1967, Springer Verlag.
19. Birchler J.A. Claims and counterclaims of X-chromosome compensation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012, 19:3-5.
20. Pessia E., et al. Mammalian X chromosome inactivation evolved as a dosage-compensation mechanism for dosage-sensitive genes on the X chromosome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:5346-5351.
21. Lin F., et al. Expression reduction in mammalian X chromosome evolution refutes Ohno's hypothesis of dosage compensation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:11752-11757.
22. Julien P., et al. Mechanisms and evolutionary patterns of mammalian and avian dosage compensation. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10:e1001328.
23. Papp B., et al. Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast. Nature 2003, 424:194-197.
24. Veitia R.A. Nonlinear effects in macromolecular assembly and dosage sensitivity. J. Theor. Biol. 2003, 220:19-25.
25. Li G-W., et al. Quantifying absolute protein synthesis rates reveals principles underlying allocation of cellular resources. Cell 2014, 157:624-635.
26. Jansen R., et al. Relating whole-genome expression data with protein-protein interactions. Genome Res. 2002, 12:37-46.
27. Ettwiller L., Veitia R.A. Protein coevolution and isoexpression in yeast macromolecular complexes. Comp. Funct. Genomics 2007, 2007:58721.
28. Tenenbaum S.A., et al. The post-transcriptional operon. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 703:237-245.
29. Dekel E., Alon U. Optimality and evolutionary tuning of the expression level of a protein. Nature 2005, 436:588-592.
30. Pavelka N., et al. Aneuploidy confers quantitative proteome changes and phenotypic variation in budding yeast. Nature 2010, 468:321-325.
31. Torres E.M., et al. Identification of aneuploidy-tolerating mutations. Cell 2010, 143:71-83.
32. Aït Yahya-Graison E., et al. Classification of human chromosome 21 gene-expression variations in Down syndrome: impact on disease phenotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 81:475-491.
33. Vilardell M., et al. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous Down syndrome data reveals consistent genome-wide dosage effects related to neurological processes. BMC Genomics 2011, 12:229.
34. Pangalos C., et al. Understanding the mechanism(s) of mosaic trisomy 21 by using DNA polymorphism analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1994, 54:473-481.
35. Korbel J.O., et al. The genetic architecture of Down syndrome phenotypes revealed by high-resolution analysis of human segmental trisomies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:12031-12036.
36. Lyle R., et al. Genotype-phenotype correlations in Down syndrome identified by array CGH in 30 cases of partial trisomy and partial monosomy chromosome 21. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2009, 17:454-466.
37. Alpers J.B., Paulus H. Allosteric preconditioning: role of allosteric ligands in promoting the maturation of enzymes. Nature 1971, 233:478-480.
38. Csermely P., et al. Induced fit, conformational selection and independent dynamic segments: an extended view of binding events. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2010, 35:539-546.
39. Tian G., et al. Tubulin subunits exist in an activated conformational state generated and maintained by protein cofactors. J. Cell Biol. 1997, 138:821-832.
40. Tyedmers J., et al. Cellular strategies for controlling protein aggregation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:777-788.
41. McMurray M. Lean forward: genetic analysis of temperature-sensitive mutants unfolds the secrets of oligomeric protein complex assembly. Bioessays 2014, 36:836-846.
42. Pechmann S., et al. Physicochemical principles that regulate the competition between functional and dysfunctional association of proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:10159-10164.
43. Rovelet-Lecrux A., et al. APP locus duplication causes autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease with cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Nat. Genet. 2006, 38:24-26.
44. Cho C-K.J., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of amniocytes reveals potentially dysregulated molecular networks in Down syndrome. Clin. Proteomics 2013, 10:2.
45. Cenini G., et al. An investigation of the molecular mechanisms engaged before and after the development of Alzheimer disease neuropathology in Down syndrome: a proteomics approach. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2014, 76:89-95.
46. Hegyi H., et al. Structural disorder promotes assembly of protein complexes. BMC Struct. Biol. 2007, 7:65.
47. Dyson H.J., Wright P.E. Coupling of folding and binding for unstructured proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2002, 12:54-60.
48. Gunasekaran K., et al. Extended disordered proteins: targeting function with less scaffold. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2003, 28:81-85.
49. Vavouri T., et al. Intrinsic protein disorder and interaction promiscuity are widely associated with dosage sensitivity. Cell 2009, 138:198-208.
50. Liang H., et al. Protein under-wrapping causes dosage sensitivity and decreases gene duplicability. PLoS Genet. 2008, 4:e11.
51. Lee H., et al. DNA copy number evolution in Drosophila cell lines. Genome Biol. 2014, 15:R70.
52. Gibbons J.G., et al. Concerted copy number variation balances ribosomal DNA dosage in human and mouse genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112:2485-2490.
53. Veitia R.A., et al. Cellular reactions to gene dosage imbalance: genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic effects. Trends Genet. 2008, 24:390-397.
54. Stenberg P., Larsson J. Buffering and the evolution of chromosome-wide gene regulation. Chromosoma 2011, 120:213-225.
55. Bleris L., et al. Synthetic incoherent feedforward circuits show adaptation to the amount of their genetic template. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2011, 7:519.
56. Kiełbasa S.M., Vingron M. Transcriptional autoregulatory loops are highly conserved in vertebrate evolution. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e3210.
57. Alon U. Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8:450-461.
58. Ben-Ze'ev A., et al. Mechanisms of regulating tubulin synthesis in cultured mammalian cells. Cell 1979, 17:319-325.
59. Theodorakis N.G., Cleveland D.W. Physical evidence for cotranslational regulation of beta-tubulin mRNA degradation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1992, 12:791-799.
60. Katz W., et al. Regulation of tubulin levels and microtubule assembly in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: consequences of altered tubulin gene copy number. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1990, 10:5286-5294.
61. Stapleton J.A., et al. Feedback control of protein expression in mammalian cells by tunable synthetic translational inhibition. ACS Synth. Biol. 2012, 1:83-88.
62. DeLuna A., et al. Need-based up-regulation of protein levels in response to deletion of their duplicate genes. PLoS Biol. 2010, 8:e1000347.
63. Gupta V., et al. Global analysis of X-chromosome dosage compensation. J. Biol. 2006, 5:3.
64. McAnally A.A., Yampolsky L.Y. Widespread transcriptional autosomal dosage compensation in Drosophila correlates with gene expression level. Genome Biol. Evol. 2010, 2:44-52.
65. Malone J.H., et al. Mediation of Drosophila autosomal dosage effects and compensation by network interactions. Genome Biol. 2012, 13:r28.
66. Zhang Y., et al. Expression in aneuploid Drosophila S2 cells. PLoS Biol. 2010, 8:e1000320.
67. Veitia R.A., et al. X chromosome inactivation and active X upregulation in therian mammals: facts, questions, and hypotheses. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 2015, 7:2-11.
68. Veitia R.A., et al. Gene dosage effects: nonlinearities, genetic interactions, and dosage compensation. Trends Genet. 2013, 29:385-393.
69. Tang Y-C., et al. Identification of aneuploidy-selective antiproliferation compounds. Cell 2011, 144:499-512.
70. Oromendia A.B., et al. Aneuploidy causes proteotoxic stress in yeast. Genes Dev. 2012, 26:2696-2708.
71. Donnelly N., et al. HSF1 deficiency and impaired HSP90-dependent protein folding are hallmarks of aneuploid human cells. EMBO J. 2014, 33:2374-2387.
72. Donnelly N., Storchová Z. Causes and consequences of protein folding stress in aneuploid cells. Cell Cycle 2015, 14:495-501.
73. Donnelly N., Storchová Z. Dynamic karyotype, dynamic proteome: buffering the effects of aneuploidy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014, 1843:473-481.
74. Fredrickson E.K., et al. Substrate recognition in nuclear protein quality control degradation is governed by exposed hydrophobicity that correlates with aggregation and insolubility. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288:6130-6139.
75. Dephoure N., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis reveals posttranslational responses to aneuploidy in yeast. Elife 2014, 3:e03023.
76. Geiger T., et al. Proteomic changes resulting from gene copy number variations in cancer cells. PLoS Genet. 2010, 6:e1001090.
77. Shemorry A., et al. Control of protein quality and stoichiometries by N-terminal acetylation and the N-end rule pathway. Mol. Cell 2013, 50:540-551.
78. Arendt T. Cell cycle activation and aneuploid neurons in Alzheimer's disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 2012, 46:125-135.
79. Dey S.S., et al. Integrated genome and transcriptome sequencing of the same cell. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:285-289.
80. Salehi-Reyhani A., et al. A first step towards practical single cell proteomics: a microfluidic antibody capture chip with TIRF detection. Lab Chip 2011, 11:1256-1261.
81. Shi Q., et al. Single-cell proteomic chip for profiling intracellular signaling pathways in single tumor cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:419-424.
82. Helou Y.A., Salomon A.R. Protein networks and activation of lymphocytes. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2015, 33C:78-85.
83. Kühl P.W., Jobmann M. Receptor-agonist interactions in service-theoretic perspective, effects of molecular timing on the shape of dose-response curves. J. Recept. Signal Transduct. Res. 2006, 26:1-34.
84. Keene J.D. RNA regulons: coordination of post-transcriptional events. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8:533-543.
85. Alberty R.A. The relationship between Michaelis constants, maximum velocities and the equilibrium constant for an enzyme-catalyzed reaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1953, 75:1928-1932.
86. Yang E., et al. Decay rates of human mRNAs: correlation with functional characteristics and sequence attributes. Genome Res. 2003, 13:1863-1872.
87. Neymotin B., et al. Determination of in vivo RNA kinetics using RATE-seq. RNA 2014, 20:1645-1652.