Natural yeast promoter variants reveal epistasis in the generation of transcriptional-mediated noise and its potential benefit in stressful conditions

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 969-984

  Liu, Jian ^a   Martin Yken, Hélène ^a   Bigey, Frédéric ^b   Dequin, Sylvie ^b   François, Jean Marie ^a   Capp, Jean Pascal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b SPO   (France)

Author keywords

Copper; Industrial wine yeast; Phenotypic variability and heterogeneity; Stochastic gene expression; Stress resistance and tolerance

Indexed keywords

COPPER;

DRUG EFFECTS; EPISTASIS; FUNGAL GENOME; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; PROMOTER REGION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

COPPER; EPISTASIS, GENETIC; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, FUNGAL; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME, FUNGAL; PROMOTER REGIONS, GENETIC; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; STRESS, PHYSIOLOGICAL; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84942254128     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evv047     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Acar M, Mettetal JT, Van Oudenaarden A. 2008. Stochastic switching as a survival strategy in fluctuating environments. Nat Genet. 40:471-475.
2. Ackermann M. 2013. Microbial individuality in the natural environment. ISME J. 7:465-467.
3. Adamo GM, Lotti M, Tamas MJ, Brocca S. 2012. Amplification of the CUP1 gene is associated with evolution of copper tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiology 158:2325-2335.
4. Ambroset C, et al. 2011. Deciphering the molecular basis of wine yeast fermentation traits using a combined genetic and genomic approach. G3 (Bethesda) 1:263-281.
5. Ansel J, et al. 2008. Cell-to-cell stochastic variation in gene expression is a complex genetic trait. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000049.
6. Balazsi G, Van Oudenaarden A, Collins JJ. 2011. Cellular decision making and biological noise: from microbes to mammals. Cell 144:910-925.
7. Bar-Even A, et al. 2006. Noise in protein expression scales with natural protein abundance. Nat Genet. 38:636-643.
8. Blake WJ, et al. 2006. Phenotypic consequences of promoter-mediated transcriptional noise. Mol Cell. 24:853-865.
9. Blake WJ, Kaern M, Cantor CR, Collins JJ. 2003. Noise in eukaryotic gene expression. Nature 422:633-637.
10. Borneman AR, Pretorius IS, Chambers PJ. 2013. Comparative genomics: a revolutionary tool for wine yeast strain development. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 24:192-199.
11. Brion C, Ambroset C, Sanchez I, Legras JL, Blondin B. 2013. Differential adaptation to multi-stressed conditions of wine fermentation revealed by variations in yeast regulatory networks. BMC Genomics 14:681.
12. Carey LB, Van Dijk D, Sloot PM, Kaandorp JA, Segal E. 2013. Promoter sequence determines the relationship between expression level and noise. PLoS Biol. 11:e1001528.
13. Carreto L, et al. 2011. Expression variability of co-regulated genes differentiates Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. BMC Genomics 12:201.
14. Chalancon G, et al. 2012. Interplay between gene expression noise and regulatory network architecture. Trends Genet. 28:221-232.
15. Chang SL, Lai HY, Tung SY, Leu JY. 2013. Dynamic large-scale chromosomal rearrangements fuel rapid adaptation in yeast populations. PLoS Genet. 9:e1003232.
16. Chou HH, Holmes MH. 2001. DNA sequence quality trimming and vector removal. Bioinformatics 17:1093-1104.
17. Dadiani M, et al. 2013. Two DNA-encoded strategies for increasing expression with opposing effects on promoter dynamics and transcriptional noise. Genome Res. 23:966-976.
18. Denisov GA, Arehart AB, Curtin MD. 2004. System and method for improving the accuracy of DNA sequencing and error probability estimation through application of a mathematical model to the analysis of electropherograms, US Patent 6681186.
19. Dequin S, Casaregola S. 2011. The genomes of fermentative Saccharomyces. C R Biol. 334:687-693.
20. Dunn B, Levine RP, Sherlock G. 2005. Microarray karyotyping of commercial wine yeast strains reveals shared, as well as unique, genomic signatures. BMC Genomics 6:53.
21. Dunn B, Richter C, Kvitek DJ, Pugh T, Sherlock G. 2012. Analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae pan-genome reveals a pool of copy number variants distributed in diverse yeast strains from differing industrial environments. Genome Res. 22:908-924.
22. Elowitz MB, Levine AJ, Siggia ED, Swain PS. 2002. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science 297:1183-1186.
23. Fay JC. 2013. The molecular basis of phenotypic variation in yeast. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 23:672-677.
24. Fehrmann S, et al. 2013. Natural sequence variants of yeast environmental sensors confer cell-to-cell expression variability. Mol Syst Biol. 9:695.
25. Fogel S, Welch JW. 1982. Tandem gene amplification mediates copper resistance in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 79:5342-5346.
26. Fraser D, Kaern M. 2009. A chance at survival: gene expression noise and phenotypic diversification strategies. Mol Microbiol. 71:1333-1340.
27. Fraser HB, Hirsh AE, Giaever G, Kumm J, Eisen MB. 2004. Noise minimization in eukaryotic gene expression. PLoS Biol. 2:e137.
28. Freed NE, et al. 2008. A simple screen to identify promoters conferring high levels of phenotypic noise. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000307.
29. Holland SL, Reader T, Dyer PS, Avery SV. 2014. Phenotypic heterogeneity is a selected trait in natural yeast populations subject to environmental stress. Environ Microbiol. 16:1729-1740.
30. Hornung G, et al. 2012. Noise-mean relationship in mutated promoters. Genome Res. 22:2409-2417.
31. Ito Y, Toyota H, Kaneko K, Yomo T. 2009. How selection affects phenotypic fluctuation. Mol Syst Biol. 5:264.
32. Karpova TS, et al. 2008. Concurrent fast and slow cycling of a transcriptional activator at an endogenous promoter. Science 319:466-469.
33. Lehner B. 2008. Selection to minimise noise in living systems and its implications for the evolution of gene expression. Mol Syst Biol. 4:170.
34. Li H, et al. 2009. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078-2079.
35. Li J, et al. 2013. Polygenic molecular architecture underlying non-sexual cell aggregation in budding yeast. DNA Res. 20:55-66.
36. Lidstrom ME, Konopka MC. 2010. The role of physiological heterogeneity in microbial population behavior. Nat Chem Biol. 6:705-712.
37. Liti G, Louis EJ. 2012. Advances in quantitative trait analysis in yeast. PLoS Genet. 8:e1002912.
38. Murphy KF, Adams RM, Wang X, Balazsi G, Collins JJ. 2010. Tuning and controlling gene expression noise in synthetic gene networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:2712-2726.
39. Newman JR, et al. 2006. Single-cell proteomic analysis of S. cerevisiae reveals the architecture of biological noise. Nature 441:840-846.
40. Novo M, et al. 2009. Eukaryote-to-eukaryote gene transfer events revealed by the genome sequence of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC1118. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106:16333-16338.
41. Raj A, Van Oudenaarden A. 2008. Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell 135:216-226.
42. Raser JM, O'Shea EK. 2004. Control of stochasticity in eukaryotic gene expression. Science 304:1811-1814.
43. Salinas F, et al. 2012. The genetic basis of natural variation in oenological traits in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS One 7:e49640.
44. Sanchez A, Choubey S, Kondev J. 2013. Regulation of noise in gene expression. Annu Rev Biophys. 42:469-491.
45. Sanchez A, Golding I. 2013. Genetic determinants and cellular constraints in noisy gene expression. Science 342:1188-1193.
46. Sharon E, et al. 2014. Probing the effect of promoters on noise in gene expression using thousands of designed sequences. Genome Res. 24:1698-1706.
47. Shen CH, Leblanc BP, Alfieri JA, Clark DJ. 2001. Remodeling of yeast CUP1 chromatin involves activator-dependent repositioning of nucleosomes over theentire geneand flankingsequences. Mol Cell Biol. 21:534-547.
48. Smith MC, Sumner ER, Avery SV. 2007. Glutathione and Gts1p drive beneficial variability in the cadmium resistances of individual yeast cells. Mol Microbiol. 66:699-712.
49. Steensels J, et al. 2014. Improving industrial yeast strains: exploiting natural and artificial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 38:947-995.
50. Treu L, et al. 2014. Oxidative stress response and nitrogen utilization are strongly variable in Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine strains with different fermentation performances. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 98:4119-4135.
51. Viney M, Reece SE. 2013. Adaptive noise. Proc Biol Sci. 280:20131104.
52. Zhang Z, Qian W, Zhang J. 2009. Positive selection for elevated gene expression noise in yeast. Mol Syst Biol. 5:299.