Further support for aneuploidy tolerance in wild yeast and effects of dosage compensation on gene copy-number evolution

eLife

Volumn 5, Issue MARCH2016, 2016, Pages

  Gasch, Audrey P ^a   Hose, James ^a   Newton, Michael A ^a,b   Sardi, Maria ^a   Yong, Mun ^a   Wang, Zhishi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRANSCRIPTOME; MESSENGER RNA;

ANEUPLOIDY; ANEUPLOIDY TOLERANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; FUNGAL STRAIN; GENE AMPLIFICATION; GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENE SEQUENCE; NONHUMAN; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; YEAST; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETICS; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANEUPLOIDY; GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, FUNGAL; RNA, MESSENGER; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

EID: 84964257927     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.14409     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bakalinsky AT, Snow R. 1990. The chromosomal constitution of wine strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 6:367–382. doi: 10.1002/yea.320060503
2. Bond U, Neal C, Donnelly D, James TC. 2004. Aneuploidy and copy number breakpoints in the genome of lager yeasts mapped by microarray hybridisation. Current Genetics 45:360–370. doi: 10.1007/s00294-004-0504-x
3. Dabeva MD, Warner JR. 1987. The yeast ribosomal protein L32 and its gene. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 262:16055–9.
4. Dean D, Yates JL, Nomura M. 1981. Escherichia coli ribosomal protein S8 feedback regulates part of spc operon. Nature 289:89–91. doi: 10.1038/289089a0
5. Deckert J, Perini R, Balasubramanian B, Zitomer RS. 1995. Multiple elements and auto-repression regulate Rox1, a repressor of hypoxic genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 139:1149–1158.
6. Denby CM, Im JH, Yu RC, Pesce CG, Brem RB. 2012. Negative feedback confers mutational robustness in yeast transcription factor regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:3874–3878. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116360109
7. Filteau M, Hamel V, Pouliot M-C, Gagnon-Arsenault I, Dube AK, Landry CR. 2015. Evolutionary rescue by compensatory mutations is constrained by genomic and environmental backgrounds. Molecular Systems Biology 11:832. doi: 10.15252/msb.20156444
8. Gasch AP, Spellman PT, Kao CM, Carmel-Harel O, Eisen MB, Storz G, Botstein D, Brown PO. 2000. Genomic Expression Programs in the Response of Yeast Cells to Environmental Changes. Molecular Biology of the Cell 11:4241–4257. doi: 10.1091/mbc.11.12.4241
9. Gasch AP, Payseur BA, Pool JE. 2016. The Power of Natural Variation for Model Organism Biology. Trends in Genetics 32:147–154. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.12.003
10. Hadfield C, Harikrishna JA, Wilson JA. 1995. Determination of chromosome copy numbers in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains via integrative probe and blot hybridization techniques. Current Genetics 27:217–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00326152
11. Hon T, Lee HC, Hu Z, Iyer VR, Zhang L. 2005. The Heme Activator Protein Hap1 Represses Transcription by a Heme-Independent Mechanism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 169:1343–1352. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.037143
12. Hose J, Yong CM, Sardi M, Wang Z, Newton MA, Gasch AP. 2015. Dosage compensation can buffer copy-number variation in wild yeast. eLife 4. doi: 10.7554/eLife.05462
13. Mulla W, Zhu J, Li R. 2014. Yeast: a simple model system to study complex phenomena of aneuploidy. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 38:201–212. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12048
14. Muller LAH, McCusker JH. 2009. A multispecies-based taxonomic microarray reveals interspecies hybridization and introgression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Research 9:143–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00464.x
15. Newton MA, Noueiry A, Sarkar D, Ahlquist P. 2004. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5:155–176. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/5.2.155
16. Robinson MD, Grigull J, Mohammad N, Hughes TR. 2002. FunSpec: a web-based cluster interpreter for yeast. BMC Bioinformatics 3:35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-3-35
17. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. 2010. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 26:139–140. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616
18. Sheltzer JM, Torres EM, Dunham MJ, Amon A. 2012. Transcriptional consequences of aneuploidy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:12644–12649. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209227109
19. Sirr A, Cromie GA, Jeffery EW, Gilbert TL, Ludlow CL, Scott AC, Dudley AM. 2015. Allelic variation, aneuploidy, and nongenetic mechanisms suppress a monogenic trait in yeast. Genetics 199:247–262. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.170563
20. Springer M, Weissman JS, Kirschner MW. 2010. A general lack of compensation for gene dosage in yeast. Molecular Systems Biology 6:368. doi: 10.1038/msb.2010.19
21. Storey JD. 2003. The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value. The Annals of Statistics 31:2013–2035. doi: 10.1214/aos/1074290335
22. Strope PK, Skelly DA, Kozmin SG, Mahadevan G, Stone EA, Magwene PM, Dietrich FS, McCusker JH. 2015. The 100-genomes strains, an S. cerevisiae resource that illuminates its natural phenotypic and genotypic variation and emergence as an opportunistic pathogen. Genome Research 25:762–774. doi: 10.1101/gr.185538.114
23. Tan Z, Hays M, Cromie GA, Jeffery EW, Scott AC, Ahyong V, Sirr A, Skupin A, Dudley AM. 2013. Aneuploidy underlies a multicellular phenotypic switch. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:12367–12372. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301047110
24. Torres EM, Sokolsky T, Tucker CM, Chan LY, Boselli M, Dunham MJ, Amon A. 2007. Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast. Science 317:916–924. doi: 10.1126/science.1142210
25. Torres EM, Dephoure N, Panneerselvam A, Tucker CM, Whittaker CA, Gygi SP, Dunham MJ, Amon A. 2010. Identification of aneuploidy-tolerating mutations. Cell 143:71–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.08.038
26. Tsay YF, Thompson JR, Rotenberg MO, Larkin JC, Woolford JL. 1988. Ribosomal protein synthesis is not regulated at the translational level in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: balanced accumulation of ribosomal proteins L16 and rp59 is mediated by turnover of excess protein. Genes & Development 2:664–676. doi: 10.1101/gad.2.6.664
27. Venters BJ, Wachi S, Mavrich TN, Andersen BE, Jena P, Sinnamon AJ, Jain P, Rolleri NS, Jiang C, Hemeryck-Walsh C, Pugh BF. 2011. A Comprehensive Genomic Binding Map of Gene and Chromatin Regulatory Proteins in Saccharomyces. Molecular Cell 41:480–492. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.01.015
28. Vilardell J, Warner JR. 1997. Ribosomal protein L32 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae influences both the splicing of its own transcript and the processing of rRNA. Molecular and Cellular Biology 17:1959–1965. doi: 10.1128/MCB.17.4.1959
29. Warner JR, Mitra G, Schwindinger WF, Studeny M, Fried HM. 1985. Saccharomyces cerevisiae coordinates accumulation of yeast ribosomal proteins by modulating mRNA splicing, translational initiation, and protein turnover. Molecular and Cellular Biology 5:1512–1521. doi: 10.1128/MCB.5.6.1512
30. Wu C-Y, Rolfe PA, Gifford DK, Fink GR. 2010. Control of Transcription by Cell Size. PLoS Biology 8:e1000523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000523
31. Zhu YO, Siegal ML, Hall DW, Petrov DA. 2014. Precise estimates of mutation rate and spectrum in yeast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:E2310–E2318. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323011111