Zhen Shi June 2, 2010 Journal Club. Introduction Most disease-causing mutations are thought to confer radical changes to proteins (Wang and Moult, 2001;

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Linkage and Genetic Mapping
Advertisements

MENDEL AND THE GENE IDEA
Genetics I. Introduction A. A. History. 1. C. C. Darwin & A. A. Wallace  blending 2. G. G. Mendel & F. F. Unger  mixing 3. W. Sutton  Chromosomal theory.
MitoInteractome : Mitochondrial Protein Interactome Database Rohit Reja Korean Bioinformation Center, Daejeon, Korea.
Genetics I. I. Mendelian 1. History A. Introduction.
Genetics SC Biology Standard B The students will be able to predict inherited traits by using the principles of Mendelian Genetics, summarize.
16 and 18 March, 2004 Chapter 14 From Gene to Phenotype Dominance, epistasis, gene interaction.
Extensions of Mendelian Analysis
Global Mapping of the Yeast Genetic Interaction Network Tong et. al, Science, Feb 2004 Presented by Bowen Cui.
Patterns of inheritance
Transmission Genetics: Heritage from Mendel 2. Mendel’s Genetics Experimental tool: garden pea Outcome of genetic cross is independent of whether the.
14.3: Inheritance patterns are often more complex than predicted by simple Mendelian genetics The relationship between genotype and phenotype is rarely.
Vocabulary Review Ch 12 Inheritance Patterns and Human Genetics.
Research Methodology of Biotechnology: Protein-Protein Interactions Yao-Te Huang Aug 16, 2011.
2 March, 2005 Chapter 12 Mutational dissection Normal gene Altered gene with altered phenotype mutagenesis.
Adaptive evolution of bacterial metabolic networks by horizontal gene transfer Chao Wang Dec 14, 2005.
Introduction to molecular networks Sushmita Roy BMI/CS 576 Nov 6 th, 2014.
PowerPoint Presentation Materials to accompany
Observing Patterns in Inherited Traits
Chapter 4: Protein Interactions and Disease
Protein Interactions and Disease Audry Kang 7/15/2013.
 Read Chapter 6 of text  We saw in chapter 5 that a cross between two individuals heterozygous for a dominant allele produces a 3:1 ratio of individuals.
DEMO CSE fall. What is GeneMANIA GeneMANIA finds other genes that are related to a set of input genes, using a very large set of functional.
Chapter 12 Table of Contents Section 1 Chromosomes and Inheritance
Modes of selection on quantitative traits. Directional selection The population responds to selection when the mean value changes in one direction Here,
Unit 4 Vocabulary Review. Nucleic Acids Organic molecules that serve as the blueprint for proteins and, through the action of proteins, for all cellular.
Network Analysis and Application Yao Fu
Forward genetics and reverse genetics
How to Use This Presentation
HUMAN-MOUSE CONSERVED COEXPRESSION NETWORKS PREDICT CANDIDATE DISEASE GENES Ala U., Piro R., Grassi E., Damasco C., Silengo L., Brunner H., Provero P.
Pedigree analysis through genetic hypothesis testing
Ch. 21 Genomes and their Evolution. New approaches have accelerated the pace of genome sequencing The human genome project began in 1990, using a three-stage.
Extending Mendelian Genetics The relationship between genotype and phenotype is rarely simple.
Chapter 4 Lecture Concepts of Genetics Tenth Edition Extensions of Mendelian Genetics.
Lecture 2: Using Mutants to study Biological processes Objectives: 1. Why use mutants? 2.How are mutants isolated? 3. What important genetic analyses must.
1 Population Genetics Basics. 2 Terminology review Allele Locus Diploid SNP.
Genome Biology and Biotechnology The next frontier: Systems biology Prof. M. Zabeau Department of Plant Systems Biology Flanders Interuniversity Institute.
Introduction to biological molecular networks
Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of a Systematically Perturbed Metabolic Network Science, Vol 292, Issue 5518, , 4 May 2001.
Determinants of Mutation Outcome Predicting mutation outcome from early stochastic variation in genetic interaction partners.
CHAPTER 14  MENDEL & THE GENE IDEA 14.1  Mendel used the scientific approach to identify two laws of inheritance 14.2  The laws of probability govern.
Mutations to Aid in Gene Study By: Yvette Medina Cell Phys
Detecting Protein Function and Protein-Protein Interactions from Genome Sequences TuyetLinh Nguyen.
Complex Patterns of Inheritance INCOMPLETE DOMINANCE, CODOMINANCE, MULTIPLE ALLELES, EPISTASIS AND POLYGENIC INHERITANCE.
EQTLs.
Networks and Interactions
Concept 14.2: The laws of probability govern Mendelian inheritance
Chapter Seven: Extending Mendelian Genetics
Nat. Rev. Neurol. doi: /nrneurol
Genetics I. Introduction A. History
Genetics Definitions Definition Key Word
Chromosomal Basis of Inheritance
Chapter 12 Table of Contents Section 1 Chromosomes and Inheritance
Genetics.
Relationship between Genotype and Phenotype
Chapter 12 Table of Contents Section 1 Chromosomes and Inheritance
The student is expected to: 6A identify components of DNA, and describe how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA.
Predict and interpret patterns of inheritance
Pedigree analysis through genetic hypothesis testing
Relationship between Genotype and Phenotype
Psychiatric Disorders: Diagnosis to Therapy
In these studies, expression levels are viewed as quantitative traits, and gene expression phenotypes are mapped to particular genomic loci by combining.
Florian T. Merkle, Kevin Eggan  Cell Stem Cell 
Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages (May 2015)
Psychiatric Disorders: Diagnosis to Therapy
Genomics, genetic epidemiology, and genomic medicine
Chapter 12 Table of Contents Section 1 Chromosomes and Inheritance
Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans
Interactome Networks and Human Disease
Polygenic Inheritance
Presentation transcript:

Zhen Shi June 2, 2010 Journal Club

Introduction Most disease-causing mutations are thought to confer radical changes to proteins (Wang and Moult, 2001; Botstein and Risch, 2003; Yue et al, 2005; Subramanian and Kumar, 2006). Consequently, genotype-to-phenotype relationships in human genetic disorders are often modeled as: ‘mutation in gene X leads to loss of gene product X, which leads to disease A’. A single ‘gene-loss’ model seems pertinent for many diseases (Botstein and Risch, 2003). However, this model cannot fully reconcile with the increasingly appreciated prevalence of complex genotype-to-phenotype associations for even ‘simple’ Mendelian disorders (Goh et al, 2007), particularly in which: (i) a single gene can be associated with multiple disorders (allelic heterogeneity), (ii) a single disorder can be caused by mutations in any one of several genes (locus heterogeneity), (iii) only a subset of individuals carrying a mutation are affected by the disease (incomplete penetrance), or (iv) not all individuals with a given mutation are affected equally (variable expressivity). More complex models to interpret genotype-to-phenotype relationshipswould probably improve the understanding of human disease.

We hypothesize that distinct mutations causing distinct molecular defects to proteins may lead to distinct perturbations of cellular networks, giving rise to distinct phenotypic outcomes

BASIS OF REASONING ‘truncating’ alleles are less prone to produce stably folded proteins than ‘in-frame’ alleles. edgetic perturbation models

Truncating / in frame Node removal/ edge perturbation Autosomal dominant/ recessive PRESUMPTION: autosomal dominant disease should be more frequently associated with edgetic perturbation than node removal (Figure 2B). HYPOTHESIS TO TEST ‘truncating’ versus ‘in- frame’ alleles are enriched in distinct node removal versus edgetic perturbations, respectively. RESULT: Figure 2C

Results We examined ~ Mendelian disease-causing alleles, affecting over 1900 protein-coding genes, altogether associated with more than 2000 human disorders available in the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) ‘truncating’ alleles (47%) ‘in-frame’ alleles (53%)

Truncating alleles contribute more to autosomal recessive disorder. Figure 2C

Distinct molecular mechanism of disease

Distinguishing edgetic perturbation from node removal we used an integrated experimental approach to characterize binary protein interaction defects of disease-causing mutant alleles. – (i) Gateway recombinational cloning of mutations by PCR- based site-directed mutagenesis (Suzuki et al, 2005), – (ii) high-throughput mapping of binary protein–protein interactions (Rual et al, 2005), – (iii) high-throughput characterization of protein–protein interaction defects of all cloned disease causing mutant proteins, and – (iv) integration of network perturbations by disease- causing mutations with structural or functional information of disease proteins.

Truncating / in frame Node removal/ edge perturbation Autosomal dominant/ recessive PRESUMPTION: autosomal dominant disease should be more frequently associated with edgetic perturbation than node removal (Figure 2B). HYPOTHESIS TO TEST ‘truncating’ versus ‘in- frame’ alleles are enriched in distinct node removal versus edgetic perturbations, respectively. RESULT: Figure 2C

Data set 29 alleles associated with five distinct genetic disorders

Interaction profile of mutants

We related Y2H interaction profiles of each mutant to structural properties of disease proteins (Supplementary information and Supplementary Figure S2–6). Grossly disruptive mutations tend to affect buried residues of the protein, whereas mutations leading to loss or gain of specific interaction(s) tend to lie on the surface.

Structural analyses of disease-causing mutations Among all 3664 affected residues in 236 proteins for which three-dimensional X-ray structures are available

‘truncating’ mutations in autosomal dominant disease are slightly depleted in Pfam domains, whereas ‘truncating’ mutations in autosomal recessive disease are slightly enriched in Pfam domains

Node removal versus edgetic perturbation in complex gene-disease association Distinct network perturbation models, leading to distinct phenotypic outcomes, predict that ‘truncating’ versus ‘in-frame’ alleles for a given gene product might cause different diseases (Figure 5A). B: Each dot represents the fraction of ‘in-frame’ mutations of a pair of distinct diseases associated with a common gene.

Edgetic perturbation models also predict that distinct edgetic perturbations for a given gene product might cause phenotypically distinguishable disorders (Figure 6A). Among 169 genes associated with two or more diseases and encoding proteins containing at least two Pfam domains, 77 had significant enrichment of ‘in-frame’ mutations in Pfamdomains (P<0.05). Therewere nine proteinswith at least two Pfam domains significantly enriched with ‘inframe’ mutations (P<0.05).

Experimental characterization of mutant alleles in various disorders identified diverse edgetic interaction profiles of mutant proteins, which correlated with distinct structural properties of disease proteins and disease mechanisms. Edgetic perturbations seem to confer distinct functional consequences from node removal because a large fraction of cases in which a single gene is linked to multiple disorders can be modeled by distinguishing edgetic network perturbations. Conclusion

Limitations First, the current interactome network derived from Y2H analysis is probably incomplete. Second, Y2H detects binary protein interactions. Third, Y2H is not quantitative. Finally, disease mutations may affect protein functions by altering biochemical activities or protein–DNA or protein–RNA interactions. Disease-associated alleles may also gain new interactions, which is another important potential mechanism for pathogenicity.

Prospect Just as high-throughput sequencing technologies are revolutionizing genotyping platforms, and as functional genomics and proteomics are becoming increasingly able to characterize gene products resulting from whole genome sequencing and gene prediction, functional characterizations of genetic variations may be applied at large-scale to characterize mutations with uncertain pathological consequences.