Literature DB >> 18372794

Imprinted genes and human disease: an evolutionary perspective.

Francisco Ubeda1, Jon F Wilkins.   

Abstract

Imprinted genes have been associated with a wide range of diseases. Many of these diseases have symptoms that can be understood in the context of the evolutionary forces that favored imprinted expression at these loci. Modulation of perinatal growth and resource acquisition has played a central role in the evolution of imprinting and many of the diseases associated with imprinted genes involve some sort of growth or feeding disorder. In the first part of this chapter, we discuss the relationship between the evolution of imprinting and the clinical manifestations of imprinting-associated diseases. In the second half, we consider the variety of processes that can disrupt imprinted gene expression and function. We ask specifically if there is reason to believe that imprinted genes are particularly susceptible to deregulation-and whether a disruption of an imprinted gene is more likely to have deleterious consequences than a disruption of an unimprinted gene. There is more to a gene than its DNA sequence. C. H. Waddington used the term "epigenetic" to describe biological differences between tissues that result from the process of development. Waddington needed a new term to describe this variation which was neither the result of genotypic differences between the cells nor well described as phenotypic variation. We now understand that heritable modifications of the DNA--such as cytosine methylation--and aspects of chromatin structure--including histone modifications--are the mechanisms underlying what Waddington called the "epigenotype." Epigenetic modifications are established in particular cell lines during development and are responsible for the patterns of gene expression seen in different tissue types. In contemporary usage, the term epigenetic refers to heritable changes in gene expression that are not coded in the DNA sequence itself. In recent years, much attention has been paid to a particular type of epigenetic variation: genomic imprinting. In the case of imprinting, the maternally and paternally inherited genes within a single cell have epigenetic differences that result in divergent patterns of gene expression. In the simplest scenario, only one of the two alleles at an imprinted locus is expressed. In other cases, an imprinted locus can include a variety of maternally expressed, paternally expressed and biallelically expressed transcripts. Some of these transcripts produce different proteins through alternate splicing, while others produce noncoding RNA transcripts. Genomic imprinting can also interact with the "epigenotype" in Waddington's sense: many genes are imprinted in a tissue-specific manner, with monoallelic expression in some cell types and biallelic expression in others. Other chapters in this volume cover our current understanding of the mechanisms of imprinting, the phenotypic effects of imprinted genes in mammals and what we know about imprinting in plants. In this chapter we discuss the link between imprinted genes and human disease. First, we consider the phenotypes associated with imprinted genes and ask whether the disorders associated with these genes share a common motif. Second, we consider the nature and frequency of mutations of imprinted genes. We ask whether we should expect that imprinted genes are particularly fragile. That is, are they more likely to undergo mutation and/or are mutations of imprinted genes particularly likely to result in human disease? In general we consider how the field of evolutionary medicine--the use of evolution to understand why our body's design allows for the existence of disease at all--might contribute to our comprehension of disorders linked to genomic imprinting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18372794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol        ISSN: 0065-2598            Impact factor:   2.622


  19 in total

1.  Variability in DNA methylation defines novel epigenetic subgroups of DLBCL associated with different clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Nyasha Chambwe; Matthias Kormaksson; Huimin Geng; Subhajyoti De; Franziska Michor; Nathalie A Johnson; Ryan D Morin; David W Scott; Lucy A Godley; Randy D Gascoyne; Ari Melnick; Fabien Campagne; Rita Shaknovich
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 2.  Non-conflict theories for the evolution of genomic imprinting.

Authors:  H G Spencer; A G Clark
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Natural variability of minimotifs in 1092 people indicates that minimotifs are targets of evolution.

Authors:  Kenneth F Lyon; Christy L Strong; Steve G Schooler; Richard J Young; Nervik Roy; Brittany Ozar; Mark Bachmeier; Sanguthevar Rajasekaran; Martin R Schiller
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 4.  Stem cells and small molecule screening: haploid embryonic stem cells as a new tool.

Authors:  Bi Wu; Wei Li; Liu Wang; Zhong-hua Liu; Xiao-yang Zhao
Journal:  Acta Pharmacol Sin       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 5.  Meat Science and Muscle Biology Symposium: stem cell niche and postnatal muscle growth.

Authors:  P Bi; S Kuang
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 6.  Pathology from evolutionary conflict, with a theory of X chromosome versus autosome conflict over sexually antagonistic traits.

Authors:  Steven A Frank; Bernard J Crespi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Matrisibs, patrisibs, and the evolution of imprinting on autosomes and sex chromosomes.

Authors:  Yaniv Brandvain
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Imprint switch mutations at Rasgrf1 support conflict hypothesis of imprinting and define a growth control mechanism upstream of IGF1.

Authors:  Nadia M Drake; Yoon Jung Park; Aditya S Shirali; Thomas A Cleland; Paul D Soloway
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 2.957

9.  The biological basis and clinical significance of hormonal imprinting, an epigenetic process.

Authors:  György Csaba
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 6.551

10.  The effect of neurohormonal factors, epigenetic factors, and gut microbiota on risk of obesity.

Authors:  Matthew A Haemer; Terry T Huang; Stephen R Daniels
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.