BACKGROUND: Since the dawn of genetics, additive and dominant gene action in diploids have been defined by comparison of heterozygote and homozygote phenotypes. However, these definitions provide little insight into the underlying intralocus allelic functional dependency and thus cannot serve directly as a mediator between genetics theory and regulatory biology, a link that is sorely needed. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We provide such a link by distinguishing between positive, negative and zero allele interaction at the genotype level. First, these distinctions disclose that a biallelic locus can display 18 qualitatively different allele interaction sign motifs (triplets of +, - and 0). Second, we show that for a single locus, Mendelian dominance is not related to heterozygote allele interaction alone, but is actually a function of the degrees of allele interaction in all the three genotypes. Third, we demonstrate how the allele interaction in each genotype is directly quantifiable in gene regulatory models, and that there is a unique, one-to-one correspondence between the sign of autoregulatory feedback loops and the sign of the allele interactions. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The concept of allele interaction refines single locus genetics substantially, and it provides a direct link between classical models of gene action and gene regulatory biology. Together with available empirical data, our results indicate that allele interaction can be exploited experimentally to identify and explain intricate intra- and inter-locus feedback relationships in eukaryotes.
BACKGROUND: Since the dawn of genetics, additive and dominant gene action in diploids have been defined by comparison of heterozygote and homozygote phenotypes. However, these definitions provide little insight into the underlying intralocus allelic functional dependency and thus cannot serve directly as a mediator between genetics theory and regulatory biology, a link that is sorely needed. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We provide such a link by distinguishing between positive, negative and zero allele interaction at the genotype level. First, these distinctions disclose that a biallelic locus can display 18 qualitatively different allele interaction sign motifs (triplets of +, - and 0). Second, we show that for a single locus, Mendelian dominance is not related to heterozygote allele interaction alone, but is actually a function of the degrees of allele interaction in all the three genotypes. Third, we demonstrate how the allele interaction in each genotype is directly quantifiable in gene regulatory models, and that there is a unique, one-to-one correspondence between the sign of autoregulatory feedback loops and the sign of the allele interactions. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The concept of allele interaction refines single locus genetics substantially, and it provides a direct link between classical models of gene action and gene regulatory biology. Together with available empirical data, our results indicate that allele interaction can be exploited experimentally to identify and explain intricate intra- and inter-locus feedback relationships in eukaryotes.
Authors: Bastiaan Hoogendoorn; Sharon L Coleman; Carol A Guy; Kaye Smith; Tim Bowen; Paul R Buckland; Michael C O'Donovan Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-07-22 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Guri Giaever; Angela M Chu; Li Ni; Carla Connelly; Linda Riles; Steeve Véronneau; Sally Dow; Ankuta Lucau-Danila; Keith Anderson; Bruno André; Adam P Arkin; Anna Astromoff; Mohamed El-Bakkoury; Rhonda Bangham; Rocio Benito; Sophie Brachat; Stefano Campanaro; Matt Curtiss; Karen Davis; Adam Deutschbauer; Karl-Dieter Entian; Patrick Flaherty; Francoise Foury; David J Garfinkel; Mark Gerstein; Deanna Gotte; Ulrich Güldener; Johannes H Hegemann; Svenja Hempel; Zelek Herman; Daniel F Jaramillo; Diane E Kelly; Steven L Kelly; Peter Kötter; Darlene LaBonte; David C Lamb; Ning Lan; Hong Liang; Hong Liao; Lucy Liu; Chuanyun Luo; Marc Lussier; Rong Mao; Patrice Menard; Siew Loon Ooi; Jose L Revuelta; Christopher J Roberts; Matthias Rose; Petra Ross-Macdonald; Bart Scherens; Greg Schimmack; Brenda Shafer; Daniel D Shoemaker; Sharon Sookhai-Mahadeo; Reginald K Storms; Jeffrey N Strathern; Giorgio Valle; Marleen Voet; Guido Volckaert; Ching-yun Wang; Teresa R Ward; Julie Wilhelmy; Elizabeth A Winzeler; Yonghong Yang; Grace Yen; Elaine Youngman; Kexin Yu; Howard Bussey; Jef D Boeke; Michael Snyder; Peter Philippsen; Ronald W Davis; Mark Johnston Journal: Nature Date: 2002-07-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jon Olav Vik; Arne B Gjuvsland; Liren Li; Kristin Tøndel; Steven Niederer; Nicolas P Smith; Peter J Hunter; Stig W Omholt Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Tobias L Lenz; Aaron J Deutsch; Buhm Han; Xinli Hu; Yukinori Okada; Stephen Eyre; Michael Knapp; Alexandra Zhernakova; Tom W J Huizinga; Gonçalo Abecasis; Jessica Becker; Guy E Boeckxstaens; Wei-Min Chen; Andre Franke; Dafna D Gladman; Ines Gockel; Javier Gutierrez-Achury; Javier Martin; Rajan P Nair; Markus M Nöthen; Suna Onengut-Gumuscu; Proton Rahman; Solbritt Rantapää-Dahlqvist; Philip E Stuart; Lam C Tsoi; David A van Heel; Jane Worthington; Mira M Wouters; Lars Klareskog; James T Elder; Peter K Gregersen; Johannes Schumacher; Stephen S Rich; Cisca Wijmenga; Shamil R Sunyaev; Paul I W de Bakker; Soumya Raychaudhuri Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 38.330