| Literature DB >> 29237728 |
Konstantin Popadin1,2,3,4, Stephan Peischl4,5, Marco Garieri1, M Reza Sailani6, Audrey Letourneau1, Federico Santoni1, Samuel W Lukowski7, Georgii A Bazykin8,9, Sergey Nikolaev1, Diogo Meyer10, Laurent Excoffier4,11, Alexandre Reymond2, Stylianos E Antonarakis1.
Abstract
The majority of aneuploid fetuses are spontaneously miscarried. Nevertheless, some aneuploid individuals survive despite the strong genetic insult. Here, we investigate if the survival probability of aneuploid fetuses is affected by the genome-wide burden of slightly deleterious variants. We analyzed two cohorts of live-born Down syndrome individuals (388 genotyped samples and 16 fibroblast transcriptomes) and observed a deficit of slightly deleterious variants on Chromosome 21 and decreased transcriptome-wide variation in the expression level of highly constrained genes. We interpret these results as signatures of embryonic selection, and propose a genetic handicap model whereby an individual bearing an extremely severe deleterious variant (such as aneuploidy) could escape embryonic lethality if the genome-wide burden of slightly deleterious variants is sufficiently low. This approach can be used to study the composition and effect of the numerous slightly deleterious variants in humans and model organisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29237728 PMCID: PMC5749173 DOI: 10.1101/gr.228411.117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Res ISSN: 1088-9051 Impact factor: 9.043
Figure 1.T21-specific variants: Expression level of Chromosome 21 genes is lower than expected. (A) Potential transcriptome signature of T21-specific selection: T21 fetuses with decreased expression level of Chromosome 21 genes are expected to have an advantage during embryogenesis. (B) Less than 1.5-fold increase in the expression level of highly constrained Chromosome 21 genes. Relative increase in the expression level of 233 Chromosome 21 genes in their trisomic (3N) state does not significantly differ from 1.5. However, for a subset of 23 highly functionally constrained genes, the increase in the expression level is lower than the expected 1.5. (*) P-value < 0.05. (C) A scheme defining loss of expression (LOE) and gain of expression (GOE) cis-eQTLs (upper) and our extrapolation of the effects of cis-eQTLs to the triploid case (dark gray box plots on lower panel). (D) Regulatory variants can compensate the overexpression of Chromosome 21 genes. The dotted line represents our expectation if the excess/deficit of genotypes is independent of the direction of expression changes (GOE or LOE). However, in the T21 live-born cohort, we observed an excess of homozygotes for the loss of expression derived alleles (LOE DDD) and a deficit of homozygotes for the gain of expression derived alleles (GOE DDD). (*) P-value < 0.05.
Figure 2.Hardy–Weinberg distribution of Chromosome 21 alleles and signatures of selection in the live-born T21 cohort. (A) Hardy–Weinberg distribution for trisomic alleles. The four curves represent the expected relationships between allele frequencies and genotype frequencies, assuming that the fraction of T21 individuals coming from nondisjunction in meiosis I is 74%. All dots are empirical observations. (B) The deficit of homozygous genotypes AAA and DDD is associated with increased evolutionary constraints of the corresponding nucleotide positions. Taking into account the genotypes in deficit and in excess (deviating by >5% from the expectation), we analyzed the GERP scores of the corresponding nucleotide positions. For each percentile of the derived allele frequency, we obtained the ratio of the median GERP scores for nucleotides associated with a deficit or an excess of genotypes. Violin plots reflect the distribution of these ratios for each genotype. In the case of AAA and DDD, the distribution of ratios has medians higher than the expected one: (*) P-value < 0.05; (**) P-value < 0.01. (C) Homozygotes for rare derived alleles (DDD) are rarer than the homozygotes for rare ancestral alleles (AAA) with the similar allele frequency: analysis of the two opposite tails of the Hardy–Weinberg distribution. (D) Observed homozygotes for rare derived alleles (DDD) are rarer than the observed homozygotes for rare ancestral alleles (AAA) with the same allele frequency: analysis of the 500 allele pairs, matched by allele frequency and characterized by the nonzero number of the observed homozygous genotypes. The distribution of the log2(DDD/AAA) has the median (−0.193) which is lower than the expected zero.
Figure 3.Live-born T21 individuals are closer to expression optimum in autosomal genes encoded outside Chromosome 21. (A) A schematic representation illustrating a potential effect of purifying selection against T21 fetuses with a nonoptimal pattern of expression during embryogenesis. The wide distribution of genes with similar mean expression levels in T21 and control (C) cohort in early stages of embryogenesis (top) becomes narrower (bottom) as a result of selection that eliminates low-fitness fetuses with excessively low or high expression level of genes. (B) The expression variation in T21 is decreased more in old versus young, haploinsufficient versus haplosufficient, essential versus nonessential, and highly expressed versus low-expressed genes. (*) P-value < 0.05; (**) P-value < 0.01; (***) P-value < 0.001. (C) The expression variation in the T21 cohort is decreased more in highly constrained genes. The number of constraints, from zero to four: zero if the gene is neither old nor essential nor highly expressed nor haploinsufficient, and four if a given gene has all four metrics for constrained genes.
Figure 4.The genetic handicap model. (A) The distribution of the number of SDVs in control (gray) and affected (red) populations. The genetic handicap mutation (black arrow) is an equivalent of many SDVs. (B) Truncation selection eliminates all organisms with the number of SDVs higher than the given threshold (vertical black line) from both control and affected populations. (C) Handicap carriers have a decreased number of SDVs (SDVs do not include the genetic handicap per se) than controls; this difference represents the handicap effect.