Literature DB >> 29751086

Decanalizing thinking on genetic canalization.

Kerry Geiler-Samerotte1, Federica M O Sartori2, Mark L Siegal3.   

Abstract

The concept of genetic canalization has had an abiding influence on views of complex-trait evolution. A genetically canalized system has evolved to become less sensitive to the effects of mutation. When a gene product that supports canalization is compromised, the phenotypic impacts of a mutation should be more pronounced. This expected increase in mutational effects not only has important consequences for evolution, but has also motivated strategies to treat disease. However, recent studies demonstrate that, when putative agents of genetic canalization are impaired, systems do not behave as expected. Here, we review the evidence that is used to infer whether particular gene products are agents of genetic canalization. Then we explain how such inferences often succumb to a converse error. We go on to show that several candidate agents of genetic canalization increase the phenotypic impacts of some mutations while decreasing the phenotypic impacts of others. These observations suggest that whether a gene product acts as a 'buffer' (lessening mutational effects) or a 'potentiator' (increasing mutational effects) is not a fixed property of the gene product but instead differs for the different mutations with which it interacts. To investigate features of genetic interactions that might predispose them toward buffering versus potentiation, we explore simulated gene-regulatory networks. Similarly to putative agents of genetic canalization, the gene products in simulated networks also modify the phenotypic effects of mutations in other genes without a strong overall tendency towards lessening or increasing these effects. In sum, these observations call into question whether complex traits have evolved to become less sensitive (i.e., are canalized) to genetic change, and the degree to which trends exist that predict how one genetic change might alter another's impact. We conclude by discussing approaches to address these and other open questions that are brought into focus by re-thinking genetic canalization.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Buffering; Canalization; Epistasis; Evolution of complex traits; Gene-regulatory networks; Potentiation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29751086      PMCID: PMC6252154          DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Cell Dev Biol        ISSN: 1084-9521            Impact factor:   7.727


  78 in total

Review 1.  Perspective: Evolution and detection of genetic robustness.

Authors:  J Arjan G M de Visser; Joachim Hermisson; Günter P Wagner; Lauren Ancel Meyers; Homayoun Bagheri-Chaichian; Jeffrey L Blanchard; Lin Chao; James M Cheverud; Santiago F Elena; Walter Fontana; Greg Gibson; Thomas F Hansen; David Krakauer; Richard C Lewontin; Charles Ofria; Sean H Rice; George von Dassow; Andreas Wagner; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  DOES EVOLUTIONARY PLASTICITY EVOLVE?

Authors:  Andreas Wagner
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 3.  Inhibiting HSP90 to treat cancer: a strategy in evolution.

Authors:  L Whitesell; S Santagata; N U Lin
Journal:  Curr Mol Med       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 2.222

Review 4.  Epistasis--the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems.

Authors:  Patrick C Phillips
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  miR-9a minimizes the phenotypic impact of genomic diversity by buffering a transcription factor.

Authors:  Justin J Cassidy; Aashish R Jha; Diana M Posadas; Ritika Giri; Koen J T Venken; Jingran Ji; Hongmei Jiang; Hugo J Bellen; Kevin P White; Richard W Carthew
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 41.582

6.  Loss of circadian rhythmicity in aging mPer1-/-mCry2-/- mutant mice.

Authors:  Henrik Oster; Stephanie Baeriswyl; Gijsbertus T J Van Der Horst; Urs Albrecht
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2003-06-01       Impact factor: 11.361

Review 7.  Exploring genetic interactions and networks with yeast.

Authors:  Charles Boone; Howard Bussey; Brenda J Andrews
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 53.242

8.  Multiple capacitors for natural genetic variation in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Kazuo H Takahashi
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 6.185

Review 9.  Disrupting the circadian clock: gene-specific effects on aging, cancer, and other phenotypes.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Yu; David R Weaver
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.682

10.  Transcriptional Derepression Uncovers Cryptic Higher-Order Genetic Interactions.

Authors:  Matthew B Taylor; Ian M Ehrenreich
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  The developmental-genetics of canalization.

Authors:  Benedikt Hallgrimsson; Rebecca M Green; David C Katz; Jennifer L Fish; Francois P Bernier; Charles C Roseman; Nathan M Young; James M Cheverud; Ralph S Marcucio
Journal:  Semin Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 7.727

2.  Distinct metabolic states of a cell guide alternate fates of mutational buffering through altered proteostasis.

Authors:  Kanika Verma; Kanika Saxena; Rajashekar Donaka; Aseem Chaphalkar; Manish Kumar Rai; Anurag Shukla; Zainab Zaidi; Rohan Dandage; Dhanasekaran Shanmugam; Kausik Chakraborty
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 14.919

3.  Mouse Skull Mean Shape and Shape Robustness Rely on Different Genetic Architectures and Different Loci.

Authors:  Ceferino Varón-González; Luisa F Pallares; Vincent Debat; Nicolas Navarro
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 4.599

4.  Genomic Variation, Evolvability, and the Paradox of Mental Illness.

Authors:  Camillo Thomas Gualtieri
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 4.157

5.  A model of developmental canalization, applied to human cranial form.

Authors:  Philipp Mitteroecker; Ekaterina Stansfield
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 6.  Constructive Neutral Evolution 20 Years Later.

Authors:  Jeremy G Wideman; Kerry Geiler-Samerotte; Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez; Gaurav Bilolikar
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.395

7.  Genetic and environmental perturbations lead to regulatory decoherence.

Authors:  Amanda Lea; Meena Subramaniam; Noah Zaitlen; Julien F Ayroles; Arthur Ko; Terho Lehtimäki; Emma Raitoharju; Mika Kähönen; Ilkka Seppälä; Nina Mononen; Olli T Raitakari; Mika Ala-Korpela; Päivi Pajukanta
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 8.  Chaperones, Canalization, and Evolution of Animal Forms.

Authors:  Atsuko Sato
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Genotype by environment interaction for gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Wen Huang; Mary Anna Carbone; Richard F Lyman; Robert R H Anholt; Trudy F C Mackay
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  Genetic buffering and potentiation in metabolism.

Authors:  Juan F Poyatos
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.