| Literature DB >> 31270132 |
Kellyn M Hoffert1, Erin D Strome2.
Abstract
Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) is a phenomenon commonly observed in cancers; the loss of chromosomal regions can be both causal and indicative of underlying genome instability. Yeast has long been used as a model organism to study genetic mechanisms difficult to study in mammalian cells. Studying gene deletions leading to increased LOH in yeast aids our understanding of the processes involved, and guides exploration into the etiology of LOH in cancers. Yet, before in-depth mechanistic studies can occur, candidate genes of interest must be identified. Utilizing the heterozygous Saccharomyces cerevisiae deletion collection (≈ 6500 strains), 217 genes whose disruption leads to increased LOH events at the endogenously heterozygous mating type locus were identified. Our investigation to refine this list of genes to candidates with the most definite impact on LOH includes: secondary testing for LOH impact at an additional locus, gene ontology analysis to determine common gene characteristics, and positional gene enrichment studies to identify chromosomal regions important in LOH events. Further, we conducted extensive comparisons of our data to screens with similar, but distinct methodologies, to further distinguish genes that are more likely to be true contributors to instability due to their reproducibility, and not just identified due to the stochastic nature of LOH. Finally, we selected nine candidate genes and quantitatively measured their impact on LOH as a benchmark for the impact of genes identified in our study. Our data add to the existing body of work and strengthen the evidence of single-gene knockdowns contributing to genome instability.Entities:
Keywords: MAT; MET15; S. cerevisiae; loss of heterozygosity; screen comparison
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31270132 PMCID: PMC6723133 DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400429
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Figure 1Representative LOH events impacting the MAT locus that can result in diploids exhibiting haploid mating behavior. Due to the co-repressible nature of the MAT locus, both MATa and MATα alleles must be present and active in order to suppress the production of mating pheromones and receptors, leading to the non-mating diploid phenotype.
Figure 2Theory and set-up of LOH screen at the MAT locus. A) Example of a possible triploid cell formation mechanism that would allow for growth under double selection conditions. The LOH event could occur through a variety of mechanisms, all leading to the ability of the diploid cell to mate. B) Model of the MAT locus LOH screening methodology. C) The scoring system of colony counts utilized in the screening. Strains demonstrating a minimum score of “+++” in all four replicates for mating with a particular haploid mating type were included as a top-hit.
Figure 3Multiple independent screen selection and gene lists comparison. A) Data sets were compared across screens that either assayed heterozygous deletions, assayed for LOH events, or both. Screens looking at haploinsufficiency and its connection to genome instability, or utilizing homozygous knockouts to understand LOH mechanisms were chosen as they provide the most relevant data sets for comparison. B) Gene lists from the six screens selected for comparison were mapped for their overlapping top-hits. Gene deletions identified in two independent studies are shown in burgundy, whereas genes appearing as hits in three independent studies are shown in pink. If a particular gene deletion reproduced in multiple screens within the same publication, the solid color was changed to a striped pattern. Only screens performed in a diploid system were considered when determining the number of screens a gene reproduced in.
Multiple Screen Comparison Gene Identification Overlap. A hypergeometric probability was calculated using a normal approximation using the webtool http://nemates.org/MA/progs/overlap_stats.html. The same tool was used to calculate a representation factor. A representation factor is calculated as the number of genes in common between two studies divided by the number of expected genes. The number of expected genes is estimated as the number of genes in the first study times the number of genes in the second study which is then divided by the total number of genes that were screened. Representation factors greater than 1 indicate more overlap than expected, representation factors less than 1 indicate less overlap than expected
| Screen | Total Number of Genes Screened | Number of Mutants with Phenotype (“hits”) | Number Overlapping with This Study “hits” | p-value | Representation Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This Study | 6477 | 217 (180*) | — | — | — |
| 6477 | 332 | 26 | 0.00003995 | 2.3 | |
| 6477 | 164 | 4 | 0.351 | 0.7 | |
| 5134 | 61 | 3 | 0.362 | 1.4 | |
| 5134 | 122 | 5 | 0.427 | 1.2 | |
| 5134 | 100 | 7 | 0.060 | 2.0 |
217 total top-hit genes identified, 180 non-essential top-hit genes were used for comparison with homozygous knockout screens.
Go Slim Mapper and Go Term Finder Results. A. 217 MAT Top Hits List Significantly enriched gene ontology categories identified with SGD Slim Mapper and SGD Term Finder tools are shown. SGD Term Finder reported multiple comparison corrected p-values < 0.05 are shown. P-values from SGD Slim Mapper were corrected with the Benjamini-Hochberg critical value. For SGD Slim Mapper, all significantly enriched categories with a uncorrected p-value < their Benjamini-Hochberg critical value (Q = 0.05) are shown. Gene Ontology Identification numbers (GOID) and names of the genes that represent the enrichment are included
| GO Categories | GO Method | GO Term | p-value | Benjamini-Hochburg critical value (Q = 0.05) | Genes in term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellular Component | SGD Slim Mapper | — | — | — | — |
| SGD Term Finder | Chaperonin-containing T-complex (GOID: 5832) | 0.04889 | — | SSA1, CCT2, CCT8, CCT7 | |
| Biological Process | SGD Slim Mapper | Chromosome segregation (GOID: 7059) | 0.0004605 | 0.00049505 | KIN3, IML3, MRC1, MPS1, SPC19, SMC1, KIP3, SPO22, STH1, CSM2, HSK3, CTF3, TUB1, NDJ1, SGO1, KIN4, GPN2 |
| SGD Term Finder | — | — | — | — | |
| Molecular Function | SGD Slim Mapper | Molecular Function Unknown (GOID: 3674) | 0.0004997 | 0.001136 | YAL067W-A, YBR096W, VID24, IML3, YBR137W, YBR144C, APD1, UBS1, HSM3, LDB16, MRC1, BPH1, RMD1, QRI7, RGT2, YDL211C, YDR029W, MRH1, SSY1, UBX5, ECM11, YDR509W, EMI2, GRH1, ZRG8, YER087C-A, TMN3, DSE1, YER135C, BCK2, YER181C, PUG1, SNO3, YGL218W, MTC3, SHE10, NNF2, YGR201C, YHI9, MTC6, AIM18, YIL025C, YIL032C, MMF1, YIL060W, SPO22, AIM19, ICE2, CSM2, SYS1, YJL009W, PRY3, PRM10, YJL120W, SPC1, HIT1, AIM24, ILM1, YKL018C-A, TTI1, FAT3, YKR073C, EMC6, PER33, YLR342W-A, YLR374C, CTF3, YML037C, TUB1, YML094C-A, YMR105W-A, YMR119W-A, YMR122C, YMR153C-A, YNL146C-A, YNL146W, VID27, RTC4, BSC5, YOL134C, MED7, YOR072W, SGO1, AIM41, YOR364W, YPL080C, YIG1, OPY2 |
| SGD Term Finder | — | — | — | — |
Figure 4Positional Gene Enrichment (PGE) analysis for enriched chromosome regions. Genes highlighted in green were identified by the MAT screen; genes highlighted in orange were identified by the MAT and MET15 screens; genes highlighted in burgundy were identified in two independent studies; genes highlighted in pink were identified by three independent studies. The key denoting color labels remains the same throughout all parts of the figure. A) Enriched regions of chromosome II from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 2.74 × 10−4), MAT + MET15 top-hits (padj = 9.69 × 10−6), and Multiple Screen Comparison top-hits (six screens compared in Fig. 3), (BP region 442918-575991) (padj = P = 0.016). B) Enriched regions of chromosome V from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 2.31 × 10−4), MAT + MET15 top-hits (padj = 9.69 × 10−6), and Multiple Screen Comparison top-hits (padj = 2.03x10−5). C) Enriched regions of chromosome VII from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 0.00358). No enriched regions of 3 or more identified genes were enriched on this chromosome when the MAT + MET15 or Multiple Screen Comparison datasets were analyzed. D) Enriched regions of chromosome IX from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 4.40 × 10−4), MAT + MET15 top-hits (padj = 0.00194), and Multiple Screen Comparison top-hits (padj = 0.0299). E) Enriched regions of chromosome X from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 0.00901) and Multiple Screen Comparison top-hits (padj = 4.18x10−4). No regions containing three or more identified genes were enriched when our MAT locus dataset was run. F) Enriched region of chromosome XI from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 0.00751) and the Multiple Screen Comparison top-hits (padj = 0.013). G) Enriched region of chromosome XV from PGE analysis on MAT locus screen top-hits (padj = 0.00288), and MAT + MET15 top-hits (padj = 0.00332). No enriched regions containing more than three identified genes are found on chromosome XV for the Multiple Screen Comparison analysis. H) Enriched region of chromosome XVI from PGE analysis on Multiple Screen Comparison dataset (padj = 0.046).
Figure 5LOH rates at the CAN1 locus due to nine separate heterozygous gene mutations. The data shown represents a combination of a minimum of two independent experiments. The black circle depicts the mean LOH rate with the tails showing the experimental 95% CIs. Non-overlapping 95% CIs, to the wildtype BY4743 strain, are considered significantly different as the 95% CI overlap method mimics a two-tailed, two-population t-test at the conventional P < 0.05 level with an improvement in type I error rate and statistical power when compared to a t-test, which has been found unsuitable for FA data analysis (Zheng 2015).