| Literature DB >> 32071206 |
Xianglong Zhang1,2, David Hong3, Shining Ma4,5, Thomas Ward1,2, Marcus Ho1,2, Reenal Pattni1,2, Zhana Duren4,5, Atanas Stankov1, Sharon Bade Shrestha1, Joachim Hallmayer1, Wing Hung Wong6,5, Allan L Reiss3, Alexander E Urban3,2.
Abstract
In both Turner syndrome (TS) and Klinefelter syndrome (KS) copy number aberrations of the X chromosome lead to various developmental symptoms. We report a comparative analysis of TS vs. KS regarding differences at the genomic network level measured in primary samples by analyzing gene expression, DNA methylation, and chromatin conformation. X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) silences transcription from one X chromosome in female mammals, on which most genes are inactive, and some genes escape from XCI. In TS, almost all differentially expressed escape genes are down-regulated but most differentially expressed inactive genes are up-regulated. In KS, differentially expressed escape genes are up-regulated while the majority of inactive genes appear unchanged. Interestingly, 94 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) overlapped between TS and female and KS and male comparisons; and these almost uniformly display expression changes into opposite directions. DEGs on the X chromosome and the autosomes are coexpressed in both syndromes, indicating that there are molecular ripple effects of the changes in X chromosome dosage. Six potential candidate genes (RPS4X, SEPT6, NKRF, CX0rf57, NAA10, and FLNA) for KS are identified on Xq, as well as candidate central genes on Xp for TS. Only promoters of inactive genes are differentially methylated in both syndromes while escape gene promoters remain unchanged. The intrachromosomal contact map of the X chromosome in TS exhibits the structure of an active X chromosome. The discovery of shared DEGs indicates the existence of common molecular mechanisms for gene regulation in TS and KS that transmit the gene dosage changes to the transcriptome.Entities:
Keywords: Klinefelter syndrome; Turner syndrome; methylation; sex chromosome aneuploidies; transcriptome
Year: 2020 PMID: 32071206 PMCID: PMC7060706 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910003117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Differential expression analysis between TS patients and female controls (A–C), and between KS patients and male controls (D–F). −log10(P values) across the genome are shown in A for X0 vs. XX and in D for XXY vs. XY. Genes in PAR1 are colored in black. −log10(P values) across the X chromosome are shown in B for X0 vs. XX and in E for XXY vs. XY. Genomewide significance is based on false discovery rate (FDR) <0.05 indicated by the horizontal lines. PAR1 region is represented by the vertical black lines and genes are shown in four colors based on their XCI status in B and E. Log2 fold change and 95% confidence interval of DEGs on the X chromosome are shown in C for X0 vs. XX and in F for XXY vs. XY. DEGs are shown in four categories based on their XCI status. DEGs labeled by asterisk in C and F were also reported in Trolle et al. (9) and Skakkebæk et al. (18), respectively. Gene XIST (log2 fold change −11.4, 95% confidence interval [−12.9, −10] for X0 vs. XX; log2 fold change 12.9, 95% confidence interval [11.7, 14.0] for XXY vs. XY) is omitted for viewing purpose. Genes on the Xp and the Xq are separated by the black vertical line within each category. DEGs shared between TS and KS are highlighted in bold.
Fig. 2.Expression levels of XIST (A) and JPX (B), and expression of genes in PARs (C and D). FPKM values are shown as points for all individuals for XIST (A) and JPX (B). Fold change of average expression levels of all expressed genes (FPKM > 1) in PAR1 and PAR2 are shown in C for X0 vs. XY, XX vs. XY, and XXY vs. XY. Expressions of these genes in males are the aggregated expressions of both X and Y chromosomes as sequencing reads cannot be distinguished in PARs due to homology. Genes labeled by asterisk are DEGs in X0 vs. XX and those labeled by number sign are DEGs in XXY vs. XY. Frequencies of the number of the reads mapped to the allele with lower expression are shown in D for exonic SNPs in PAR1 genes genotyped by array.
Fig. 3.Shared DEGs between comparisons. (A) Shared DEGs in TS and KS. XIST is omitted for viewing purpose. DEGs on the X chromosome are shown in four categories based on XCI status: escape, variable escape, inactive and unknown status. Dashed black circle represents log2 fold change = 0. Autosomal genes and X chromosome genes with different XCI statuses are also labeled with black symbols after the gene names. (B) Number of DEGs in each comparison and shared DEGs between different comparisons. The number of DEGs for each comparison is shown in the diagonal cells. The number of shared DEGs with expression changes in the same direction (denoted by “+”) or opposite direction (denoted by “−”) between comparisons is shown in other cells. For the shared DEGs between X0vsXXY and XXvsXY, 15 of the 20 DEGs with the same direction of expression changes are on the Y chromosome, which is expected as the Y chromosome genes only express in XXY and XY.
Fig. 4.Comparison of methylation levels across groups. (A) Methylation level difference of the CpGs on the X chromosome for comparisons of different groups. (B) Distribution of methylation levels of CpGs on the X chromosome for individuals. (C) Differential methylation analysis between TS patients and female controls. (D) Differential methylation analysis between KS patients and male controls. −log10 (P values) across the genome are shown and genomewide significance is based on FDR <0.05 indicated by the horizontal black lines in C and D.
Fig. 5.Chromatin conformations of the X chromosome in TS and KS patients and their euploid control. (A) Diploid contact map of the X chromosome of female control. (B) Haploid contact map of the inactive X chromosome of female control. (C) Diploid contact map of the X chromosome of KS patient. (D) Haploid contact map of the inactive X chromosome of KS patient. (E) Haploid contact map of the X chromosome of TS patient. (F) Haploid contact map of the X chromosome of male control. The contact map in A and C is a combination of contacts of the active and the inactive X chromosome for female control and KS patient, respectively. Contact matrix in B was generated by subtracting the contacts of the X chromosome in the TS patient from the combined contacts of two X chromosomes of the female control. Contact matrix in D was generated by subtracting the contacts of the X chromosome in the male control from the combined contacts of two X chromosomes of the KS patient. All of the contact maps were normalized using the Knight–Ruiz matrix balancing algorithm. Intensity of contacts is represented by a scale from 0 (white) to 250 (deep red). Contact maps are shown at 200-kbp resolution. Contacts of PAR1 and PAR2 are not included for the KS patient and male control due to homology of the X and Y chromosome. Dashed black lines indicate the two superdomains.