Upload
dermot
View
32
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
How do regulatory networks evolve?. Module = group of genes co-regulated by the same regulatory system. * Evolution of individual gene targets Gain or loss of genes from a module * Evolution of activating signals Change in responsiveness but not regulators - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
How do regulatory networks evolve?
Module = group of genes co-regulated by the same regulatory system
* Evolution of individual gene targets Gain or loss of genes from a module
* Evolution of activating signals Change in responsiveness but not regulators
* Wholesale evolution of the entire moduleTranscription factor sites occur upstream of totally different genes, responding to totally different signals
2
How do regulatory networks evolve?
Short time-scales: gene target turnover (gain and loss)
Time
3
ChIP-chip of two cooperatively-acting TFs in 3 species(S. cerevisiae, S. mikatae, S. bayanus ~20 my diverged)
Tec1 Ste12 Ste12 Ste12
Pseudohyphal growthGenes
Mating genes(haploid cells only)
Science 2007
4
Scer Smik Sbay
Ste12
Tec1
380 167 250
348 185 126
21% bound in all 3 species
20% bound in all 3 species
Only ~20% of orthologous regions bound in all 3 species
5* non-S. cer but otherwise conserved binding: enriched for Mating Genes
6
Only 20% of bound fragments conserved over 20 my(75% of these have underlying binding sites conserved)
Tec1 Ste12
Borneman et al. Science 2007
Substantial ‘rewiring’ of transcriptional circuits:
* Gain and loss of individual gene targets
* S.cer evolution of the module of mating genes
How common will these trends be? Different trends for different functional processes?
7
How common will these trends be? Different trends for different functional processes?
Science April 2010
PLoS Biol. April 2010
ChIP-seq (NFB and RNA-Pol II) and RNA-seq in 10 humans from 3 different populations
Lots of variation (up to 25% variation in binding levels)
ChIP-chip’d Ste12 in 43 S. cerevisiae segregants
Nature. March 2010
ChIP-chip of 6 developmental TFs in D. mel vs. D. yakuba (5 my)* only 1-5% of genes are variable targets (gene target turnover)
* lots of evidence of TF binding site turnover within CONSERVED target regions
Cell. March 2013
40% mouse TF binding sites conserved over < 6my
10-22% of TF binding is conserved in mammals(diverged ~80 my)
Science. 2010
8
How do regulatory networks evolve?
Short time-scales: gene target turnover (gain and loss)
Time Time
Evolved Responsiveness
Cooption of existing network
9
Ancestral GAL control likely by Cph1 … S. cerevisiae lineage picked up Gal4 and Mig1 sites upstream of GAL genes
10
In addition to changes in upstream cis-elements …
Major changes in the Gal4 transcription factor & upstream along S. cerevisiae lineage:
* Gained a domain that interacts with the Galactose-responsive Gal80 protein
* Other changes in the upstream response (Gal1-Gal3 duplication) contributedto sensitized pathway
11
How do regulatory networks evolve?
Short time-scales: gene target turnover (gain and loss)
Time Time
Evolved Responsiveness
12
How do regulatory networks evolve?
Sub/neo-functionalization through TF duplication & divergence
Time Time
TF duplicationEvolved TF sensitivity, binding specificity,
and ultimately targets
Gene targets can also duplicate (especially in WGD)
13
Example: Arg80 and Mcm1 duplicationTuch et al. 2008. PLoS Biol.
Mcm1 is a co-factor that works with many different site-specific TFs
Tuch. et al. performed ChIP-chip on Mcm1 orthologs in multiple fungi.
* Found dramatic differences in inferred Mcm1-TF interactions and modules
One case in particular: Arginine biosynthesis genes
Mcm1 + Arg81 at arg genes is ancestral
Duplication of Mcm1(Arg80) at WGD
Loss of Mcm1 binding at arg genesPresumably taken over by Arg80
Time (>150 my)
14
How do regulatory networks evolve?
If co-regulation is so important, then how can tolerate many independent changes in upstream cis-elements?
Conundrum:
Clearest cases of regulatory switches are often for highly co-regulated genes, whose co-regulation is high conserved.
15
Here they ChIP’d 6 TFs implicated inRP regulation in
S. cerevisiae and/or C. albicans
Ifh1-Fhl1 co-activators are conservedin Sc-Ca (>200 my)
Required co-factors have evolved:
Hmo1 and Rap1 required for Ifh1-Fhl1 bindingin S. cerevisiae
* Hmo1 is a ‘generalist’ in C. albicans
In C. albicans, Cbf1 (generalist) andTbf1 (specialist) are required for
Ifh1-Fhl1 binding
16
* They propose that ‘generalist’ factors can readily ‘specialize’ to regulate
a specific module
* Species-specific connection of regulons:selection for alternate co-regulation
Figure 6
18
* They propose that ‘generalist’ factors can readily ‘specialize’ to regulate
a specific module
* Species-specific connection of regulons:selection for alternate co-regulation
* Co-evolution of binding sites AND interactions of regulators
* They propose cycles of neutral accumulation of mutations (and binding
sites) followed by deleterious mutation that is rapidly ‘corrected’ to rebalance co-
regulation
19
They raise the question:
Is wholesale rewiring commonto all modules
Or
facilitated byvery strong pressures to keep
genes co-regulated?