哺乳动物印记域DLK1-DIO3的研究进展

DLK1-DIO3印记域定位于人14号染色体、小鼠12号染色体及绵羊18号染色体远端, 在真哺乳亚纲动物中印记保守。该印记域包含3个编码蛋白的父系表达基因Dlk1、Rtl1和Dio3以及若干大小不同的母系表达印记非编码RNA, 如miRNAs、snoRNAs 和大型非编码RNA Gtl2等。人和小鼠该印记域内印记基因剂量的改变将导致严重的表型异常甚至胚胎致死, 暗示正常的发育需要域内印记基因的正常表达。文章重点论述了哺乳动物DLK1-DIO3印记域的印记调控机制和域内印记基因及其功能的研究进展。     

基因组内三个信息层相互作用决定美臀表型产生

绵羊callipyge（美臀）是一种可遗传的肌肉肥厚体征,该表型以独特的方式“极化超显性”遗传给子代.绵羊18号染色体的DLK1-GTL2印记化结构域内存在1个远距离调控元件（long-range control element,LRCE）,该元件发生单个碱基突变（A→G）.A→G突变顺式作用于印记化结构域内的相关基因,印记化基因的产物包括蛋白质及非编码RNA分子,它们相互作用导致美臀表型产生.美臀表型产生及其独特的遗传方式是绵羊基因组内的蛋白质编码基因、非编码RNA基因以及表观遗传效应等3个信息层相互作用的结果,说明以前被忽略的隐藏信息发挥了极其重要的调控功能.这些现象对经典的中心法则形成了挑战,但是为基因组研究拓展了新的领域.     

非编码RNA与哺乳动物基因组印记的起源

基因组印记是由亲本来源不同而导致等位基因表达差异的一种遗传现象,主要发生在胎盘哺乳动物（真哺乳类）和显花植物中.大部分印记基因都分布在印记基因簇内,其中包含大量的非编码RNA基因.印记基因的表达受印记控制区（ICRs）的顺式调控.基因组印记产生的原因及过程是现代遗传学研究的一个热点问题,分析印记同源区从非印记物种到印记物种的过渡,为解决这一问题提供了重要启示.最近,原始哺乳动物（有袋类和单孔类）模式物种全基因组测序的完成,极大地促进了印记同源区的比较分析研究.本文对这些研究进行了回顾和分析,发现非编码RNA与哺乳动物基因组印记获得关系密切.主要依据为：（1）伴随着基因组印记的获得,印记区有大量的非编码RNA新基因出现;（2）与基因组印记相关的一些保守非编码RNA的表达发生了显著变化.此外,对15种脊椎动物中印记snoRNA基因系统分析的结果表明：印记snoRNA起源于真哺乳类与有袋类动物分化之后,并且在真哺乳类辐射进化之前发生了迅速的扩张,主要的基因家族在这一时期已经形成.这些结果进一步证明了非编码RNA与基因组印记获得的密切联系.非编码RNA可能主要通过调控印记表达和诱导染色体表观遗传修饰两种机制,参与哺乳动物基因组印记的获得.     

印记基因DLK1的研究进展

在哺乳动物中,有一部分特别的基因,它们由于受到印迹而只表达单一亲本的基因,这种表观遗传的修饰现象就是基因组印记,这有别于经典的孟德尔遗传学定律。DNA甲基化是一种重要的表观遗传修饰,主要的修饰部位发生在DNA的CpG岛,它参与了细胞分化,基因组稳定性、基因印记等多种细胞生物学过程,基因印迹的建立和维持是胚胎正常发育的基础,这一过程的实现有赖于各种DNA甲基化转移酶的精确表达和密切的配合。已发现在哺乳动物的基因组中存在着许多的印记基因,DLK1基因为父系表达母源沉默的印记基因,它的表达同样受到DNA甲基化的调节,它首先在神经母细胞瘤发现并克隆,定位于人类染色体14q32,属于表皮生长因子样超家族的成员之一,约有6个外显子。研究表明,DLK1基因在胚胎肝、早期肌肉组织以及造血干细胞等组织中均有表达,人DLK1基因全长1557bp,编码序列含有1152核苷酸,编码383个氨基酸残基,在人、小鼠、绵羊都存在保守序列,它参与多种细胞的增殖、分化并且与相关肿瘤的发生发展有着密切的关系,印迹基因的印迹异常与肿瘤的易感性及发生发展有重要的关系,本文就国内外DLK1基因的研究进展做一综述。     

印记基因DLK1的研究进展

在哺乳动物中,有一部分特别的基因,它们由于受到印迹而只表达单一亲本的基因,这种表观遗传的修饰现象就是基因组印记,这有别于经典的孟德尔遗传学定律。DNA甲基化是一种重要的表观遗传修饰,主要的修饰部位发生在DNA的CpG岛。它参与了细胞分化,基因组稳定性、基因印记等多种细胞生物学过程,基因印迹的建立和维持是胚胎正常发育的基础,这一过程的实现有赖于各种DNA甲基化转移酶的精确表达和密切的配合。已发现在哺乳动物的基因组中存在着许多的印记基因,DLK1基因为父系表达母源沉默的印记基因,它的表达同样受到DNA甲基化的调节,它首先在神经母细胞瘤发现并克隆,定位于人类染色体14q32,属于表皮生长因子样超家族的成员之一,约有6个外显子。研究表明,DLK1基因在胚胎肝、早期肌肉组织以及造血干细胞等组织中均有表达,人DLK1基因全长1557bp,编码序列含有1152核苷酸,编码383个氨基酸残基,在人、小鼠、绵羊都存在保守序列,它参与多种细胞的增殖、分化并且与相关肿瘤的发生发展有着密切的关系,印迹基因的印迹异常与肿瘤的易感性及发生发展有重要的关系,本文就国内外DLK1基因的研究进展做一综述。     

DLK1-DIO3印记区域的miRNAs与疾病的发生

哺乳动物的基因组以发育调控模式进行转录,生成长的和短的非编码RNAs(non-coding RNA,ncRNAs).ncRNAs占到人类转录组的98%,与生物体进化复杂程度显著相关.MicroRNAs(miRNAs)是目前研究比较透彻的,长度大约为20~24个核苷酸的ncRNAs,其通过与靶基因mRNA的结合在转录后水平负调控基因的表达.人类基因组中一个最大的miRNA簇位于14号染色体(14q32)的DLK1-DIO3印记区域,包括了54个miRNAs.这些miRNAs通过参与调节重要的信号通路在许多病理过程中发挥作用.充分了解DLK1-DIO3印记区域中这个大的miRNA簇,在病理生理过程中的重要性将有助于为相关疾病的治疗提供新的策略.本文比较深入地分析了DLK1-DIO3印记区域中的miRNAs在调控组织动态平衡以及多种癌症发生中的作用,同时对其潜在的临床应用价值进行了讨论.     

基因印记与lncRNA

基因印记是一种表观遗传调控机制,在二倍体哺乳动物的发育过程中,基因印记可以调控来自亲代的等位基因差异表达。非编码RNA是不编码蛋白质的RNA,它在RNA水平调控基因表达。研究表明大多数印记基因中存在长非编码RNA（长度>200nt的非编码RNA）的转录,长非编码RNA主要通过顺式的转录干扰作用来实现基因印记。同时基因印记及其相关的长非编码RNA异常表达与许多先天疾病相关,迄今已发现数十种人类遗传疾病与基因印记有关,而lncRNA引起的基因印记在疾病的发生和治疗中起着重要作用。     

印记控制区(ICR)的调控机制

绝大多数印记基因成簇地分布在很大的染色体区域,在发育过程中起着十分重要的作用。印记基因等位位点专一性的抑制是由印记控制区(imprinting control region,ICR)所调控的,通常是等位位点一方的ICR发生甲基化。在配子形成过程中,非组蛋白和邻近的序列会影响这种差别甲基化。DNA的甲基化、组蛋白的修饰以及多梳状体蛋白对于印记的维持十分重要。不同印记区的印记调控的方式是不同的。在某些区域ICR组装成绝缘子,干扰启动子和增强子的相互作用,而在另一些区域中涉及到了非编码RNA,印记调控以一种与X染色体失活机制类似的方式进行。     

基因组印记中的长非编码RNA

长非编码RNA(lnc RNA)是长度大于200 bp的一类非编码蛋白的RNA,因其在基因组中含量巨大以及重要的生物学功能引起了学术界的广泛关注.基因组印记是一种表观遗传现象,lnc RNAs通过建立靶基因的印记而发挥重要的生物功能.基因组印记可以用来研究lnc RNAs在转录和转录后水平调控基因表达的分子机制.本文选取6个印记机制研究比较透彻的印记区域,包括Kcnq1/Cdkn1c、Igf2r/Airn、Prader-Willi(PWS)/Angelman(AS)、Snurf/Snrpn、Dlk1-Dio3和H19/Igf2.通过介绍包括基因间lnc RNAs(H19、Ipw和Meg3)、反义lnc RNAs(Kcnq1ot1、Airn、Ube3a-ATS)和增强子lnc RNAs(IG-DMR e RNAs)在内的3种类型lnc RNAs在印记调控中的作用,从而了解lnc RNAs通过顺式或(/和)反式作用多种机制调控亲本特异性靶基因的表达.了解印记基因簇中lnc RNAs的作用方式将有助于我们揭示lnc RNAs在整个基因组中的作用机制.     

基因组印记与疾病研究进展

基因组印记是一种特别的非孟德尔遗传现象,即来自双亲的等位基因在子代中的差异性表达,是遗传后的基因调控方式,主要与基因组甲基化模式有关,包括去甲基化、重新甲基化及甲基化维持三个过程。印记基因主要通过对启动子、边界元件及非编码RNA的作用来调控基因表达。基因组印记异常与一些先天性疾病相关,也与肿瘤发生和易感性有关,     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor