Isochores and tissue-specificity

The housekeeping (ubiquitously expressed) genes in the mammal genome were shown here to be on average slightly GC-richer than tissue-specific genes. Both housekeeping and tissue-specific genes occupy similar ranges of GC content, but the former tend to concentrate in the upper part of the range. In the human genome, tissue-specific genes show two maxima, GC-poor and GC-rich. The strictly tissue-specific human genes tend to concentrate in the GC-poor region; their distribution is left-skewed and thus reciprocal to the distribution of housekeeping genes. The intermediately tissue-specific genes show an intermediate GC content and the right-skewed distribution. Both in the human and mouse, genes specific for some tissues (e.g., parts of the central nervous system) have a higher average GC content than housekeeping genes. Since they are not transcribed in the germ line (in contrast to housekeeping genes), and therefore have a lower probability of inheritable gene conversion, this finding contradicts the biased gene conversion (BGC) explanation for elevated GC content in the heavy isochores of mammal genome. Genes specific for germ-line tissues (ovary, testes) show a low average GC content, which is also in contradiction to the BGC explanation. Both for the total data set and for the most part of tissues taken separately, a weak positive correlation was found between gene GC content and expression level. The fraction of ubiquitously expressed genes is nearly 1.5-fold higher in the mouse than in the human. This suggests that mouse tissues are comparatively less differentiated (on the molecular level), which can be related to a less pronounced isochoric structure of the mouse genome. In each separate tissue (in both species), tissue-specific genes do not form a clear-cut frequency peak (in contrast to housekeeping genes), but constitute a continuum with a gradually increasing degree of tissue-specificity, which probably reflects the path of cell differentiation and/or an independent use of the same protein in several unrelated tissues.     

Organismal complexity, cell differentiation and gene expression: human over mouse

We present a molecular and cellular phenomenon underlying the intriguing increase in phenotypic organizational complexity. For the same set of human–mouse orthologous genes (11 534 gene pairs) and homologous tissues (32 tissue pairs), human shows a greater fraction of tissue-specific genes and a greater ratio of the total expression of tissue-specific genes to housekeeping genes in each studied tissue, which suggests a generally higher level of evolutionary cell differentiation (specialization). This phenomenon is spectacularly more pronounced in those human tissues that are more directly involved in the increase of complexity, longevity and body size (i.e. it is reflected on the organismal level as well). Genes with a change in expression breadth show a greater human–mouse divergence of promoter regions and encoded proteins (i.e. the functional genomics data are supported by the structural analysis). Human also shows the higher expression of translation machinery. The upstream untranslated regions (5′UTRs) of human mRNAs are longer than mouse 5′UTRs (even after correction for the difference in genome sizes) and contain more uAUG codons, which suggest a more complex regulation at the translational level in human cells (and agrees well with the augmented cell specialization).     

Mammalian housekeeping genes evolve more slowly than tissue-specific genes

Do housekeeping genes, which are turned on most of the time in almost every tissue, evolve more slowly than genes that are turned on only at specific developmental times or tissues? Recent large-scale gene expression studies enable us to have a better definition of housekeeping genes and to address the above question in detail. In this study, we examined 1581 human-mouse orthologous gene pairs for their patterns of sequence evolution, contrasting housekeeping genes with tissue-specific genes. Our results show that, in comparison to tissue-specific genes, housekeeping genes on average evolve more slowly and are under stronger selective constraints as reflected by significantly smaller values of Ka/Ks. Besides stronger purifying selection, we explored several other factors that can possibly slow down nonsynonymous rates in housekeeping genes. Although mutational bias might slightly slow the nonsynonymous rates in housekeeping genes, it is unlikely to be the major cause of the rate difference between the two types of genes. The codon usage pattern of housekeeping genes does not seem to differ from that of tissue-specific genes. Moreover, contrary to the old textbook concept, we found that approximately 74% of the housekeeping genes in our study belong to multigene families, not significantly different from that of the tissue-specific genes ( approximately 70%). Therefore, the stronger selective constraints on housekeeping genes are not due to a lower degree of genetic redundancy.     

Differential Selective Constraints Shaping Codon Usage Pattern of Housekeeping and Tissue-specific Homologous Genes of Rice and Arabidopsis

Intra-genomic variation between housekeeping and tissue-specific genes has always been a study of interest in higher eukaryotes. To-date, however, no such investigation has been done in plants. Availability of whole genome expression data for both rice and Arabidopsis has made it possible to examine the evolutionary forces in shaping codon usage pattern in both housekeeping and tissue-specific genes in plants. In the present work, we have taken 4065 rice–Arabidopsis homologous gene pairs to study evolutionary forces responsible for codon usage divergence between housekeeping and tissue-specific genes. In both rice and Arabidopsis, it is mutational bias that regulates error minimization in highly expressed genes of both housekeeping and tissue-specific genes. Our results show that, in comparison to tissue-specific genes, housekeeping genes are under strong selective constraint in plants. However, in tissue-specific genes, lowly expressed genes are under stronger selective constraint compared with highly expressed genes. We demonstrated that constraint acting on mRNA secondary structure is responsible for modulating codon usage variations in rice tissue-specific genes. Thus, different evolutionary forces must underline the evolution of synonymous codon usage of highly expressed genes of housekeeping and tissue-specific genes in rice and Arabidopsis.Key words: error minimization, housekeeping, mRNA folding energy, synonymous rates, tissue specific, tRNA copy number     

Repetitive sequence environment distinguishes housekeeping genes

Housekeeping genes are expressed across a wide variety of tissues. Since repetitive sequences have been reported to influence the expression of individual genes, we employed a novel approach to determine whether housekeeping genes can be distinguished from tissue-specific genes by their repetitive sequence context. We show that Alu elements are more highly concentrated around housekeeping genes while various longer (> 400-bp) repetitive sequences (“repeats”), including Long Interspersed Nuclear Element-1 (LINE-1) elements, are excluded from these regions. We further show that isochore membership does not distinguish housekeeping genes from tissue-specific genes and that repetitive sequence environment distinguishes housekeeping genes from tissue-specific genes in every isochore. The distinct repetitive sequence environment, in combination with other previously published sequence properties of housekeeping genes, was used to develop a method of predicting housekeeping genes on the basis of DNA sequence alone. Using expression across tissue types as a measure of success, we demonstrate that repetitive sequence environment is by far the most important sequence feature identified to date for distinguishing housekeeping genes.     

Housekeeping and tissue-specific genes differ in simple sequence repeats in the 5'-UTR region

SSRs (simple sequence repeats) have been shown to have a variety of effects on an organism. In this study, we compared SSRs in housekeeping and tissue-specific genes in human and mouse, in terms of SSR types and distributions in different regions including 5'-UTRs, introns, coding exons, 3'-UTRs, and upstream regions. Among all these regions, SSRs in the 5'-UTR show the most distinction between housekeeping genes and tissue-specific genes in both densities and repeat types. Specifically, SSR densities in 5'-UTRs in housekeeping genes are about 1.7 times higher than those in tissue-specific genes, in contrast to the 0.8-1.2 times differences between the two classes of genes in other regions. Tri-SSRs in 5'-UTRs of housekeeping genes are more GC rich than those of tissue-specific genes and CGG, the dominant type of tri-SSR in 5'-UTR, accounts for 74-79% of the tri-SSRs in housekeeping genes, as compared to 42-57% in tissue-specific genes. 75% of the tri-SSRs in the 5'-UTR of housekeeping genes have 4-5 repeat units, versus the 86-90% in tissue-specific genes. Taken together, our results suggest that SSRs may have an effect on gene expression and may play an important role in contributing to the different expression profiles between housekeeping and tissue-specific genes.     

CpG islands in genes showing tissue-specific expression

Patterns of DNA methylation at CpG dinucleotides and their relations with gene expression are complex. Methylation-free CpG clusters, so-called HTF islands, are most often associated with the promoter regions of housekeeping genes, whereas genes expressed in a single-cell type are usually deficient in these sequences. However, in the human carbonic anhydrase (CA) gene family, both the ubiquitously expressed CAII and the muscle specific CAIII appear to have such CpG islands although erythrocyte-specific CAI does not. The CAII island is quantitatively more CpG rich than that of CAIII, with a CpG:GpC ratio of 0.94 compared with 0.82 for CAIII. Estimation of CpG:GpC ratios in the proximal-promoter regions of 44 vertebrate genes suggest that 40% of genes with tissue-specific or limited tissue distribution may show methylation-free CpG clusters in their promoter regions. In many cases the CpG:GpC ratio is less than that found in housekeeping genes and this may reflect variation in the interaction of CpG clusters with regulatory factors that define different patterns of tissue expression.     

Characterization of genes with tissue-specific differential expression patterns in Populus

Like many plants, Populus has an evolutionary history in which several, both recent and more ancient, genome duplication events have occurred and, therefore, constitutes an excellent model system for studying the functional evolution of genes. In the present study, we have focused on the properties of genes with tissue-specific differential expression patterns in poplar. We identified the genes by analyzing digital expression profiles derived by mapping 90,000+ expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from 18 sources to the predicted genes of Populus. Our sequence analysis suggests that tissue-specific differentially expressed genes have less diverged paralogs than average, indicating that gene duplication events is an important event in the pathway leading to this type of expression pattern. The functional analysis showed that genes coding for proteins involved in processes of functional importance for the specific tissue(s) in which they are expressed and genes coding for regulatory or responsive proteins are most common among the differentially expressed genes, demonstrating that the expression differentiation process is under strong selective pressure. Thus, our data supports a model where gene duplication followed by gene specialization or expansion of the regulatory and responsive networks leads to tissue-specific differential expression patterns. We have also searched for clustering of genes with similar expression pattern into gene-expression neighborhoods within the Populus genome. However, we could not detect any major clustering among the analyzed genes with highly specific expression patterns. Electronic supplementary material Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at and is accessible for authorized users.     

基于转录组的肝豆状核变性调控网络的构建和分析

本研究旨在利用生物信息学方法构建经铜诱导的ATP7B基因敲除HepG2细胞系的转录调控网络。探讨关键转录因子在肝豆状核变性发生、发展中的潜在作用机制。收集公共基因表达数据库(gene expression omnibus, GEO)中包含野生型、ATP7B基因敲除型、铜诱导的野生型和铜诱导的ATP7B基因敲除型HepG2细胞系数据。筛选由铜诱导产生的差异表达基因(differentially expressed genes,DEGs)后进行基因本体论(gene ontology,GO)、京都基因和基因组百科全书(Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes, KEGG)富集分析。基于蛋白相互作用网络,识别疾病关键基因和功能模块,并对关键功能模块中的基因进行富集分析。最后,构建转录调控网络,筛选核心转录因子。共筛选出1 034个差异表达基因,其中上调525个,下调509个。上、下调关键功能模块分别包括了3785个和3931个基因。关键功能模块中的基因主要定位于细胞-基质连接、染色体、剪接复合体、核糖体等区域,共同参与了mRNA加工、组蛋白修饰、RNA剪切...     

On the nature of human housekeeping genes

Using a collection of expressed sequence tag (EST) data, we re-evaluated the correlation of tissue specificity with genomic structure, phyletic age, evolutionary rate and promoter architecture of human genes. We found that housekeeping genes are less compact and older than tissue-specific genes, and they evolve more slowly in terms of both coding and core promoter sequences. Housekeeping genes primarily use CpG-dependent core promoters, whereas the majority of tissue-specific genes possess neither CpG-islands nor TATA-boxes in their core promoters.     

Activity of the adenosine deaminase promoter in transgenic mice.

The promoter of the human gene for adenosine deaminase (ADA) is extremely G/C-rich, contains several G/C-box motifs (GGGCGGG) and lacks any apparent TATA or CAAT boxes. These features are commonly found in promoters of genes that lack a strong tissue specificity, and are referred to as "housekeeping genes". Like other housekeeping genes, the ADA gene is expressed in all tissues. However, there is a considerable variation in the levels of expression of the ADA protein in different tissues. In order to study the activity of the ADA promoter, transgenic mice were generated that harbor a chimeric gene composed of the ADA promoter linked to a reporter gene encoding the bacterial enzyme Chloramphenicol Acetyl Transferase (CAT). These mice reproducibly showed CAT expression in all tissues examined, including the hemopoietic organs (spleen, thymus and bone marrow). However, examination of the actual cell types expressing the CAT gene revealed the ADA promoter to be inactive in the hemopoietic cells. This was substantiated by a transplantation experiment in which bone marrow from ADA-CAT transgenic mice was used to reconstitute the hemopoietic compartment of lethally irradiated mice. The engrafted recipients revealed strongly reduced CAT activity in their hemopoietic organs. The lack of expression in hemopoietic cells was further shown to be correlated with a hypermethylated state of the transgene. Combined, our data suggest that the ADA promoter sequences tested can direct expression in a wide variety of tissues as expected for a regular housekeeping gene promoter. However, the activity of the ADA promoter fragment did not reflect the tissue-specific variations in expression levels of the endogenous ADA gene. Additionally, regulatory elements are needed for expression in the hemopoietic cells.