Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Genome organization: connecting the developmental origins of disease and genetic variation

  • E. Jacobson (a1), M. H. Vickers (a1), J. K. Perry (a1) and J. M. O’Sullivan (a1)
Abstract

An adverse early life environment can increase the risk of metabolic and other disorders later in life. Genetic variation can modify an individual’s susceptibility to these environmental challenges. These gene by environment interactions are important, but difficult, to dissect. The nucleus is the primary organelle where environmental responses impact directly on the genetic variants within the genome, resulting in changes to the biology of the genome and ultimately the phenotype. Understanding genome biology requires the integration of the linear DNA sequence, epigenetic modifications and nuclear proteins that are present within the nucleus. The interactions between these layers of information may be captured in the emergent spatial genome organization. As such genome organization represents a key research area for decoding the role of genetic variation in the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: J. M. O’Sullivan, Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. (Email justin.osullivan@auckland.ac.nz)
References
Hide All
1. Godfrey KM, Reynolds RM, Prescott SL, et al. Influence of maternal obesity on the long-term health of offspring. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017; 5, 5364.
2. O’Reilly JR, Reynolds RM. The risk of maternal obesity to the long-term health of the offspring. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2013; 78, 916.
3. Ong M-L, Lin X, Holbrook JD. Measuring epigenetics as the mediator of gene/environment interactions in DOHaD. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015; 6, 1016.
4. Carlson EA. The Gene; A Critical History. 1966. Saunders: Philadelphia.
5. Everson T. The Gene: A Historical Perspective. 2007. Greenwood Press: Westport.
6. Fox Keller E. The Century of the Gene. 2000. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
7. Gerstein MB, Bruce C, Rozowsky JS, et al. What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Res. 2007; 17, 669681.
8. Lamm E. The metastable genome: a Lamarckian organ in a Darwinian world? In Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology (eds. Jablonka E, Gissis S), 2011; 480pp. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
9. Griffiths PE, Neumann-Held EM. The many faces of the gene. Bioscience. 1999; 49, 656662.
10. Akiva P, Toporik A, Edelheit S, et al. Transcription-mediated gene fusion in the human genome. Genome Res. 2006; 16, 3036.
11. Spilianakis CG, Lalioti MD, Town T, et al. Interchromosomal associations between alternatively expressed loci. Nature. 2005; 435, 637645.
12. Dixon JR, Jung I, Selvaraj S, et al. Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation. Nature. 2015; 518, 331336.
13. Bouwman BAM, de Laat W. Getting the genome in shape: the formation of loops, domains and compartments. Genome Biol. 2015; 16, 154.
14. Fraser J, Ferrai C, Chiariello AM, et al. Hierarchical folding and reorganization of chromosomes are linked to transcriptional changes in cellular differentiation. Mol Syst Biol. 2015; 11, 852852.
15. Rao SSP, Huntley MH, Durand NC, et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell. 2014; 159, 16651680.
16. Bischof M. Introduction to integrative biophysics. In Integrative Biophysics (eds. Popp F-A, Beloussov L), 2010; pp. 1115. Springer-Science+Business Media: Dordrecht.
17. O’Sullivan J, Hendy M, Pichugina T, et al. The statistical-mechanics of chromosome conformation capture. Nucleus. 2013; 4, 19.
18. Grand RS, Gehlen LR, O’Sullivan JM. Methods for the investigation of chromosome organization. In Advances in Genetics Research (ed. Urbano KV), 2011; 5, 111129. NOVA: Science publishers; ebook.
19. Kauffman SA. The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. 1993. Oxford University Press: New York.
20. Kapranov P, Willingham AT, Gingeras TR. Genome-wide transcription and the implications for genomic organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2007; 8, 413423.
21. Dixon JR, Selvaraj S, Yue F, et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature. 2012; 485, 376380.
22. de Wit E, Bouwman BAM, Zhu Y, et al. The pluripotent genome in three dimensions is shaped around pluripotency factors. Nature. 2013; 501, 227231.
23. Krijger PHL, Di Stefano B, de Wit E, et al. Cell-of-origin-specific 3D genome structure acquired during somatic cell reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 18, 597610.
24. Holwerda SJB, de Laat W. CTCF: the protein, the binding partners, the binding sites and their chromatin loops. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013; 368, 20120369.
25. Merkenschlager M, Nora EP. CTCF and cohesin in genome folding and transcriptional gene regulation. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2016; 17, 1743.
26. Mizuguchi T, Fudenberg G, Mehta S, et al. Cohesin-dependent globules and heterochromatin shape 3D genome architecture in S. pombe . Nature. 2014; 516, 432435.
27. Brangwynne CP, Tompa P, Pappu RV. Polymer physics of intracellular phase transitions. Nat Phys. 2015; 11, 899904.
28. Kampmann M. Facilitated diffusion in chromatin lattices: mechanistic diversity and regulatory potential. Mol Microbiol. 2005; 57, 889899.
29. Bénichou O, Chevalier C, Meyer B, Voituriez R. Facilitated diffusion of proteins on chromatin. Phys Rev Lett. 2011; 106, 38102.
30. Erdel F, Müller-Ott K, Rippe K. Establishing epigenetic domains via chromatin-bound histone modifiers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013; 1305, 2943.
31. Buckley SM, Aranda-Orgilles B, Strikoudis A, et al. Regulation of pluripotency and cellular reprogramming by the ubiquitin-proteasome system. Cell Stem Cell. 2012; 11, 783798.
32. Kim DH, Marinov GK, Pepke S, et al. Single-cell transcriptome analysis reveals dynamic changes in lncRNA expression during reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2015; 16, 88101.
33. Grand RS, Pichugina T, Gehlen LR, et al. Chromosome conformation maps in fission yeast reveal cell cycle dependent sub nuclear structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42, 1258512599.
34. Pichugina T, Sugawara T, Kaykov A, et al. A diffusion model for the coordination of DNA replication in Schizosaccharomyces pombe . Sci Rep. 2016; 6, 18757.
35. Dryden NH, Broome LR, Dudbridge F, et al. Unbiased analysis of potential targets of breast cancer susceptibility loci by capture Hi-C. Genome Res. 2014; 24, 18541868.
36. Jäger R, Migliorini G, Henrion M, et al. Capture Hi-C identifies the chromatin interactome of colorectal cancer risk loci. Nat Commun. 2015; 6, 6178.
37. Mifsud B, Tavares-Cadete F, Young AN, et al. Mapping long-range promoter contacts in human cells with high-resolution capture Hi-C. Nat Genet. 2015; 47, 598606.
38. Williams A, Spilianakis CG, Flavell RA. Interchromosomal association and gene regulation in trans. Trends Genet. 2010; 26, 188197.
39. Felipe Barella L, ulio Cezar de Oliveira J, Cezar de Freitas Mathias P. Pancreatic islets and their roles in metabolic programming. Nutrition. 2014; 30, 373379.
40. Vickers MH. Early life nutrition, epigenetics and programming of later life disease. Nutrients. 2014; 6, 21652178.
41. Jarick I, Vogel CIG, Scherag S, et al. Novel common copy number variation for early onset extreme obesity on chromosome 11q11 identified by a genome-wide analysis. Hum Mol Genet. 2011; 20, 840852.
42. Comuzzie AG, Cole SA, Laston SL, et al. Novel genetic loci identified for the pathophysiology of childhood obesity in the Hispanic population. PLoS One. 2012; 7, e51954.
43. Fall T, Ingelsson E. Genome-wide association studies of obesity and metabolic syndrome. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2014; 382, 740757.
44. Sjögren M, Lyssenko V, Jonsson A, et al. The search for putative unifying genetic factors for components of the metabolic syndrome. Diabetologia. 2008; 51, 22422251.
45. Hara K, Fujita H, Johnson TA, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies three novel loci for type 2 diabetes. Hum Mol Genet. 2014; 23, 239246.
46. Zeggini E, Scott LJ, Saxena R, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2008; 40, 638645.
47. Morris AP, Voight BF, Teslovich TM, et al. Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2012; 44, 981990.
48. Sladek R, Prokopenko I. Genome-wide association studies of type 2 diabetes. In The Genetics of Type 2 Diabetes and Related Traits: Biology, Physiology and Translation (ed. Florez CJ), 2016; pp. 1361. Springer International Publishing: Cham.
49. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, et al. Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature. 2009; 461, 747753.
50. Vattikuti S, Guo J, Chow CC. Heritability and genetic correlations explained by common SNPs for metabolic syndrome traits. PLoS Genet. 2012; 8, e1002637.
51. Farh KK, Marson A, Zhu J, et al. Genetic and epigenetic fine mapping of causal autoimmune disease variants. Nature. 2015; 518, 337343.
52. Schierding W, Cutfield WS, O’Sullivan JM. The missing story behind genome wide association studies: single nucleotide polymorphisms in gene deserts have a story to tell. Front Genet. 2014; 5, 39.
53. Marsman J, Horsfield JA. Long distance relationships: enhancer–promoter communication and dynamic gene transcription. Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Regul Mech. 2012; 1819, 12171227.
54. Sanyal A, Lajoie BR, Jain G, Dekker J. The long-range interaction landscape of gene promoters. Nature. 2012; 489, 109113.
55. Chen J, Tian W. Explaining the disease phenotype of intergenic SNP through predicted long range regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44, 86418654.
56. Schierding W, Antony J, Cutfield WS, et al. Intergenic GWAS SNPs are key components of the spatial and regulatory network for human growth. Hum Mol Genet. 2016; 25, 33723382.
57. Smemo S, Tena JJ, Kim K-H, et al. Obesity-associated variants within FTO form long-range functional connections with IRX3. Nature. 2014; 507, 371375.
58. Claussnitzer M, Dankel SN, Kim K-H, et al. FTO obesity variant circuitry and adipocyte browning in humans. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373, 895907.
59. Tolhuis B, Palstra RJ, Splinter E, et al. Looping and interaction between hypersensitive sites in the active β-globin locus. Mol Cell. 2002; 10, 14531465.
60. Drissen R, Palstra R-J, Gillemans N, et al. The active spatial organization of the beta-globin locus requires the transcription factor EKLF. Genes Dev. 2004; 18, 24852490.
61. Albert FW, Kruglyak L. The role of regulatory variation in complex traits and disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2015; 16, 197212.
62. Naumova N, Smith EM, Zhan Y, Dekker J. Analysis of long-range chromatin interactions using chromosome conformation capture. Methods. 2012; 58, 192203.
63. Zhao Z, Tavoosidana G, Sjölinder M, et al. Circular chromosome conformation capture (4C) uncovers extensive networks of epigenetically regulated intra- and interchromosomal interactions. Nat Genet. 2006; 38, 13411347.
64. Rodley CDM, Bertels F, Jones B, O’Sullivan JM. Global identification of yeast chromosome interactions using genome conformation capture. Fungal Genet Biol. 2009; 46, 879886.
65. Schierding W, O’Sullivan JM. Connecting SNPs in diabetes: a spatial analysis of meta-GWAS loci. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2015; 6, doi: 10.3389/fendo.2015.00102.
66. Dean A. In the loop: long range chromatin interactions and gene regulation. Brief Funct Genomics. 2011; 10, 310.
67. Harmston N, Lenhard B. Chromatin and epigenetic features of long-range gene regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41, 71857199.
68. Doss S. Cis-acting expression quantitative trait loci in mice. Genome Res. 2005; 15, 681691.
69. Davis JR, Fresard L, Knowles DA, et al. An efficient multiple-testing adjustment for eQTL studies that accounts for linkage disequilibrium between variants. Am J Hum Genet. 2016; 98, 216224.
70. Corradin O, Cohen AJ, Luppino JM, et al. Modeling disease risk through analysis of physical interactions between genetic variants within chromatin regulatory circuitry. Nat Genet. 2016; 48, 13131320.
71. Ong C-T, Corces VG. CTCF: an architectural protein bridging genome topology and function. Nat Rev Genet. 2014; 15, 239246.
72. Nora EP, Goloborodko A, Valton A-L, et al. Targeted degradation of CTCF decouples local insulation of chromosome domains from genomic compartmentalization. Cell. 2017; 169, 930944.e22.
73. Wang H, Maurano MT, Qu H, et al. Widespread plasticity in CTCF occupancy linked to DNA methylation. Genome Res. 2012; 22, 16801688.
74. Maurano M, Wang H, John S, et al. Role of DNA methylation in modulating transcription factor occupancy. Cell Rep. 2015; 12, 11841195.
75. Banovich NE, Lan X, McVicker G, et al. Methylation QTLs are associated with coordinated changes in transcription factor binding, histone modifications, and gene expression levels. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10, e1004663.
76. Flavahan WA, Drier Y, Liau BB, et al. Insulator dysfunction and oncogene activation in IDH mutant gliomas. Nature. 2015; 529, 110–114.
77. Martin P, McGovern A, Orozco G, et al. Capture Hi-C reveals novel candidate genes and complex long-range interactions with related autoimmune risk loci. Nat Commun. 2015; 6, 10069.
78. Dekker J. The three “C” s of chromosome conformation capture: controls, controls, controls. Nat Methods. 2006; 3, 1721.
79. de Wit E, de Laat W. A decade of 3C technologies: insights into nuclear organization. Genes Dev. 2012; 26, 1124.
80. Tak YG, Farnham PJ. Making sense of GWAS: using epigenomics and genome engineering to understand the functional relevance of SNPs in non-coding regions of the human genome. Epigenet Chromat. 2015; 8, 57.
81. Kichaev G, Yang W-Y, Lindstrom S, et al. Integrating functional data to prioritize causal variants in statistical fine-mapping studies. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10, e1004722.
82. Pasaniuc B, Price AL. Dissecting the genetics of complex traits using summary association statistics. Nat Rev Genet. 2016; 18, 117127.
83. Huang Y, Cate SP, Battistuzzi C, et al. An association between a functional polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase a gene promoter, impulsive traits and early abuse experiences. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004; 29, 14981505.
84. Yilmaz Z, Davis C, Loxton NJ, et al. Association between MC4R rs17782313 polymorphism and overeating behaviors. Int J Obes. 2015; 39, 114120.
85. Rodley CDM, Grand RS, Gehlen LR, et al. Mitochondrial-nuclear DNA interactions contribute to the regulation of nuclear transcript levels as part of the inter-organelle communication system. PLoS One. 2012; 7, e30943.
86. Doynova MD, Berretta A, Jones MB, et al. Interactions between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA in mammalian cells are non-random. Mitochondrion. 2016; 30, 187196.
87. Jacobson E, Perry JK, Long DS, et al. A potential role for genome structure in the translation of mechanical force during immune cell development. Nucleus. 2016; 7, 462475.
88. Lamm E. The genome as a developmental organ. J Physiol. 2014; 592, 22832293.
89. Bard JBL. Waddington’s legacy to developmental and theoretical biology. Biol Theory. 2008; 3, 188197.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease
  • ISSN: 2040-1744
  • EISSN: 2040-1752
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-developmental-origins-of-health-and-disease
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 27 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 193 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 29th August 2017 - 21st January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.