The Epigenetics Revolution (20 page)
Read The Epigenetics Revolution Online
Authors: Nessa Carey
Tags: #Science/Life Sciences/Genetics and Genomics
For the female mammal, the evolutionary imperative is rather different:
I want this foetus to survive and pass on my genes. But I don’t want it to be at the cost of draining me so much that I never reproduce again. I want more than this one chance to pass on my genes.
This battle of the sexes in mammals has reached an evolutionary Mexican stand-off. A series of checks and balances ensures that neither the maternal nor the paternal genome gets the upper hand. We can get a better understanding of how this works if we look once again at the experiments of Azim Surani, Davor Sobel and Bruce Cattanach. These are the scientists who created the mouse zygotes that contained only paternal DNA or only maternal DNA.
After they had created these test tube zygotes, the scientists implanted them into the uterus of mice. None of the labs ever generated living mice from these zygotes. However, the zygotes did develop for a while in the womb, but very abnormally. The abnormal development was quite different, depending on whether all the chromosomes had come from the mother or the father.
In both cases the few embryos that did form were small and retarded in growth. Where all the chromosomes had come from the mother, the placental tissues were very underdeveloped
1
. If all the chromosomes came from the father, the embryo was even more retarded but there was much better production of the placental tissues
2
. Scientists created embryos from a mix of these cells – cells which had only maternally inherited or paternally inherited chromosomes. These embryos still couldn’t develop all the way to birth. When examined, the researchers found that all the tissues in the embryo were from the maternal-only cells whereas the cells of the placental tissues were the paternal-only type
3
.
1
. If all the chromosomes came from the father, the embryo was even more retarded but there was much better production of the placental tissues
2
. Scientists created embryos from a mix of these cells – cells which had only maternally inherited or paternally inherited chromosomes. These embryos still couldn’t develop all the way to birth. When examined, the researchers found that all the tissues in the embryo were from the maternal-only cells whereas the cells of the placental tissues were the paternal-only type
3
.
All these data suggested that something in the male chromosomes pushes the developmental programme in favour of the placenta, whereas a maternally-derived genome has less of a drive towards the placenta, and more towards the embryo itself. How is this consistent with the conflict or evolutionary imperative laid out earlier in this chapter? Well, the placenta is the portal for taking nutrients out of the mother and transferring them into the foetus. The paternally-derived chromosomes promote placental development, and thereby create mechanisms for diverting as much nutrition as possible from the mother’s bloodstream. The maternal chromosomes act in the opposite way, and a finely poised stalemate develops in normal pregnancies.
One obvious question is whether all the chromosomes are important for these effects. Bruce Cattanach used complex genetic experiments on mice to investigate this. The mice contained chromosomes that had been rearranged in different ways. The simplest way to explain this is that each mouse had the right amount of chromosomes, but they’d been ‘stuck together’ in unusual ways. He was able to create mice which had precise abnormalities in the inheritance of their chromosomes. For example, he could create mice which inherited both copies of a specific chromosome from just one parent.
The first experiments he reported were using mouse chromosome 11. For all the other pairs of chromosomes, the mice inherited one of each pair maternally, and one paternally. But for chromosome 11, Bruce Cattanach created mice that had inherited two copies from their mother and none from their father, or vice versa.
Figure 8.1
represents the results
4
.
Figure 8.1
represents the results
4
.
Once again this is consistent with the idea that there are factors in the paternal chromosomes that push towards development of larger offspring. Factors in the maternal chromosomes either act in the ‘opposite direction’ or are broadly neutral.
As we explored in the last chapter, these factors are epigenetic, not genetic. In the example above, let’s assume that the parents came from the same inbred mouse strain, so were genetically identical. If you sequenced both copies of chromosome 11 in any of the three types of offspring, they would be exactly the same. They would contain the same millions of A, C, G and T base-pairs, in the same order. But the two copies of chromosome 11 do clearly behave differently at a functional level, as shown by the different sizes of the different types of mice. Therefore there must be epigenetic differences between the maternal and paternal copies of chromosome 11.
Figure 8.1
Bruce Cattanach created genetically modified mice, in which he could control how they inherited a particular region of chromosome 11. The middle mouse inherited one copy from each parent. Mice which inherited both copies from their mother were smaller than this normal mouse. In contrast, mice which inherited both copies from their father were larger than normal.
Bruce Cattanach created genetically modified mice, in which he could control how they inherited a particular region of chromosome 11. The middle mouse inherited one copy from each parent. Mice which inherited both copies from their mother were smaller than this normal mouse. In contrast, mice which inherited both copies from their father were larger than normal.
Sex discrimination
Because the two copies of the chromosome behave differently depending on their parent-of-origin, chromosome 11 is known as an imprinted chromosome. It has been imprinted with information about its origins. As our understanding of genetics has improved we’ve realised that only certain stretches of chromosome 11 are imprinted. There are large regions where it doesn’t matter at all which parent donated which chromosome, and the regions from the two parents are functionally equivalent. There are also entire chromosomes that are not imprinted.
So far, we’ve described imprinting in mainly phenomenological terms. Imprinted regions are stretches of the genome where we can detect parent-of-origin effects in offspring. But how do these regions carry this effect? In imprinted regions, certain genes are switched on or switched off, depending on how they were inherited. In the chromosome 11 example above, genes associated with placental growth are switched on and are very active in the copy of the chromosome inherited from the father. This carries risks of nutrient depletion for the mother who is carrying the foetus, and a compensatory mechanism has evolved. The copies of these same genes on the maternal chromosome tend to be switched off, and this limits the placental growth. Alternatively, there may be other genes that counterbalance the effects of the paternal genes, and these counter-balancing genes may be expressed mainly from the maternal chromosome.
Major strides have been made in understanding the molecular biology of these effects. For example, later researchers worked on a region on chromosome 7 in mice. There is a gene in this region called
insulin-like growth factor 2
(
Igf2
). The Igf2 protein promotes embryonic growth, and is normally expressed only from the paternally-derived copy of chromosome 7. Experimenters introduced a mutation into this gene, which stopped the gene coding for a functional Igf2 protein. They studied the effects of the mutation on offspring. When the mutation was passed on from the mother, the young mice looked the same as any other mice. This is because the
Igf2
gene is normally switched off on the maternal chromosome anyway, and so it didn’t matter that the maternal gene was mutated. But when the mutant
Igf2
gene was passed down from father to offspring, the mice in the litter were much smaller than usual. This was because the one copy of the
Igf2
gene that they ‘relied on’ for strong foetal growth had been switched off by the mutation
5
.
insulin-like growth factor 2
(
Igf2
). The Igf2 protein promotes embryonic growth, and is normally expressed only from the paternally-derived copy of chromosome 7. Experimenters introduced a mutation into this gene, which stopped the gene coding for a functional Igf2 protein. They studied the effects of the mutation on offspring. When the mutation was passed on from the mother, the young mice looked the same as any other mice. This is because the
Igf2
gene is normally switched off on the maternal chromosome anyway, and so it didn’t matter that the maternal gene was mutated. But when the mutant
Igf2
gene was passed down from father to offspring, the mice in the litter were much smaller than usual. This was because the one copy of the
Igf2
gene that they ‘relied on’ for strong foetal growth had been switched off by the mutation
5
.
There is a gene on mouse chromosome 17 called
Igf2r
. The protein encoded by this gene ‘mops up’ Igf2 protein and stops it acting as a growth promoter. The
Igf2r
gene is also imprinted. Because Igf2r protein has the ‘opposite’ effect to Igf2 in terms of foetal growth, it probably isn’t surprising to learn that the
Igf2r
gene is usually expressed from the maternal copy of chromosome 17
6
.
Igf2r
. The protein encoded by this gene ‘mops up’ Igf2 protein and stops it acting as a growth promoter. The
Igf2r
gene is also imprinted. Because Igf2r protein has the ‘opposite’ effect to Igf2 in terms of foetal growth, it probably isn’t surprising to learn that the
Igf2r
gene is usually expressed from the maternal copy of chromosome 17
6
.
Scientists have detected about 100 imprinted genes in mice, and about half this number in humans. It’s not clear if there are genuinely fewer imprinted genes in humans than in mice, or if it’s just more difficult to detect them experimentally. Imprinting evolved about 150 million years ago
7
, and it really only occurs to a great extent in placental mammals. It isn’t found in those classes that can reproduce parthenogenetically.
7
, and it really only occurs to a great extent in placental mammals. It isn’t found in those classes that can reproduce parthenogenetically.
Imprinting is a complicated system, and like all complex machinery, it can break down. We now know that there are disorders in humans that are caused by problems with the imprinting mechanism.
When imprinting goes bad
Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is named after two of the authors of the first description of the condition
8
. PWS affects about one in 20,000 live births. The babies have a low birth weight and their muscles are really floppy. In early infancy, it can be difficult to feed these babies and initially they fail to thrive. This is dramatically reversed by early childhood. The children are constantly hungry, so over-eat to an incredible degree and can become dangerously obese. Along with other characteristic features such as small feet and hands, delayed language development and infertility, the individuals with PWS are often mildly or moderately mentally retarded. They may also have behavioural disturbances, including inappropriate temper outbursts
9
.
8
. PWS affects about one in 20,000 live births. The babies have a low birth weight and their muscles are really floppy. In early infancy, it can be difficult to feed these babies and initially they fail to thrive. This is dramatically reversed by early childhood. The children are constantly hungry, so over-eat to an incredible degree and can become dangerously obese. Along with other characteristic features such as small feet and hands, delayed language development and infertility, the individuals with PWS are often mildly or moderately mentally retarded. They may also have behavioural disturbances, including inappropriate temper outbursts
9
.
There’s another disorder in humans that affects about the same number of people as PWS. This is called Angelman syndrome (AS), and like PWS it is named after the person who first described the condition
10
. Children with AS suffer from severe mental retardation, small brain size and very little speech. Patients with AS will often laugh spontaneously for no obvious reason, which led to the spectacularly insensitive clinical description of these children as ‘happy puppets’
11
.
10
. Children with AS suffer from severe mental retardation, small brain size and very little speech. Patients with AS will often laugh spontaneously for no obvious reason, which led to the spectacularly insensitive clinical description of these children as ‘happy puppets’
11
.
In both PWS and AS, the parents of the affected children are normally perfectly healthy. Research suggested that the basic problem in each of these conditions was likely to be caused by an underlying defect in the chromosomes. Because the parents were unaffected, the defect probably arose during the production of the eggs or the sperm.
In the 1980s, researchers working on PWS used a variety of standard techniques to find the underlying cause of this condition. They looked for regions of the genome that were different between healthy children and those with the disorder. Scientists interested in AS were doing something similar. By the mid-1980s it was becoming clear that both groups were looking at the same part of the genome, a specific stretch on chromosome 15. In both PWS and AS, patients had lost a small, identical section of this chromosome.
But these two disorders are very unlike each other in their clinical presentation. Nobody would ever confuse a patient with PWS with one who was suffering from Angelman’s syndrome. How could the same genetic problem – the loss of a key region of chromosome 15 – result in such different symptoms?
In 1989 a group from The Children’s Hospital, Boston, showed that the important feature was not just the deletion, but how the deletion was inherited. It’s summarised in
Figure 8.2
. When the abnormal chromosome was inherited from the father, the child had PWS. When the same chromosome abnormality was inherited from the mother, the child had AS
12
.
Figure 8.2
. When the abnormal chromosome was inherited from the father, the child had PWS. When the same chromosome abnormality was inherited from the mother, the child had AS
12
.
This is a clear case of epigenetic inheritance of a disorder. Children with PWS and AS had exactly the same problem genetically – they were missing a specific region of chromosome 15. The only difference was how they inherited the abnormal chromosome. This is another example of a parent-of-origin effect.
Figure 8.2
Two children may each have the same deletion on chromosome 15, shown schematically by the absence of the horizontally striped box. The phenotype of the two children will be different, depending on how they inherited the abnormal chromosome. If the abnormal chromosome was inherited from their father, the child will develop Prader-Willi syndrome. If the abnormal chromosome was inherited from their mother, the child will develop Angelman syndrome, which is a very different disorder from Prader-Willi.
Two children may each have the same deletion on chromosome 15, shown schematically by the absence of the horizontally striped box. The phenotype of the two children will be different, depending on how they inherited the abnormal chromosome. If the abnormal chromosome was inherited from their father, the child will develop Prader-Willi syndrome. If the abnormal chromosome was inherited from their mother, the child will develop Angelman syndrome, which is a very different disorder from Prader-Willi.
Other books
Longarm 243: Longarm and the Debt of Honor by Evans, Tabor
Sin and the Millionaire by Lucy Farago
Haven by Dria Andersen
Relic by Steve Whibley
His Ancient Heart by M. R. Forbes
Party Crasher by Angel, April
Second Paradigm by Peter J. Wacks
Last God Standing by Michael Boatman
Los siete contra Tebas by Esquilo
Agon by Kathi S Barton