|
|
|
|
Genome Res. 15:1741-1745, 2005 ©2005 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/05 $5.00 Perspective Genomics of the future: Identification of quantitative trait loci in the mouseGenomics Institute, Wadsworth Center, Troy, New York 12180, USA
Positional cloning of quantitative trait loci in rodents is a common approach to identify genes involved in complex phenotypes, including genes important to human disease. However, cloning the causative genes has proved to be more difficult than determining their positions. New tools such as genomic sequence, clone libraries, and new genomic-based methods offer new approaches to identify these genes. Here we review how these new tools and approaches will improve our ability to discover the genes important in complex traits.
Identifying genetic loci controlling complex traits (quantitative trait loci or QTLs) is one of the biggest challenges confronting genetics. These genes influence such traits as growth, morphology, and behavior and determine susceptibility and severity for nearly every disease. In particular, QTLs represent a gateway to the genetic factors controlling common, non-Mendelian diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, and affect many more people than the classic single gene diseases studied in the early days of positional cloning. These diseases have clear genetic components, yet the underlying genes have proven difficult to identify. Unfortunately, these genes are usually subtle in their expression and effect on the general phenotype of the organism; they interact with other genes and environmental effects making them difficult to isolate and they often have a low penetrance. Positional cloning of these QTLs in rodents has proved to be one of the most powerful tools for the functional identification of these genes (Georges 1997
Genomic sequence and related tools promised to help us find these genes by improving existing approaches and making possible new approaches. Here, we discuss some of the present and future techniques for making identification of these QTLs an easier task. Now that we are several years into the post-genome, we can begin to evaluate some of these strategies. These fall into three categories: (1) making candidate intervals as small as possible, (2) efficiently evaluating large numbers of genes in candidate intervals, and (3) testing candidate genes in a more powerful and efficient manner. These strategies are schemed in Figure 1. It is important to note that, with the possible exception of a targeted knock-in mutation of a QTL, none of the methods yet described can provide explicit proof of a gene's involvement in a trait. Rather, each approach tests a gene or (ideally) multiple genes in a different way until the weight of evidence is considered sufficient to prove causation (Abiola et al. 2003
In 1992, Dietrich and colleagues (Dietrich et al. 1992
What excited the QTL community more than improved mapping resolution, however, was the potential to use these SNPs for in silico localization using linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis. Because most inbred mouse strains have a common ancestral heritage and ancestral genotypes account for most of the genetic variation among inbred strains (Wade et al. 2002
Despite the potential power of LD analysis, the emerging body of studies suggests major challenges to its application in mice (Frazer et al. 2004
Genomic tools, techniques, and databases have transformed the hunt for candidate genes. Perhaps the greatest effect concerns the initial characterization of the candidate interval. Database searches focusing on the candidate interval have replaced arduous physical mapping and sequencing that, very recently, were state-of-the-art. In addition, multi-species sequence comparisons have identified conserved non-coding regions that are important in gene regulation (Boffelli et al. 2004
Expression profiling would seem to be a perfect tool for evaluating candidates. As for Mendelian traits, an investigator can assay the entire interval to identify genes whose expression correlates with phenotype. The simplest application of expression profiling is to compare two groups of mice with different phenotypes and ask whether any genes in the candidate region are differentially expressed. The clearest reported success using this approach is susceptibility of mice to allergen-induced-airway hyper-responsiveness. Wills-Karp and colleagues (Ewart et al. 2000
One such approach, genetical genomics, treats gene expression levels as quantitative traits and uses a segregating population to map loci that regulate expression of a given gene (Schadt et al. 2003
Cis-acting eQTLs are defined as those that are closely linked to the target gene, while trans-acting eQTLs map elsewhere in the genome. A cis-acting eQTL is of particular interest for candidate gene identification since it is likely to regulate the closely linked structural gene and implicate it as a strong candidate. Trans-acting eQTLs are more difficult to understand since they suggest candidate genes more indirectly. The genes regulated by a given trans-acting eQTL probably represent downstream effects of the regulator and, as might be expected, can have similar functions or act in the same pathway (Chesler et al. 2005
Like the LD studies described above, genetical genomics is a highly in silico method that has increased power to compare phenotypes from existing databases with emerging expression data and sequencing variations so that probable candidates can be identified. Some of this analysis software is available on the WebQTL Web site (http://www.genenetwork.org/home
Once strong candidates are identified, it is crucial to test them. The main problems include the difficulty in predicting the effects of existing polymorphisms on gene expression and function of the candidate gene, in extrapolating these effects to biological impact, and in ascribing phenotypic differences between two strains to one of many genes polymorphic between those strains. In some cases, the primary candidate gene, e.g., Rgs2 (Yalcin et al. 2004b
Targeted knock-in mutations of a candidate gene remain the gold standard for QTL gene identification (Abiola et al. 2003
Moreover, there is a wealth of genetrap mutations available to the rodent research community. These are mutations that result from the insertion of an expression vector into the target gene. This expression vector contains a reporter gene, a selectable marker, poly(A) site, and translation stop site, but no promoter sequences. The vector is electroporated into mouse ES cells and, if it inserts in a transcribed sequence and produces a fusion transcript composed of part of the endogenous transcribed sequence (i.e., the "trapped" gene), the reporter, and the selectable marker, it will allow these ES cell clones to be selected. The trapped gene then is identified by 5' gene sequencing. The insertion often serves as a hypomorphic or null mutation, since it prematurely terminates transcription of the endogenous gene, and contains a reporter for the expression patterning of the endogenous gene. More recent genetraps feature site-specific recombinase sequences to create conditional mutations (Schnütgen et al. 2005
Classical complementation is another powerful method for gene testing that has been made more practical by genomics. Correlation of the QTL with the presence of a single BAC would greatly refine the search for the causal mutation. BACs have become broadly utilized in functional mouse genomics and are the vector of choice for large scale sequencing because of its superior stability and DNA yield compared with other large insert vectors (Haldi et al. 1994
SNP data from other species make possible a new, powerful candidate gene test, the cross-species comparison. These SNPs make it possible to ask the following question: Do different alleles of the human ortholog (or rat, platypus, etc.) of a candidate mouse gene correlate with phenotypic differences caused by the QTL? This procedure has been successfully used by Wang and colleagues (Wang et al. 2005
Mapping the location of the QTL is an extremely important first step in QTL identification. While it is clear that location is not sufficient to identify a QTL gene, it is an integral part of the investigation and substantially limits the candidate gene pool. Given the rapid increases in high-throughput evaluation of genes and functional databases and the difficulties in studying genes of small effect in heterogeneous segregating populations, is it possible to robustly identify candidate genes without positional information? Our hope is that approaches such as genetic transcription networks will soon be refined in a manner that is sufficient to "guess" what genes may be involved in a physiological function. The insertion and/or the deletion of these same candidates could then lead to their identification as QTLs that influence function. For example, Soriano and colleagues demonstrated a position-independent approach to identify genetrap clones mutant in genes important in PDGF signaling (Chen et al. 2004
SNP mappings of 15 strains of mice (sponsored by the Center for Rodent Genetics) will only be the beginning. The mouse investigator will be able to compare and contrast different chromosomal regions to identify new genes influencing the fate of QTLs affecting minor functions. It is likely that the contributions from each strain will focus on narrow regions for identification of these QTLs, leading to 100-500 genes with a known tissue-determining effect. Microarray analyses of gene activity should then narrow these genes down to a short list, functionally distinguishing them from their neighbors. Thus, QTL identifications should become easier tasks and ones that are easily accomplished by the amplification of our current mouse and molecular genetic techniques.
Article and publication are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.3841405.
1 Corresponding author.
Abiola, O., Angel, J.M., Avner, P., Bachmanov, A.A., Belknap, J.K., Bennett, B., Blankenhorn, E.P., Blizard, D.A., Bolivar, V., Brockmann, G.A., et al. 2003. The nature and identification of quantitative trait loci: A community's view. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4: 911-916.[Medline] Adams, D.J., Biggs, P.J., Cox, T., Davies, R., van der Weyden, L., Jonkers, J., Smith, J., Plumb, B., Taylor, R., Nishijima, I., et al. 2004. Mutagenic insertion and chromosome engineering resource (MICER). Nat. Genet. 36: 867-871.[CrossRef][Medline] Ahituv, N., Prabhakar, S., Poulin, F., Rubin, E.M., and Couronne, O. 2005. Mapping cis-regulatory domains in the human genome using multi-species conservation of synteny. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14: 3057-3063. Austin, C.P., Battey, J.F., Bradley, A., Bucan, M., Capecchi, M., Collins, F.S., Dove, W.F., Duyk, G., Dymecki, S., Eppig, J.T., et al. 2004. The knockout mouse project. Nat. Genet. 36: 921-924.[CrossRef][Medline] Boffelli, D., Weer, C.V., Weng, L., Lewis, K.D., Shoukry, M.I., Pachter, L., Keys, D.N., and Rubin, E.M. 2004. Intraspecies sequence comparisons for annotating genomes. Genome Res. 14: 2406-2411. Bystrykh, L., Weersing, E., Dontje, B., Sutton, S., Pletcher, M.T., Wiltshire, T., Su, A.I., Vellenga, E., Wang, J., Manly, K.F., et al. 2005. Uncovering regulatory pathways that affect hematopoietic stem cell function using `genetical genomics'. Nat. Genet. 37: 225-232.[CrossRef][Medline] Chen, W.V., Delrow, J., Corrin, P.D., Frazier, J.P., and Soriano, P. 2004. Identification and validation of PDGF transcriptional targets by microarray-coupled gene-trap mutagenesis. Nat. Genet. 36: 304-312.[CrossRef][Medline] Chesler, E.J., Lu, L., Shou, S., Qu, Y., Gu, J., Wang, J., Hsu, H.C., Mountz, J.D., Baldwin, N.E., Langston, M.A., et al. 2005. Complex trait analysis of gene expression uncovers polygenic and pleiotropic networks that modulate nervous system function. Nat. Genet. 37: 233-242.[CrossRef][Medline] Copeland, N.G., Jenkins, N.A., and Court, D.L. 2001. Recombineering: A powerful new tool for mouse functional genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2: 769-779.[Medline] Cotta-de-Almeida, V., Schonhoff, S., Shibata, T., Leiter, A., and Snapper, S.B. 2003. A new method for rapidly generating gene-targeting vectors by engineering BACs through homologous recombination in bacteria. Genome Res. 13: 2190-2194. Darvasi, A. 1998. Experimental strategies for the genetic dissection of complex traits in animal models. Nat. Genet. 18: 19-24.[CrossRef][Medline] . 2001. In silico mapping of mouse quantitative trait loci. Science 294: 2423. Dietrich, W., Katz, H., Lincoln, S.E., Shin, H.S., Friedman, J., Dracopoli, N.C., and Lander, E.S. 1992. A genetic map of the mouse suitable for typing intraspecific crosses. Genetics 131: 423-447.[Abstract] Doss, S., Schadt, E.E., Drake, T.A., and Lusis, A.J. 2005. Cis-acting expression quantitative trait loci in mice. Genome Res. 15: 681-691. Ewart, S.L., Kuperman, D., Schadt, E., Tankersley, C., Grupe, A., Shubitowski, D.M., Peltz, G., and Wills-Karp, M. 2000. Quantitative trait loci controlling allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness in inbred mice. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 23: 537-545. Flint, J., Valdar, W., Shifman, S., and Mott, R. 2005. Strategies for mapping and cloning quantitative trait genes in rodents. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6: 271-286.[CrossRef][Medline] Frazer, K.A., Tao, H., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Chen, X., Doherty, M.F., and Cox, D.R. 2004. Noncoding sequences conserved in a limited number of mammals in the SIM2 interval are frequently functional. Genome Res. 14: 367-372. Georges, M. 1997. QTL mapping to QTL cloning: Mice to the rescue. Genome Res. 7: 663-665. Haldi, M., Perrot, V., Saumier, M., Desai, T., Cohen, D., Cherif, D., Ward, D., and Lander, E.S. 1994. Large human YACs constructed in a rad52 strain show a reduced rate of chimerism. Genomics 24: 478-484.[CrossRef][Medline] Hubner, N., Wallace, C.A., Zimdahl, H., Petretto, E., Schulz, H., Maciver, F., Mueller, M., Hummel, O., Monti, J., Zidek, V., et al. 2005. Integrated transcriptional profiling and linkage analysis for identification of genes underlying disease. Nat. Genet. 37: 243-253.[CrossRef][Medline] Ioannidis, J.P. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2: e124.[CrossRef][Medline] Karp, C.L., Grupe, A., Schadt, E., Ewart, S.L., Keane-Moore, M., Cuomo, P.J., Kohl, J., Wahl, L., Kuperman, D., Germer, S., et al. 2000. Identification of complement factor 5 as a susceptibility locus for experimental allergic asthma. Nat. Immunol. 1: 221-226.[CrossRef][Medline] Kruglyak, L. and Lander, E.S. 1995a. A nonparametric approach for mapping quantitative trait loci. Genetics 139: 1421-1428.[Abstract] . 1995b. High-resolution genetic mapping of complex traits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 56: 1212-1223.[Medline] Lander, E. and Kruglyak, L. 1995. Genetic dissection of complex traits: Guidelines for interpreting and reporting linkage results. Nat. Genet. 11: 241-247.[CrossRef][Medline] Li, H., Lu, L., Manly, K.F., Chesler, E.J., Bao, L., Wang, J., Zhou, M., Williams, R.W., and Cui, Y. 2005. Inferring gene transcriptional modulatory relations: A genetical genomics approach. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14: 1119-1125. Loots, G.G., Kneissel, M., Keller, H., Baptist, M., Chang, J., Collette, N.M., Ovcharenko, D., Plajzer-Frick, I., and Rubin, E.M. 2005. Genomic deletion of a long-range bone enhancer misregulates sclerostin in Van Buchem disease. Genome Res. 15: 928-935. Lyons, M.A., Korstanje, R., Li, R., Sheehan, S.M., Walsh, K.A., Rollins, J.A., Carey, M.C., Paigen, B., and Churchill, G.A. 2005. Single and interacting QTLs for cholesterol gallstones revealed in an intercross between mouse strains NZB and SM. Mamm. Genome 16: 152-163.[Medline] Manenti, G., Galbiati, F., Gianni-Barrera, R., Pettinicchio, A., Acevedo, A., and Dragani, T.A. 2004. Haplotype sharing suggests that a genomic segment containing six genes accounts for the pulmonary adenoma susceptibility 1 (Pas1) locus activity in mice. Oncogene 23: 4495-4504.[CrossRef][Medline] Nadeau, J.H., Singer, J.B., Matin, A., and Lander, E.S. 2000. Analysing complex genetic traits with chromosome substitution strains. Nat. Genet. 24: 221-225.[CrossRef][Medline] Pletcher, M.T., McClurg, P., Batalov, S., Su, A.I., Barnes, S.W., Lagler, E., Korstanje, R., Wang, X., Nusskern, D., Bogue, M.A., et al. 2004. Use of a dense single nucleotide polymorphism map for in silico mapping in the mouse. PLoS Biol. 2: e393.[CrossRef][Medline] Schadt, E.E., Monks, S.A., Drake, T.A., Lusis, A.J., Che, N., Colinayo, V., Ruff, T.G., Milligan, S.B., Lamb, J.R., Cavet, G., et al. 2003. Genetics of gene expression surveyed in maize, mouse and man. Nature 422: 297-302.[CrossRef][Medline] Schnütgen, F., De-Zolt, S., Van Sloun, P., Hollatz, M., Floss, T., Hansen, J., Altschmied, J., Seisenberger, C., Ghyselinck, N.B., Ruiz, P., et al. 2005. Genomewide production of multipurpose alleles for the functional analysis of the mouse genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102: 7221-7226. Skarnes, W.C., von Melchner, H., Wurst, W., Hicks, G., Nord, A.S., Cox, T., Young, S.G., Ruiz, P., Soriano, P., Tessier-Lavigne, M., et al. 2004. A public gene trap resource for mouse functional genomics. Nat. Genet. 36: 543-544.[CrossRef][Medline] Wade, C.M., Kulbokas III, E.J., Kirby, A.W., Zody, M.C., Mullikin, J.C., Lander, E.S., Lindblad-Toh, K., and Daly, M.J. 2002. The mosaic structure of variation in the laboratory mouse genome. Nature 420: 574-578.[CrossRef][Medline] Wang, X., Korstanje, R., Higgins, D., and Paigen, B. 2004. Haplotype analysis in multiple crosses to identify a QTL gene. Genome Res. 14: 1767-1772. Wang, X., Ishimori, N., Korstanje, R., Rollins, J., and Paigen, B. 2005. Identifying novel genes for atherosclerosis through mouse-human comparative genetics. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 77: 1-15.[CrossRef][Medline] Yalcin, B., Fullerton, J., Miller, S., Keays, D.A., Brady, S., Bhomra, A., Jefferson, A., Volpi, E., Copley, R.R., Flint, J., et al. 2004a. Unexpected complexity in the haplotypes of commonly used inbred strains of laboratory mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 9734-9739. Yalcin, B., Willis-Owen, S.A., Fullerton, J., Meesaq, A., Deacon, R.M., Rawlins, J.N., Copley, R.R., Morris, A.P., Flint, J., and Mott, R. 2004b. Genetic dissection of a behavioral quantitative trait locus shows that Rgs2 modulates anxiety in mice. Nat. Genet. 36: 1197-1202.[CrossRef][Medline]
http://www.pubmed.com; PubMed. http://www.genenetwork.org/home; A set of linked resources for systems genetics. http://www.informatics.jax.org/searches/allele_form.shtml; Database of QTLs searchable phenotype, disease, nomenclature, chromosomal location, or allele categories. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/crg/; Includes description of mouse resequencing project and links to appropriate databases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/; A gene expression/molecular abundance repository MIAME compliant data submissions, and a curated, online resource for gene expression data browsing, query and retrieval. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/PostGenomics/genetrap/; Description of the Sanger Institute Gene Trap Resource and searchable database of genetrap mutations produced by the International Gene Trap Consortium. http://bacpac.chori.org/; Web site run by the BACPAC Resource Center (BPRC) at Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute in Oakland, California. Includes descriptions of clone libraries and services available.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||