The genetic architecture of NAFLD among inbred strains of mice

  1. Simon T Hui  Is a corresponding author
  2. Brian W Parks
  3. Elin Org
  4. Frode Norheim
  5. Nam Che
  6. Calvin Pan
  7. Lawrence W Castellani
  8. Sarada Charugundla
  9. Darwin L Dirks
  10. Nikolaos Psychogios
  11. Isaac Neuhaus
  12. Robert E Gerszten
  13. Todd Kirchgessner
  14. Peter S Gargalovic
  15. Aldons J Lusis
  1. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  2. University of Oslo, Norway
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb, United States

Abstract

To identify genetic and environmental factors contributing to the pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, we examined liver steatosis and related clinical and molecular traits in more than 100 unique inbred mouse strains which were fed a diet rich in fat and carbohydrates. A >30-fold variation in hepatic TG accumulation was observed among the strains. Genome wide association studies revealed three loci associated with hepatic TG accumulation. Utilizing transcriptomic data from the liver and adipose tissue, we identified several high-confidence candidate genes for hepatic steatosis, including Gde1, a glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase not previously implicated in triglyceride metabolism. We confirmed the role of Gde1 by in vivo hepatic over-expression and shRNA knockdown studies. We hypothesize that Gde1 expression increases TG production by contributing to the production of glycerol-3-phosphate. Our multi-level data, including transcript levels, metabolite levels, and gut microbiota composition, provide a framework for understanding genetic and environmental interactions underlying hepatic steatosis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Simon T Hui

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    sthui@mednet.ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Brian W Parks

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Elin Org

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Frode Norheim

    Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nam Che

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Calvin Pan

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lawrence W Castellani

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sarada Charugundla

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Darwin L Dirks

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nikolaos Psychogios

    Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Isaac Neuhaus

    Department of Computational Genomics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Robert E Gerszten

    Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Todd Kirchgessner

    Department of Cardiovascular Drug Discovery, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Peter S Gargalovic

    Department of Computational Genomics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Aldons J Lusis

    Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#92-169) of the University of California at Los Angeles.

Copyright

© 2015, Hui et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,249
    views
  • 758
    downloads
  • 91
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Simon T Hui
  2. Brian W Parks
  3. Elin Org
  4. Frode Norheim
  5. Nam Che
  6. Calvin Pan
  7. Lawrence W Castellani
  8. Sarada Charugundla
  9. Darwin L Dirks
  10. Nikolaos Psychogios
  11. Isaac Neuhaus
  12. Robert E Gerszten
  13. Todd Kirchgessner
  14. Peter S Gargalovic
  15. Aldons J Lusis
(2015)
The genetic architecture of NAFLD among inbred strains of mice
eLife 4:e05607.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05607

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05607

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Valentin Babosha, Natalia Klimenko ... Oksana Maksimenko
    Research Article

    The male-specific lethal complex (MSL), which consists of five proteins and two non-coding roX RNAs, is involved in the transcriptional enhancement of X-linked genes to compensate for the sex chromosome monosomy in Drosophila XY males compared with XX females. The MSL1 and MSL2 proteins form the heterotetrameric core of the MSL complex and are critical for the specific recruitment of the complex to the high-affinity ‘entry’ sites (HAS) on the X chromosome. In this study, we demonstrated that the N-terminal region of MSL1 is critical for stability and functions of MSL1. Amino acid deletions and substitutions in the N-terminal region of MSL1 strongly affect both the interaction with roX2 RNA and the MSL complex binding to HAS on the X chromosome. In particular, substitution of the conserved N-terminal amino-acids 3–7 in MSL1 (MSL1GS) affects male viability similar to the inactivation of genes encoding roX RNAs. In addition, MSL1GS binds to promoters such as MSL1WT but does not co-bind with MSL2 and MSL3 to X chromosomal HAS. However, overexpression of MSL2 partially restores the dosage compensation. Thus, the interaction of MSL1 with roX RNA is critical for the efficient assembly of the MSL complex on HAS of the male X chromosome.