Quantitative and functional interrogation of parent-of-origin allelic expression biases in the brain

  1. Julio D Perez
  2. Nimrod D Rubinstein
  3. Daniel E Fernandez
  4. Stephen W Santoro
  5. Leigh A Needleman
  6. Olivia Ho-Shing
  7. John J Choi
  8. Mariela Zirlinger
  9. Shau-Kwaun Chen
  10. Jun S Liu
  11. Catherine Dulac  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, United States
  2. Harvard University, United States
  3. University of Wyoming, United States
  4. Cell Press, United States
  5. National Chengchi University, Taiwan

Abstract

The maternal and paternal genomes play different roles in mammalian brains as a result of genomic imprinting, an epigenetic regulation leading to differential expression of the parental alleles of some genes. Here we investigate genomic imprinting in the cerebellum using a newly developed Bayesian statistical model that provides unprecedented transcript-level resolution. We uncover 160 imprinted transcripts, including 41 novel and independently validated imprinted genes. Strikingly, many genes exhibit parentally biased -rather than monoallelic- expression, with different magnitudes according to age, organ, and brain region. Developmental changes in parental bias and overall gene expression are strongly correlated, suggesting combined roles in regulating gene dosage. Finally, brain-specific deletion of the paternal, but not maternal, allele of the paternally-biased Bcl-x, (Bcl2l1) results in loss of specific neuron types, supporting the functional significance of parental biases. These findings reveal the remarkable complexity of genomic imprinting, with important implications for understanding the normal and diseased brain.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Julio D Perez

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Nimrod D Rubinstein

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Daniel E Fernandez

    Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Stephen W Santoro

    Neuroscience Program, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Leigh A Needleman

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Olivia Ho-Shing

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. John J Choi

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Mariela Zirlinger

    Cell Press, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Shau-Kwaun Chen

    National Chengchi University, Tapei, Taiwan
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Jun S Liu

    Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Catherine Dulac

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    dulac@fas.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    Catherine Dulac, Senior editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sacha B Nelson, Brandeis University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed within the facilities of the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences (HU/FAS) in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All animals were handled according to a protocol approved by the Harvard University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; protocol #97-03). The HU/FAS animal care and use program maintains full AAALAC accreditation, is assured with OLAW (A3593-01), and is currently registered with the USDA. Every effort was made to minimize animal suffering during this study.

Version history

  1. Received: April 2, 2015
  2. Accepted: July 2, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 3, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 23, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Perez 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

  • 4,422
    views
  • 939
    downloads
  • 73
    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. Julio D Perez
  2. Nimrod D Rubinstein
  3. Daniel E Fernandez
  4. Stephen W Santoro
  5. Leigh A Needleman
  6. Olivia Ho-Shing
  7. John J Choi
  8. Mariela Zirlinger
  9. Shau-Kwaun Chen
  10. Jun S Liu
  11. Catherine Dulac
(2015)
Quantitative and functional interrogation of parent-of-origin allelic expression biases in the brain
eLife 4:e07860.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07860

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07860

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.

    1. Neuroscience
    Emilio Salinas, Bashirul I Sheikh
    Insight

    Our ability to recall details from a remembered image depends on a single mechanism that is engaged from the very moment the image disappears from view.