An internal promoter underlies the difference in disease severity between N- and C-terminal truncation mutations of Titin

Abstract

Truncating mutations in the giant sarcomeric protein Titin result in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and skeletal myopathy. The most severely affected DCM patients harbor Titin truncations in the C-terminal two-thirds of the protein, suggesting that mutation position might influence disease mechanism. Using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we generated six zebrafish lines with Titin truncations in the N-terminal (Z-disk and I-band) and C-terminal (A-band) regions. Although all exons were constitutive, C-terminal mutations caused severe myopathy whereas N-terminal mutations demonstrated mild phenotypes. Surprisingly, neither mutation type acted as a dominant negative. Instead, we found a conserved internal promoter at the precise position where divergence in disease severity occurs, with the resulting protein product partially rescuing N-terminal truncations. In addition to its clinical implications, our work may shed light on a long-standing mystery regarding the architecture of the sarcomere.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jun Zou

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Diana Tran

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mai Baalbaki

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ling Fung Tang

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Annie Poon

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Angelo Pelonero

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Erron W Titus

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Christiana Yuan

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chenxu Shi

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Shruthi Patchava

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Elizabeth Halper

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jasmine Garg

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Irina Movsesyan

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Chaoying Yin

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Roland Wu

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Lisa D Wilsbacher

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jiandong Liu

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, McAllister Heart Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Ronald L Hager

    Department of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Shaun Coughlin

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Martin Jinek

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Clive R Pullinger

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. John P Kane

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Daniel O Hart

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Pui-Yan Kwok

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Rahul C Deo

    Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    rahul.deo@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Harry C Dietz, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All zebrafish and mouse experimental work conformed to the 'Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals' published by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1996). Animal work was performed according to institutional guidelines with the full approval of the University of California Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocols AN090013-03 and AN107039-01)

Human subjects: Human genetic studies were performed according to institutional guidelines and with the full approval of the University of California San Francisco Committee on Human Research (CHR#10-00207) and all studies performed were in keeping with the original informed consent forms. Informed consent and consent to publish was obtained from all participants.

Version history

  1. Received: June 13, 2015
  2. Accepted: October 15, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 16, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 1, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Zou 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

  • 3,923
    views
  • 833
    downloads
  • 86
    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. Jun Zou
  2. Diana Tran
  3. Mai Baalbaki
  4. Ling Fung Tang
  5. Annie Poon
  6. Angelo Pelonero
  7. Erron W Titus
  8. Christiana Yuan
  9. Chenxu Shi
  10. Shruthi Patchava
  11. Elizabeth Halper
  12. Jasmine Garg
  13. Irina Movsesyan
  14. Chaoying Yin
  15. Roland Wu
  16. Lisa D Wilsbacher
  17. Jiandong Liu
  18. Ronald L Hager
  19. Shaun Coughlin
  20. Martin Jinek
  21. Clive R Pullinger
  22. John P Kane
  23. Daniel O Hart
  24. Pui-Yan Kwok
  25. Rahul C Deo
(2015)
An internal promoter underlies the difference in disease severity between N- and C-terminal truncation mutations of Titin
eLife 4:e09406.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09406

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09406

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Samuel Pattillo Smith, Gregory Darnell ... Lorin Crawford
    Research Article

    LD score regression (LDSC) is a method to estimate narrow-sense heritability from genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics alone, making it a fast and popular approach. In this work, we present interaction-LD score (i-LDSC) regression: an extension of the original LDSC framework that accounts for interactions between genetic variants. By studying a wide range of generative models in simulations, and by re-analyzing 25 well-studied quantitative phenotypes from 349,468 individuals in the UK Biobank and up to 159,095 individuals in BioBank Japan, we show that the inclusion of a cis-interaction score (i.e. interactions between a focal variant and proximal variants) recovers genetic variance that is not captured by LDSC. For each of the 25 traits analyzed in the UK Biobank and BioBank Japan, i-LDSC detects additional variation contributed by genetic interactions. The i-LDSC software and its application to these biobanks represent a step towards resolving further genetic contributions of sources of non-additive genetic effects to complex trait variation.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Yannick Schäfer, Katja Palitzsch ... Jaanus Suurväli
    Research Article Updated

    Copy number variation in large gene families is well characterized for plant resistance genes, but similar studies are rare in animals. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) has hundreds of NLR immune genes, making this species ideal for studying this phenomenon. By sequencing 93 zebrafish from multiple wild and laboratory populations, we identified a total of 1513 NLRs, many more than the previously known 400. Approximately half of those are present in all wild populations, but only 4% were found in 80% or more of the individual fish. Wild fish have up to two times as many NLRs per individual and up to four times as many NLRs per population than laboratory strains. In contrast to the massive variability of gene copies, nucleotide diversity in zebrafish NLR genes is very low: around half of the copies are monomorphic and the remaining ones have very few polymorphisms, likely a signature of purifying selection.