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.

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.

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

  • 3,956
    views
  • 845
    downloads
  • 90
    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. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Julie N Chuong, Nadav Ben Nun ... David Gresham
    Research Article

    Copy number variants (CNVs) are an important source of genetic variation underlying rapid adaptation and genome evolution. Whereas point mutation rates vary with genomic location and local DNA features, the role of genome architecture in the formation and evolutionary dynamics of CNVs is poorly understood. Previously, we found the GAP1 gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae undergoes frequent amplification and selection in glutamine-limitation. The gene is flanked by two long terminal repeats (LTRs) and proximate to an origin of DNA replication (autonomously replicating sequence, ARS), which likely promote rapid GAP1 CNV formation. To test the role of these genomic elements on CNV-mediated adaptive evolution, we evolved engineered strains lacking either the adjacent LTRs, ARS, or all elements in glutamine-limited chemostats. Using a CNV reporter system and neural network simulation-based inference (nnSBI) we quantified the formation rate and fitness effect of CNVs for each strain. Removal of local DNA elements significantly impacts the fitness effect of GAP1 CNVs and the rate of adaptation. In 177 CNV lineages, across all four strains, between 26% and 80% of all GAP1 CNVs are mediated by Origin Dependent Inverted Repeat Amplification (ODIRA) which results from template switching between the leading and lagging strand during DNA synthesis. In the absence of the local ARS, distal ones mediate CNV formation via ODIRA. In the absence of local LTRs, homologous recombination can mediate gene amplification following de novo retrotransposon events. Our study reveals that template switching during DNA replication is a prevalent source of adaptive CNVs.