1. Genetics and Genomics

Integration of human pancreatic islet genomic data refines regulatory mechanisms at Type 2 Diabetes susceptibility loci

  1. Matthias Thurner
  2. Martijn van de Bunt
  3. Jason M Torres
  4. Anubha Mahajan
  5. Vibe Nylander
  6. Amanda J Bennett
  7. Kyle J Gaulton
  8. Amy Barrett
  9. Carla Burrows
  10. Christopher G Bell
  11. Robert Lowe
  12. Stephan Beck
  13. Vardhman K Rakyan
  14. Anna L Gloyn
  15. Mark I McCarthy  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States
  3. Kings College London, United Kingdom
  4. Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, United Kingdom
  5. University College London, United Kingdom
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31977
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Matthias Thurner
  2. Martijn van de Bunt
  3. Jason M Torres
  4. Anubha Mahajan
  5. Vibe Nylander
  6. Amanda J Bennett
  7. Kyle J Gaulton
  8. Amy Barrett
  9. Carla Burrows
  10. Christopher G Bell
  11. Robert Lowe
  12. Stephan Beck
  13. Vardhman K Rakyan
  14. Anna L Gloyn
  15. Mark I McCarthy
(2018)
Integration of human pancreatic islet genomic data refines regulatory mechanisms at Type 2 Diabetes susceptibility loci
eLife 7:e31977.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31977
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Human genetic studies have emphasised the dominant contribution of pancreatic islet dysfunction to development of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). However, limited annotation of the islet epigenome has constrained efforts to define the molecular mechanisms mediating the, largely regulatory, signals revealed by Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). We characterised patterns of chromatin accessibility (ATAC-seq, n=17) and DNA methylation (whole-genome bisulphite sequencing, n=10) in human islets, generating high-resolution chromatin state maps through integration with established ChIP-seq marks. We found enrichment of GWAS signals for T2D and fasting glucose was concentrated in subsets of islet enhancers characterised by open chromatin and hypomethylation, with the former annotation predominant. At several loci (including CDC123, ADCY5, KLHDC5) the combination of fine-mapping genetic data and chromatin state enrichment maps, supplemented by allelic imbalance in chromatin accessibility pinpointed likely causal variants. The combination of increasingly-precise genetic and islet epigenomic information accelerates definition of causal mechanisms implicated in T2D pathogenesis.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
    1. M Thurner et al
    (2017) Islet open chromatin data
    Available through controlled access at the EGA website (study accession no: EGAS00001002592).
    http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ega/
    1. M Thurner et al
    (2017) Islet DNA methylation data
    Available through controlled access at the EGA website (study accession no: EGAS00001002592).
    http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ega/
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthias Thurner

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7329-9769

  2. Martijn van de Bunt

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6744-6125

  3. Jason M Torres

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  4. Anubha Mahajan

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  5. Vibe Nylander

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Amanda J Bennett

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  7. Kyle J Gaulton

    Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. Amy Barrett

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  9. Carla Burrows

    Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  10. Christopher G Bell

    Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  11. Robert Lowe

    Centre for Genomics and Child Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  12. Stephan Beck

    Department of Cancer Biology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  13. Vardhman K Rakyan

    Centre for Genomics and Child Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  14. Anna L Gloyn

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1205-1844

  15. Mark I McCarthy

    The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mark.mccarthy@drl.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Mark I McCarthy, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4393-0510

Funding

Wellcome (90367)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (90532)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (106130)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (98381)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (095101/Z/10/Z)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (200837/Z/16/Z)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Wellcome (099673/Z/12/Z)

  • Matthias Thurner
  • Jason M Torres
  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

Novo Nordisk

  • Martijn van de Bunt

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (HEALTH-F4-2007-201413)

  • Vibe Nylander
  • Anna L Gloyn

Royal Society

  • Stephan Beck

National Institute for Health Research

  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

National Institutes of Health (U01-DK105535)

  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

National Institutes of Health (U01-DK085545)

  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

National Institutes of Health (R01-DK098032)

  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

National Institutes of Health (R01-MH090941)

  • Anna L Gloyn
  • Mark I McCarthy

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: The Human Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta (Pro00001754), the University of Oxford's Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC Reference: 2-15), or the Oxfordshire Regional Ethics Committee B (REC reference: 09/H0605/2) approved the studies. All organ donors provided informed consent for use of pancreatic tissue in research.

Copyright

© 2018, Thurner 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

  • 4,505
    views
  • 655
    downloads
  • 108
    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. Matthias Thurner
  2. Martijn van de Bunt
  3. Jason M Torres
  4. Anubha Mahajan
  5. Vibe Nylander
  6. Amanda J Bennett
  7. Kyle J Gaulton
  8. Amy Barrett
  9. Carla Burrows
  10. Christopher G Bell
  11. Robert Lowe
  12. Stephan Beck
  13. Vardhman K Rakyan
  14. Anna L Gloyn
  15. Mark I McCarthy
(2018)
Integration of human pancreatic islet genomic data refines regulatory mechanisms at Type 2 Diabetes susceptibility loci
eLife 7:e31977.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31977

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31977

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics

    Deterministic genetic barcoding for multiplexed behavioral and single-cell transcriptomic studies

    Jorge Blanco Mendana, Margaret Donovan ... Daryl M Gohl
    Tools and Resources

    Advances in single-cell sequencing technologies have provided novel insights into the dynamics of gene expression and cellular heterogeneity within tissues and have enabled the construction of transcriptomic cell atlases. However, linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data and positively identifying the cell types that correspond to gene expression clusters in single-cell sequencing data sets remains a challenge. We describe a straightforward genetic barcoding approach that takes advantage of the powerful genetic tools in Drosophila to allow in vivo tagging of defined cell populations. This method, called Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing (TaG-EM), involves inserting a DNA barcode just upstream of the polyadenylation site in a Gal4-inducible UAS-GFP construct so that the barcode sequence can be read out during single-cell sequencing, labeling a cell population of interest. By creating many such independently barcoded fly strains, TaG-EM enables positive identification of cell types in cell atlas projects, identification of multiplet droplets, and barcoding of experimental timepoints, conditions, and replicates. Furthermore, we demonstrate that TaG-EM barcodes can be read out using next-generation sequencing to facilitate population-scale behavioral measurements. Thus, TaG-EM has the potential to enable large-scale behavioral screens in addition to improving the ability to multiplex and reliably annotate single-cell transcriptomic experiments.

    1. Genetics and Genomics

    Intergenerational transport of double-stranded RNA in C. elegans can limit heritable epigenetic changes

    Nathan M Shugarts Devanapally, Aishwarya Sathya ... Antony M Jose
    Research Article

    RNAs in circulation carry sequence-specific regulatory information between cells in plant, animal, and host-pathogen systems. Such RNA can cross generational boundaries, as evidenced by somatic double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans silencing genes of matching sequence in progeny. Here we dissect the intergenerational path taken by dsRNA from parental circulation and discover that cytosolic import through the dsRNA importer SID-1 in the parental germline and/or developing progeny varies with developmental time and dsRNA substrates. Loss of SID-1 enhances initiation of heritable RNA silencing within the germline and causes changes in the expression of the sid-1-dependent gene sdg-1 that last for more than 100 generations after restoration of SID-1. The SDG-1 protein is enriched in perinuclear germ granules required for heritable RNA silencing but is expressed from a retrotransposon targeted by such silencing. This auto-inhibitory loop suggests how retrotransposons could persist by hosting genes that regulate their own silencing.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    The PRC2.1 subcomplex opposes G1 progression through regulation of CCND1 and CCND2

    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.