Integration of genomics and transcriptomics predicts diabetic retinopathy susceptibility genes

  1. Andrew D Skol
  2. Segun C Jung
  3. Ana Marija Sokovic
  4. Siquan Chen
  5. Sarah Fazal
  6. Olukayode Sosina
  7. Poulami P Borkar
  8. Amy Lin
  9. Maria Sverdlov
  10. Dingcai Cao
  11. Anand Swaroop
  12. Ionut Bebu
  13. DCCT/ EDIC Study group
  14. Barbara E Stranger  Is a corresponding author
  15. Michael A Grassi  Is a corresponding author
  1. Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago,, United States
  2. NeoGenomics Laboratories, United States
  3. University Of Illinois at Chicago, United States
  4. The University of Chicago, United States
  5. Johns Hopkins University, United States
  6. National Institutes of Health, United States
  7. The George Washington University, United States
  8. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

We determined differential gene expression in response to high glucose in lymphoblastoid cell lines derived from matched individuals with type 1 diabetes with and without retinopathy. Those genes exhibiting the largest difference in glucose response were assessed for association to diabetic retinopathy in a genome-wide association study meta-analysis. Expression Quantitative Trait Loci (eQTLs) of the glucose response genes were tested for association with diabetic retinopathy. We detected an enrichment of the eQTLs from the glucose response genes among small association p-values and identified FLCN as a susceptibility gene for diabetic retinopathy. Expression of FLCN in response to glucose was greater in individuals with diabetic retinopathy. Independent cohorts of individuals with diabetes revealed an association of FLCN eQTLs to diabetic retinopathy. Mendelian randomization confirmed a direct positive effect of increased FLCN expression on retinopathy. Integrating genetic association with gene expression implicated FLCN as a disease gene for diabetic retinopathy.

Data availability

Source files and code for all the figures and tables have been provided, except for drawings, flowcharts and histopathology findings. We have also included links and references where appropriate.Figure 3 source data 5 and 6 are available on Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.zkh18938jAdditional data files can be found here: microarray expression data at Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession code GSE146615 and diabetic retinopathy GWAS data at UKBB archive (https://oxfile.ox.ac.uk/oxfile/work/extBox?id=825146B4380F72048D).

The following data sets were generated
    1. Skol A et al
    (2020) Figure 3 additional source data files
    Dryad Digital Repository, doi:10.5061/dryad.zkh18938j.
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew D Skol

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago,, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Segun C Jung

    Research and Development, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Aliso Viejo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ana Marija Sokovic

    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Siquan Chen

    Cellular Screening Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sarah Fazal

    Cellular Screening Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Olukayode Sosina

    Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Poulami P Borkar

    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Amy Lin

    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Maria Sverdlov

    Research Histology and Tissue Imaging Core, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dingcai Cao

    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Anand Swaroop

    National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1975-1141
  12. Ionut Bebu

    Biostatistics Center, The George Washington University, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. DCCT/ EDIC Study group

  14. Barbara E Stranger

    Pharmacology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    barbara.stranger@northwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Michael A Grassi

    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    grassim@uic.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8467-3223

Funding

National Eye Institute (R01EY023644)

  • Michael A Grassi

National Eye Institute (ZIAEY000546)

  • Anand Swaroop

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

Copyright

© 2020, Skol 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

  • 3,521
    views
  • 403
    downloads
  • 24
    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. Andrew D Skol
  2. Segun C Jung
  3. Ana Marija Sokovic
  4. Siquan Chen
  5. Sarah Fazal
  6. Olukayode Sosina
  7. Poulami P Borkar
  8. Amy Lin
  9. Maria Sverdlov
  10. Dingcai Cao
  11. Anand Swaroop
  12. Ionut Bebu
  13. DCCT/ EDIC Study group
  14. Barbara E Stranger
  15. Michael A Grassi
(2020)
Integration of genomics and transcriptomics predicts diabetic retinopathy susceptibility genes
eLife 9:e59980.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59980

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59980

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Dániel Molnár, Éva Viola Surányi ... Judit Toth
    Research Article

    The sustained success of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as a pathogen arises from its ability to persist within macrophages for extended periods and its limited responsiveness to antibiotics. Furthermore, the high incidence of resistance to the few available antituberculosis drugs is a significant concern, especially since the driving forces of the emergence of drug resistance are not clear. Drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis can emerge through de novo mutations, however, mycobacterial mutation rates are low. To unravel the effects of antibiotic pressure on genome stability, we determined the genetic variability, phenotypic tolerance, DNA repair system activation, and dNTP pool upon treatment with current antibiotics using Mycobacterium smegmatis. Whole-genome sequencing revealed no significant increase in mutation rates after prolonged exposure to first-line antibiotics. However, the phenotypic fluctuation assay indicated rapid adaptation to antibiotics mediated by non-genetic factors. The upregulation of DNA repair genes, measured using qPCR, suggests that genomic integrity may be maintained through the activation of specific DNA repair pathways. Our results, indicating that antibiotic exposure does not result in de novo adaptive mutagenesis under laboratory conditions, do not lend support to the model suggesting antibiotic resistance development through drug pressure-induced microevolution.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Sanjarbek Hudaiberdiev, Ivan Ovcharenko
    Research Article

    Enhancers and promoters are classically considered to be bound by a small set of transcription factors (TFs) in a sequence-specific manner. This assumption has come under increasing skepticism as the datasets of ChIP-seq assays of TFs have expanded. In particular, high-occupancy target (HOT) loci attract hundreds of TFs with often no detectable correlation between ChIP-seq peaks and DNA-binding motif presence. Here, we used a set of 1003 TF ChIP-seq datasets (HepG2, K562, H1) to analyze the patterns of ChIP-seq peak co-occurrence in combination with functional genomics datasets. We identified 43,891 HOT loci forming at the promoter (53%) and enhancer (47%) regions. HOT promoters regulate housekeeping genes, whereas HOT enhancers are involved in tissue-specific process regulation. HOT loci form the foundation of human super-enhancers and evolve under strong negative selection, with some of these loci being located in ultraconserved regions. Sequence-based classification analysis of HOT loci suggested that their formation is driven by the sequence features, and the density of mapped ChIP-seq peaks across TF-bound loci correlates with sequence features and the expression level of flanking genes. Based on the affinities to bind to promoters and enhancers we detected five distinct clusters of TFs that form the core of the HOT loci. We report an abundance of HOT loci in the human genome and a commitment of 51% of all TF ChIP-seq binding events to HOT locus formation thus challenging the classical model of enhancer activity and propose a model of HOT locus formation based on the existence of large transcriptional condensates.