Functional dynamic genetic effects on gene regulation are specific to particular cell types and environmental conditions

  1. Anthony S Findley
  2. Alan Monziani
  3. Allison L Richards
  4. Katherine Rhodes
  5. Michelle C Ward
  6. Cynthia A Kalita
  7. Adnan Alazizi
  8. Ali Pazokitoroudi
  9. Sriram Sankararaman
  10. Xiaoquan Wen
  11. David E Lanfear
  12. Roger Pique-Regi  Is a corresponding author
  13. Yoav Gilad  Is a corresponding author
  14. Francesca Luca  Is a corresponding author
  1. Wayne State University, United States
  2. University of Chicago, United States
  3. UCLA, United States
  4. University of Michigan, United States
  5. Henry Ford Hospital, United States

Abstract

Genetic effects on gene expression and splicing can be modulated by cellular and environmental factors; yet interactions between genotypes, cell type and treatment have not been comprehensively studied together. We used an induced pluripotent stem cell system to study multiple cell types derived from the same individuals and exposed them to a large panel of treatments. Cellular responses involved different genes and pathways for gene expression and splicing, and were highly variable across contexts. For thousands of genes, we identified variable allelic expression across contexts and characterized different types of gene-environment interactions, many of which are associated with complex traits. Promoter functional and evolutionary features distinguished genes with elevated allelic imbalance mean and variance. On average half of the genes with dynamic regulatory interactions were missed by large eQTL mapping studies, indicating the importance of exploring multiple treatments to reveal previously unrecognized regulatory loci that may be important for disease.

Data availability

Sequencing files have been uploaded to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under Bioproject PRJNA694697

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anthony S Findley

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9922-3076
  2. Alan Monziani

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Allison L Richards

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Katherine Rhodes

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Michelle C Ward

    Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1485-320X
  6. Cynthia A Kalita

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Adnan Alazizi

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ali Pazokitoroudi

    Department of Computer Science,, UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sriram Sankararaman

    Department of Computer Science,, UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Xiaoquan Wen

    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. David E Lanfear

    Center for Individualized and Genomic Medicine Research, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Roger Pique-Regi

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    For correspondence
    rpique@wayne.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1262-2275
  13. Yoav Gilad

    Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    gilad@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8284-8926
  14. Francesca Luca

    Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    For correspondence
    fluca@wayne.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8252-9052

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM109215)

  • Roger Pique-Regi
  • Francesca Luca

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM131726)

  • Yoav Gilad

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (F30GM131580)

  • Anthony S Findley

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM125055)

  • Sriram Sankararaman

National Science Foundation (III-1705121)

  • Ali Pazokitoroudi
  • Sriram Sankararaman

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen CJ Parker, University of Michigan, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 1, 2021
  2. Accepted: May 13, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 14, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 1, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Findley 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

  • 3,745
    views
  • 434
    downloads
  • 41
    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. Anthony S Findley
  2. Alan Monziani
  3. Allison L Richards
  4. Katherine Rhodes
  5. Michelle C Ward
  6. Cynthia A Kalita
  7. Adnan Alazizi
  8. Ali Pazokitoroudi
  9. Sriram Sankararaman
  10. Xiaoquan Wen
  11. David E Lanfear
  12. Roger Pique-Regi
  13. Yoav Gilad
  14. Francesca Luca
(2021)
Functional dynamic genetic effects on gene regulation are specific to particular cell types and environmental conditions
eLife 10:e67077.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67077

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67077

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Lucie Crhak Khaitova, Pavlina Mikulkova ... Karel Riha
    Research Article

    Heat stress is a major threat to global crop production, and understanding its impact on plant fertility is crucial for developing climate-resilient crops. Despite the known negative effects of heat stress on plant reproduction, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Here, we investigated the impact of elevated temperature on centromere structure and chromosome segregation during meiosis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Consistent with previous studies, heat stress leads to a decline in fertility and micronuclei formation in pollen mother cells. Our results reveal that elevated temperature causes a decrease in the amount of centromeric histone and the kinetochore protein BMF1 at meiotic centromeres with increasing temperature. Furthermore, we show that heat stress increases the duration of meiotic divisions and prolongs the activity of the spindle assembly checkpoint during meiosis I, indicating an impaired efficiency of the kinetochore attachments to spindle microtubules. Our analysis of mutants with reduced levels of centromeric histone suggests that weakened centromeres sensitize plants to elevated temperature, resulting in meiotic defects and reduced fertility even at moderate temperatures. These results indicate that the structure and functionality of meiotic centromeres in Arabidopsis are highly sensitive to heat stress, and suggest that centromeres and kinetochores may represent a critical bottleneck in plant adaptation to increasing temperatures.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.