Article | Published:

Effect of natural genetic variation on enhancer selection and function

Nature volume 503, pages 487492 (28 November 2013) | Download Citation

Abstract

The mechanisms by which genetic variation affects transcription regulation and phenotypes at the nucleotide level are incompletely understood. Here we use natural genetic variation as an in vivo mutagenesis screen to assess the genome-wide effects of sequence variation on lineage-determining and signal-specific transcription factor binding, epigenomics and transcriptional outcomes in primary macrophages from different mouse strains. We find substantial genetic evidence to support the concept that lineage-determining transcription factors define epigenetic and transcriptomic states by selecting enhancer-like regions in the genome in a collaborative fashion and facilitating binding of signal-dependent factors. This hierarchical model of transcription factor function suggests that limited sets of genomic data for lineage-determining transcription factors and informative histone modifications can be used for the prioritization of disease-associated regulatory variants.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

Data deposits

Data are available in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession GSE46494.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9362–9367 (2009)

  2. 2.

    et al. Breast cancer risk-associated SNPs modulate the affinity of chromatin for FOXA1 and alter gene expression. Nature Genet. 44, 1191–1198 (2012)

  3. 3.

    et al. DNase I sensitivity QTLs are a major determinant of human expression variation. Nature 482, 390–394 (2012)

  4. 4.

    et al. Dissecting the regulatory architecture of gene expression QTLs. Genome Biol. 13, R7 (2012)

  5. 5.

    et al. A map of open chromatin in human pancreatic islets. Nature Genet. 42, 255–259 (2010)

  6. 6.

    et al. Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Mol. Cell 38, 576–589 (2010)

  7. 7.

    et al. Variation in transcription factor binding among humans. Science 328, 232–235 (2010)

  8. 8.

    , , & Widespread site-dependent buffering of human regulatory polymorphism. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002599 (2012)

  9. 9.

    et al. Heritable individual-specific and allele-specific chromatin signatures in humans. Science 328, 235–239 (2010)

  10. 10.

    et al. Effects of sequence variation on differential allelic transcription factor occupancy and gene expression. Genome Res. 22, 860–869 (2012)

  11. 11.

    , , , & Linking disease associations with regulatory information in the human genome. Genome Res. 22, 1748–1759 (2012)

  12. 12.

    et al. A high-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation approach reveals principles of dynamic gene regulation in mammals. Mol. Cell 47, 810–822 (2012)

  13. 13.

    et al. Master transcription factors determine cell-type-specific responses to TGF-β signaling. Cell 147, 565–576 (2011)

  14. 14.

    , & Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors’ initial engagement with the genome. Cell 151, 994–1004 (2012)

  15. 15.

    et al. Lineage regulators direct BMP and Wnt pathways to cell-specific programs during differentiation and regeneration. Cell 147, 577–589 (2011)

  16. 16.

    et al. Identification and characterization of enhancers controlling the inflammatory gene expression program in macrophages. Immunity 32, 317–328 (2010)

  17. 17.

    et al. Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Nature 477, 289–294 (2011)

  18. 18.

    Nucleosome-mediated cooperativity between transcription factors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22534–22539 (2010)

  19. 19.

    et al. Nucleosome dynamics define transcriptional enhancers. Nature Genet. 42, 343–347 (2010)

  20. 20.

    et al. Histone H3K27ac separates active from poised enhancers and predicts developmental state. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 21931–21936 (2010)

  21. 21.

    et al. Remodeling of the enhancer landscape during macrophage activation is coupled to enhancer transcription. Mol. Cell 51, 310–325 (2013)

  22. 22.

    & Genetics of global gene expression. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 862–872 (2006)

  23. 23.

    et al. Unraveling inflammatory responses using systems genetics and gene-environment interactions in macrophages. Cell 151, 658–670 (2012)

  24. 24.

    et al. Open chromatin defined by DNaseI and FAIRE identifies regulatory elements that shape cell-type identity. Genome Res. 21, 1757–1767 (2011)

  25. 25.

    et al. A high-resolution association mapping panel for the dissection of complex traits in mice. Genome Res. 20, 281–290 (2010)

  26. 26.

    et al. Kdo2-Lipid A of Escherichia coli, a defined endotoxin that activates macrophages via TLR-4. J. Lipid Res. 47, 1097–1111 (2006)

  27. 27.

    Transcriptional regulation in the innate immune system. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 24, 51–57 (2012)

  28. 28.

    et al. Extensive characterization of NF-κΒ binding uncovers non-canonical motifs and advances the interpretation of genetic functional traits. Genome Biol. 12, R70 (2011)

  29. 29.

    et al. Mechanisms of in vivo binding site selection of the hematopoietic master transcription factor PU.1. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 6391–6402 (2013)

  30. 30.

    et al. DNA-binding specificities of human transcription factors. Cell 152, 327–339 (2013)

  31. 31.

    et al. High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129, 823–837 (2007)

  32. 32.

    et al. Reprogramming transcription by distinct classes of enhancers functionally defined by eRNA. Nature 474, 390–394 (2011)

  33. 33.

    , , & Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009)

  34. 34.

    & Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nature Methods 9, 357–359 (2012)

  35. 35.

    Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 57, 289–300 (1995)

  36. 36.

    et al. A sequence-based variation map of 8.27 million SNPs in inbred mouse strains. Nature 448, 1050–1053 (2007)

  37. 37.

    et al. Fine mapping in 94 inbred mouse strains using a high-density haplotype resource. Genetics 185, 1081–1095 (2010)

  38. 38.

    et al. Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics 178, 1709–1723 (2008)

  39. 39.

    , , & Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics 21, 263–265 (2005)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. J. Lusis for providing access to eQTL data (http://systems.genetics.ucla.edu/) and for productive conversations. We thank D. Pollard for discussions and suggestions, and L. Bautista for assistance with figure preparation. These studies were supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants DK091183, CA17390 and DK063491 (C.K.G.). M.U.K. was supported by the Foundation Leducq Career Development award and grants from Academy of Finland, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research and Finnish Cultural Foundation, North Savo Regional fund. C.E.R. was supported by the American Heart Association Western States Affiliates (12POST11760017) and the NIH (5T32DK007494).

Author information

Author notes

    • S. Heinz
    •  & C. E. Romanoski

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0651, La Jolla, California 92093, USA

    • S. Heinz
    • , C. E. Romanoski
    • , C. Benner
    • , K. A. Allison
    • , M. U. Kaikkonen
    •  & C. K. Glass
  2. Integrative Genomics and Bioinformatics Core, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA

    • C. Benner
  3. San Diego Center for Systems Biology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093, USA

    • C. Benner
    •  & C. K. Glass
  4. Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland

    • M. U. Kaikkonen
  5. Department of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, 3000 Terasaki Life Sciences Building, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA

    • L. D. Orozco
  6. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0651, La Jolla, California 92093, USA

    • C. K. Glass

Authors

  1. Search for S. Heinz in:

  2. Search for C. E. Romanoski in:

  3. Search for C. Benner in:

  4. Search for K. A. Allison in:

  5. Search for M. U. Kaikkonen in:

  6. Search for L. D. Orozco in:

  7. Search for C. K. Glass in:

Contributions

S.H., C.K.G. and C.E.R. designed the study; S.H., C.E.R., K.A.A., M.U.K. and L.D.O. performed experiments; C.E.R. performed all genetic-variation-related analysis; C.B. wrote custom code for HOMER2 and analysed data; K.A.A. and S.H. analysed data; C.E.R., S.H. and C.K.G. wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. K. Glass.

Extended data

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 1 - HOMER-formatted motif files for the motifs used for strain-specific motif finding listed in Extended Data Figure 3a,b

    The header rows, which begin with ">", list the consensus motif, the motif name, and the log-odds threshold above which a given sequence is considered to be positive for the motif. Below each header is the position weight matrix that lists the frequency of each nucleotide (A, C, G, T in the columns from left to right, respectively) at each position (rows) of the motif from top to bottom.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Table 2 - Strain-specific PU.1-bound loci where NOD broke the C57BL6/BALBc haplotypes

    Loci are shown in rows. The number of variants at each region is shown between C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ in column 4. The number of variants with alleles matching the binding pattern observed across NOD, C57BL/6J, and BALB/cJ are shown in column 5.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Table 3 - Strain-similar loci cloned for luciferase reporter assays

    The genomic location, variant information, strain-specific motif information, and primer sequences used to clone strain-similar loci are shown in columns for the 9 loci tested (data in Extended Data Figure 10a).

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12615

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.