- Question & Answer
- Open Access
© BioMed Central Ltd 2009
- Published: 22 May 2009
- Genetic Interaction
- Classical Geneticist
- Epistasis Analysis
- Synthetic Lethal Interaction
- Vulval Cell
Hmmm. Are you a classical geneticist, a population geneticist, or a medical doctor?
William Bateson coined this term about 100 years ago for a genetic interaction in which one mutation masks or suppresses the effects of another allele at another locus .
Two mutations have a genetic interaction when their combination yields a surprising phenotype that cannot be explained simply by the independent effects observed for each mutation alone.
RA Fisher used 'epistacy' and later 'epistasis' to describe genetic interactions more generally . We think that population geneticists hijacked this term over a decade after its coinage just to confuse the classical geneticists.
A thin film on the surface of a urine specimen. Enough said on that topic.
I'm confused. Epistasis seems to mean genetic interaction under both classical and population genetics definitions. What's the difference?
Epistasis under the classical definition describes only interactions in which one mutant phenotype is masked or suppressed in the presence of the other mutation. The population geneticist's definition includes classical epistasis, but also encompasses 'aggravating' or 'synthetic' interactions – where two mutations together yield a surprisingly deleterious phenotype .
Epistasis, in the classical sense, provides a logical framework for inferring biological pathways from biochemical and other experiments, because it suggests that two genes are working within the same pathway and sometimes in what order they act. This makes epistasis analysis a very important tool in functional genomics experiments where pairs of genes are systematically deleted so that any interactions can be detected and interpreted in terms of biological interactions or pathways . Epistasis analysis has already informed our understanding of the components and their order of action in every biological process we can think of.
Every biological process you can think of, maybe, but that doesn't help me. What kind of process are you talking about? And why doesn't non-classical epistasis tell you about pathways too?
All right, let us give you two examples.
First, the yeast genes BNI1 and BNR1, which encode so-called formin proteins involved in the nucleation of actin filaments, have an aggravating genetic interaction (epistasis in the non-classical sense). A mutation in either BNI1 or BNR1 causes cell polarity defects, but the yeast remain viable. However, deletion of both BNI1 and BNR1 in the same cells causes lethality (that is, they have a so-called synthetic lethal phenotype). The BNI1 and BNR1 pair exemplifies an aggravating interaction – and the information to be gained from non-classical epistasis more generally.
Not always. This is a good rule of thumb for positive regulatory pathways, like the one in the example we have just given, in which each step provides the basis for the next, or for biosynthetic pathways where genes encode enzymes that convert a substrate into a product.
But how do I know whether I am dealing with a positive-regulatory or biosynthetic pathway, or a negative regulatory pathway, in which the interpretations of epistasis are polar opposites?
Note that not every upstream-downstream relationship exhibits an 'epistatic to' relationship. For example, two mutant genes may yield the same phenotype if, for example, one gene product is required to recruit the other into an active complex. In such cases, we might expect the double mutation to yield the same pathway-disrupting phenotype as either alone. This kind of genetic interaction has been called 'complementary gene action', although some prefer the term 'coequality' .
On the other hand, mutations that don't cause complete loss of function can be a problem. Let's go back to the nematode sex-determining pathway in which HER negatively regulates TRA. But now assume that while the tra mutations are null, the ones in her are leaky – or hypomorphic, in the terminology (also devised by HJ Muller in 1932 ). The normal function of HER is to turn off TRA. So in a her mutant, TRA is turned on. Now in a double mutant in which the tra allele is null, you get XX animals becoming male, as described above, and so tra is epistatic to her. But if the tra allele is not null, then in the double mutant the XX animals may still take on some hermaphrodite character together with some male character, so the epistatic relationship would be unclear.
As far as I can see, epistasis analysis works properly only if you already know the pathway functions – so what use is it?
Not at all! Taking the torso pathway as an example, the remarkable thing is that the pathway was figured out using genetic experiments before either gene was cloned and found to be in the one case a receptor and in the other a transcription factor. Genetic and molecular experiments complement each other: if only molecular biology were available, there would have been no way of linking the receptor and the transcription factor in regulating the same developmental event; while, if only genetics had been available, then no understanding of the mechanism would have been possible. As another example, the first-known microRNA, lin-4, was first shown to be a repressor of its target gene, lin-14, based largely on the observation that lin-14 null mutations cause a phenotype opposite to that of lin-4(lf) and are epistatic to lin-4(lf) .
No. Although some co-equal interactions may correspond to upstream-downstream relationships that may be revealed when the right mutation comes along, many may simply correspond to genes that are working together as a cohesive unit. For example, a systematic genetic analysis of a well studied set of DNA repair genes found nine out of ten co-equal genetic interactions corresponded to protein interactions , and these included a 'clique' of co-equal interactions amongst all pairs of the four genes encoding a single complex (the SHU complex).
As we have already said, there has been a recent wave of information from functional genomics experiments, including efforts to systematically map genetic interactions. The availability of these data, combined with information on genome variation from next generation sequencing and other techniques, means that we have a remarkable opportunity to apply genetic analysis to reveal components and order of action in biological systems on a global scale. Systematic study of pairwise interactions is now feasible, and for genetically accessible systems such as yeast may even encompass all gene pairs.
One kind of analysis is comparison of genetic interaction profiles. For example, if gene A has 12 synthetic lethal interaction partners, and gene B has synthetic lethal interaction with the same 12 genes, their genetic interaction profiles are entirely overlapping. Indeed, several systematic studies have now clearly shown that clusters of genes with similar profiles often correspond to protein complexes or other biochemical modules, leading to many specific (and subsequently confirmed) biochemical predictions [10–12]. As just one example, YMR299C (now called DYN3) was predicted on this basis to be part of the dynein-dynactin pathway, which is involved in spindle assembly, nuclear movement and spindle orientation during cell division , a prediction later confirmed .
Maybe. But you may wish to consider alternatives such as a career in politics or, failing that, investment banking.
- Bateson W: Facts limiting the theory of heredity. Science. 1907, 26: 647-660. 10.1126/science.26.671.647.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fisher RA: The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinb. 1918, 52: 399-433.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Guarente L: Synthetic enhancement in gene interaction: a genetic tool come of age. Trends Genet. 1993, 10: 362-366. 10.1016/0168-9525(93)90042-G.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Avery L, Wasserman S: Ordering gene function: the interpretation of epistasis in regulatory hierarchies. Trends Genet. 1992, 9: 312-316.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huang LS, Sternberg PW: Genetic dissection of developmental pathways. Wormbook. 2006, doi/10.1895/wormbook.1.88.2.Google Scholar
- St Onge RP, Mani R, Oh J, Proctor M, Fung E, Davis RW, Nislow C, Roth FP, Giaever G: Systematic pathway analysis using high-resolution fitness profiling of combinatorial gene deletions. Nat Genet. 2007, 39: 199-206. 10.1038/ng1948.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Strecker TR, Halsell SR, Fisher WW, Lipshitz HD: Reciprocal effects of hyper-and hypoactivity mutations in the Drosophila pattern gene torso. Science. 1989, 243: 1062-1066. 10.1126/science.2922596.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muller HJ: Further studies on the nature and causes of gene mutations. Int Congr Genet. 1932, 6: 213-255.Google Scholar
- Lee RC, Feinbaum RL, Ambros V: The C. elegans heterochronic gene lin-4 encodes small RNAs with complementarity to lin-14. Cell. 1993, 75: 843-854. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90529-Y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tong AH, Lesage G, Bader GD, Ding H, Xu H, Xin X, Young J, Berriz GF, Brost RL, Chang M, Chen Y, Cheng X, Chua G, Friesen H, Goldberg DS, Haynes J, Humphries C, He G, Hussein S, Ke L, Krogan N, Li Z, Levinson JN, Lu H, Ménard P, Munyana C, Parsons AB, Ryan O, Tonikian R, Roberts T, et al: Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science. 2004, 303: 808-813. 10.1126/science.1091317.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schuldiner M, Collins SR, Thompson NJ, Denic V, Bhamidipati A, Punna T, Ihmels J, Andrews B, Boone C, Greenblatt JF, Weissman JS, Krogan NJ: Exploration of the function and organization of the yeast early secretory pathway through an epistatic miniarray profile. Cell. 2005, 123: 507-519. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ye P, Peyser BD, Pan X, Boeke JD, Spencer FA, Bader JS: Gene function prediction from congruent synthetic lethal interactions in yeast. Mol Syst Biol. 2005, 1: 20050026-10.1038/msb4100034.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee W-H, Kaiser MA, Cooper JA: The Offloading model for dynein function: differential function of motor subunits. J Cell Biol. 2005, 168: 201-207. 10.1083/jcb.200407036.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar