Выбрать главу

This is a clear case of epigenetic inheritance of a disorder. Children with PWS and AS had exactly the same problem genetically – they were missing a specific region of chromosome 15. The only difference was how they inherited the abnormal chromosome. This is another example of a parent-of-origin effect.

There’s another way in which patients can inherit PWS or AS. Some patients with these disorders have two totally normal copies of chromosome 15. There are no deletions, and no other mutations of any type, and yet the children develop the conditions. To understand how this can be, it’s helpful to think back to the mice who inherited both copies of chromosome 11 from one parent. Some of the same researchers who unravelled the story of the PWS deletion showed that in certain examples of this condition, the children have two normal copies of chromosome 15. The trouble is, they’ve inherited both from their mother, and none from their father. This is known as uniparental disomy – one parent contributing two chromosomes[74]. In 1991, a team from the Institute of Child Health in London showed that some cases of AS were caused by the opposite form of uniparental disomy to PWS. The children had two normal copies of chromosome 15, but had inherited both from their father[75].

This reinforced the notion that PWS and AS are each examples of epigenetic diseases. The children with uniparental disomy of chromosome 15 had inherited exactly the right amount of DNA, they just hadn’t inherited it from each parent. Their cells contained all the correct genes, in all the correct amounts, and yet still they suffered from these severe disorders.

It’s important that we inherit this fairly small region of chromosome 15 in the right way because this region is normally imprinted. There are genes in this region that are only expressed from either the maternal or the paternal chromosome. One of these genes is called UBE3A. This gene is important for normal functioning in the brain, but it’s only expressed from the maternally inherited gene in this tissue. But what if a child doesn’t inherit a copy of UBE3A from its mother? This could happen if both copies of UBE3A came from the father, because of uniparental disomy of chromosome 15. Alternatively, the child might inherit a copy of chromosome 15 from its mother which lacked the UBE3A gene, because part of the chromosome had been lost. In these cases, the child can’t express UBE3A protein in its brain, and this leads to the development of the symptoms of Angelman syndrome.

Conversely, there are genes that are normally only expressed from the paternal version of this stretch of chromosome 15. This includes a gene called SNORD116, but others may also be important. The same scenario applies as for UBE3A, but replace the word maternal with paternal. If a child doesn’t inherit this region of chromosome 15 from its father, it develops Prader-Willi syndrome.

There are other examples of imprinting disorders in humans. The most famous is called Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, again named after the people who first described it in the medical literature[76][77]. This disorder is characterised by over-growth of tissues, so that the babies are born with over-developed muscles including the tongue, and a range of other symptoms[78]. This condition has a slightly different mechanism to the ones described above. When imprinting goes wrong in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, both the maternal and paternal copies of a gene on chromosome 11 get switched on, when normally only the paternally-derived version should be expressed. The key gene seems to be IGF2, which codes for the growth factor protein that we met earlier, on mouse chromosome 7. By expressing two copies of this gene, rather than just one, twice as much IGF2 protein as normal is produced and the foetus grows too much.

The opposite phenotype to Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is a condition called Silver-Russell syndrome[79][80]. Children with this disorder are characterised by retarded growth before and after birth and other symptoms associated with late development[81]. Most cases of this condition are also caused by problems in the same region of chromosome 11 as in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, but in Silver-Russell syndrome IGF2 protein expression is depressed, and the growth of the foetus is dampened down.

The epigenetic imprint

So, imprinting refers to a situation where there is expression of only one member of a pair of genes, and the expression may be either maternal or paternal. What controls which gene is switched on? It probably isn’t surprising to learn that DNA methylation plays a really big role in this. DNA methylation switches genes off. Therefore, if a paternally-inherited region of a chromosome is methylated, the paternally-derived genes in this region will be repressed.

Let’s take the example of the UBE3A gene which we encountered in the discussion of Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. Normally, the copy inherited from the father contains methylated DNA and the gene is switched off. The copy inherited from the mother doesn’t have this methylation mark, and the gene is switched on. Something similar happens with Igf2r in mice. The paternal version of this is usually methylated, and the gene is inactive. The maternal version is non-methylated and the gene is expressed.

While a role for DNA methylation may not have come as a shock, it may be surprising to learn that it is often not the gene body that is methylated. The part of the gene that codes for protein is epigenetically broadly the same when we compare the maternal and paternal copies of the chromosome. It’s the region of the chromosome that controls the expression of the gene that is differently methylated between the two genomes.

Imagine a night-time summer party in a friend’s garden, beautifully lit by candles scattered between the plants. Unfortunately, this lovely ambience is constantly ruined because the movement of the guests keeps triggering a motion detector on a security system and turning on a floodlight. The floodlight is too high on the wall to be able to cover it, but finally it dawns on the guests that they don’t need to cover the light. They need to cover the sensor that is triggering the light’s activity. This is very much what happens in imprinting.

The methylation, or lack of it, is on regions known as imprinting control regions (ICRs). In some cases, imprinting control is very straightforward to understand. The promoter region of a gene is methylated on the gene inherited from one parent, and not on the one from the other. This methylation keeps a gene switched off. This works when there is a single gene in a chromosome region that is imprinted. But many imprinted genes are arranged in clusters, all very close to one another in a single stretch on one chromosome. Some of the genes in the cluster will be expressed from the maternally-derived chromosome, others from the paternally-derived one. DNA methylation is still the key feature, but other factors help it to carry out its function.

The imprinting control region may operate over long distances, and certain stretches may bind large proteins. These proteins act like roadblocks in a city, insulating different stretches on a chromosome from one another. This gives the imprinting process an additional level of sophistication, by inserting diversions between different genes. Because of this, an imprinting control region may operate over many thousands of base-pairs, but it doesn’t mean that every single gene in those thousands of base-pairs is affected the same way. Different genes in a particular imprinted stretch of chromatin may loop out from their chromosome to form physical associations with each other, so that repressed genes huddle together in a sort of chromatin knot. Activated genes from the same stretch of chromosome may cling together in a different bundle[82].

вернуться

74

Nicholls et al. (1989), Nature 342: 281–185.

вернуться

75

Malcolm et al. (1991), The Lancet 337: 694–697.

вернуться

76

Wiedemann (1964), J Genet Hum. 13: 223.

вернуться

77

Beckwith (1969), Birth Defects 5: 188.

вернуться

78

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/130650

вернуться

79

Silver et al. (1953), Pediatrics 12: 368–376.

вернуться

80

Russell (1954), Proc Royal Soc Medicine. 47: 1040–1044.

вернуться

81

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/180860

вернуться

82

For a useful review, see Gabory et al. (2010), BioEssays 32: 473–480.