A computational framework for the inheritance of genomic imprinting for complex traits

Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, USA.
Briefings in Bioinformatics (Impact Factor: 9.62). 05/2011; 13(1):34-45. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbr023
Source: PubMed


Genetic imprinting, by which the expression of a gene depends on the parental origin of its alleles, may be subjected to reprogramming through each generation. Currently, such reprogramming is limited to qualitative description only, lacking more precise quantitative estimation for its extent, pattern and mechanism. Here, we present a computational framework for analyzing the magnitude of genetic imprinting and its transgenerational inheritance mode. This quantitative model is based on the breeding scheme of reciprocal backcrosses between reciprocal F(1) hybrids and original inbred parents, in which the transmission of genetic imprinting across generations can be tracked. We define a series of quantitative genetic parameters that describe the extent and transmission mode of genetic imprinting and further estimate and test these parameters within a genetic mapping framework using a new powerful computational algorithm. The model and algorithm described will enable geneticists to identify and map imprinted quantitative trait loci and dictate a comprehensive atlas of developmental and epigenetic mechanisms related to genetic imprinting. We illustrate the new discovery of the role of genetic imprinting in regulating hyperoxic acute lung injury survival time using a mouse reciprocal backcross design.

30 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The formation of phenotypic traits, such as biomass production, tumor volume and viral abundance, undergoes a complex process in which interactions between genes and developmental stimuli take place at each level of biological organization from cells to organisms. Traditional studies emphasize the impact of genes by directly linking DNA-based markers with static phenotypic values. Functional mapping, derived to detect genes that control developmental processes using growth equations, has proven powerful for addressing questions about the roles of genes in development. By treating phenotypic formation as a cohesive system using differential equations, a different approach-systems mapping-dissects the system into interconnected elements and then map genes that determine a web of interactions among these elements, facilitating our understanding of the genetic machineries for phenotypic development. Here, we argue that genetic mapping can play a more important role in studying the genotype-phenotype relationship by filling the gaps in the biochemical and regulatory process from DNA to end-point phenotype. We describe a new framework, named network mapping, to study the genetic architecture of complex traits by integrating the regulatory networks that cause a high-order phenotype. Network mapping makes use of a system of differential equations to quantify the rule by which transcriptional, proteomic and metabolomic components interact with each other to organize into a functional whole. The synthesis of functional mapping, systems mapping and network mapping provides a novel avenue to decipher a comprehensive picture of the genetic landscape of complex phenotypes that underlie economically and biomedically important traits.
    Briefings in Bioinformatics 08/2012; 15(1). DOI:10.1093/bib/bbs049 · 9.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traditional approaches for genetic mapping are to simply associate the genotypes of a quantitative trait locus (QTL) with the phenotypic variation of a complex trait. A more mechanistic strategy has emerged to dissect the trait phenotype into its structural components and map specific QTLs that control the mechanistic and structural formation of a complex trait. We describe and assess such a strategy, called structural mapping, by integrating the internal structural basis of trait formation into a QTL mapping framework. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been instrumental for describing the structural components of a phenotypic trait and their interactions. By building robust mathematical models on circuit EIS data and embedding these models within a mixture model-based likelihood for QTL mapping, structural mapping implements the EM algorithm to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of QTL genotype-specific EIS parameters. The uniqueness of structural mapping is to make it possible to test a number of hypotheses about the pattern of the genetic control of structural components. We validated structural mapping by analyzing an EIS data collected for QTL mapping of frost hardiness in a controlled cross of jujube trees. The statistical properties of parameter estimates were examined by simulation studies. Structural mapping can be a powerful alternative for genetic mapping of complex traits by taking account into the biological and physical mechanisms underlying their formation.
    Briefings in Bioinformatics 10/2012; 15(1). DOI:10.1093/bib/bbs067 · 9.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Despite our increasing recognition of the mechanisms that specify and propagate epigenetic states of gene expression, the pattern of how epigenetic modifications contribute to the overall genetic variation of a phenotypic trait remains largely elusive. Results We construct a quantitative model to explore the effect of epigenetic modifications that occur at specific rates on the genome. This model, derived from, but beyond, the traditional quantitative genetic theory that is founded on Mendel’s laws, allows questions concerning the prevalence and importance of epigenetic variation to be incorporated and addressed. Conclusions It provides a new avenue for bringing chromatin inheritance into the realm of complex traits, facilitating our understanding of the means by which phenotypic variation is generated.
    BMC Bioinformatics 10/2012; 13(1):274. DOI:10.1186/1471-2105-13-274 · 2.58 Impact Factor
Show more