Cargando…

Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism

BACKGROUND: Variation in gene expression between two Drosophila melanogaster strains, as revealed by transcriptional profiling, seldom corresponded to variation in proximal promoter sequence for 34 genes analyzed. Two sets of protein-coding genes were selected from pre-existing microarray data: (1)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Rebecca Petersen, Feder, Martin E
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1192798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16107220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-6-110
_version_ 1782124815870590976
author Brown, Rebecca Petersen
Feder, Martin E
author_facet Brown, Rebecca Petersen
Feder, Martin E
author_sort Brown, Rebecca Petersen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Variation in gene expression between two Drosophila melanogaster strains, as revealed by transcriptional profiling, seldom corresponded to variation in proximal promoter sequence for 34 genes analyzed. Two sets of protein-coding genes were selected from pre-existing microarray data: (1) those whose expression varied significantly and reproducibly between strains, and (2) those whose transcript levels did not vary. Only genes whose regulation of expression was uncharacterized were chosen. At least one kB of the proximal promoters of 15–19 genes in each set was sequenced and compared between strains (Oregon R and Russian 2b). RESULTS: Of the many promoter polymorphisms, 89.6% were SNPs and 10.4% were indels, including homopolymer tracts, microsatellite repeats, and putative transposable element footprints. More than half of the SNPs were changes within a nucleotide class. Hypothetically, genes differing in expression between the two strains should have more proximal promoter polymorphisms than those whose expression is similar. The number, frequency, and type of polymorphism, however, were the same in both sets of genes. In fact, the promoters of six genes with significantly different mRNA expression were identical in sequence. CONCLUSION: For these genes, sequences external to the proximal promoter, such as enhancers or in trans, must play a greater role than the proximal promoter in transcriptomic variation between D. melanogaster strains.
format Text
id pubmed-1192798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11927982005-08-27 Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism Brown, Rebecca Petersen Feder, Martin E BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Variation in gene expression between two Drosophila melanogaster strains, as revealed by transcriptional profiling, seldom corresponded to variation in proximal promoter sequence for 34 genes analyzed. Two sets of protein-coding genes were selected from pre-existing microarray data: (1) those whose expression varied significantly and reproducibly between strains, and (2) those whose transcript levels did not vary. Only genes whose regulation of expression was uncharacterized were chosen. At least one kB of the proximal promoters of 15–19 genes in each set was sequenced and compared between strains (Oregon R and Russian 2b). RESULTS: Of the many promoter polymorphisms, 89.6% were SNPs and 10.4% were indels, including homopolymer tracts, microsatellite repeats, and putative transposable element footprints. More than half of the SNPs were changes within a nucleotide class. Hypothetically, genes differing in expression between the two strains should have more proximal promoter polymorphisms than those whose expression is similar. The number, frequency, and type of polymorphism, however, were the same in both sets of genes. In fact, the promoters of six genes with significantly different mRNA expression were identical in sequence. CONCLUSION: For these genes, sequences external to the proximal promoter, such as enhancers or in trans, must play a greater role than the proximal promoter in transcriptomic variation between D. melanogaster strains. BioMed Central 2005-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC1192798/ /pubmed/16107220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-6-110 Text en Copyright © 2005 Brown and Feder; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Brown, Rebecca Petersen
Feder, Martin E
Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title_full Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title_fullStr Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title_full_unstemmed Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title_short Reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
title_sort reverse transcriptional profiling: non-correspondence of transcript level variation and proximal promoter polymorphism
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1192798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16107220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-6-110
work_keys_str_mv AT brownrebeccapetersen reversetranscriptionalprofilingnoncorrespondenceoftranscriptlevelvariationandproximalpromoterpolymorphism
AT federmartine reversetranscriptionalprofilingnoncorrespondenceoftranscriptlevelvariationandproximalpromoterpolymorphism