Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Neurogenetics’ Category

A few weeks an interesting preprint from Antilla et al. was published. They set out to measure the genetic correlation between a variety of brain disorders — both “psychiatric” and “neurologic” — by comparing risk markers from a set of 23 different GWAS’s. They called themselves the “Brainstorm consortium” (for which they win creativity points). A major finding in their paper is that there is a substantial correlation between psychiatric disorders (e.g., OCD, schizophrenia, MDD, bipolar disorder), while there is less or no correlation among neurologic disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, MS). This data set is based on comparing polygenic risk variants from individual studies, and it’s certainly possible to draw too strong of conclusions from this type of data, as it is confounded by the societal structure of the people who participated in the studies, among other factors. That said, this should stimulate a number of interesting follow-up studies. One of their most interesting sections is on the genetic correlations between these disorders and other traits:

Two correlations especially jump out to me here:

  1.  The positive correlation between autism spectrum disorder risk and variants associated with measures of cognitive performance. This fits with at least one finding that there is a positive association between ASD prevalence and socioeconomic status, which is sometimes attributed to increased paternal age, but as this study shows, that is potentially not the whole story. I’m certainly not an expert in ASD epidemiology and this is just my initial impression, and I could totally be off.
  2. The inverse correlation between variants associated with measures of cognitive performance and risk of stroke and intracerebral hemorrage. This fits with my priors that good blood flow is critical for proper brain function. In my experience is not as widely known by people without a medical background (such as myself prior to my preclinical med school training).
Reference 
Antilla et al. 2016 Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/048991
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

According to a GWAS published yesterday (using a sample of individuals with European ancestry only), they are in these genes:

1) HLA-DQA1: this codes for a receptor involved in antigen presenting cells, and might be related to autoimmune disorders. This speculative paper bites the bullet on the connection and suggests that better treatment for pathogens could reduce the prevalence of the disorder. The hypothesis seems testable via epidemiological data–does more pathogen treatment (or treatment of a specific type) lead to a decreased incidence of schizophrenia? I doubt there’s a big effect here; otherwise, we’d probably already know.

2) MADL1L: this codes for a protein which helps regulate cell division (mitosis), almost all of which occurs in the brain during development. Although schizophrenia is often considered a developmental disorder, it doesn’t typically present until young adulthood, with some studies reporting a mean age of onset of 30. This suggests that the spatial pattern and distribution of cells set down early in development can probabilistically impact outcomes much later in life. (This is as opposed to a gene being involved in synapse remodeling, which is common throughout adulthood.)

Multiple SNPs within both of these genes have significant p-values, which makes the explanation of linkage disequilibrium seem less likely. (Plus, the authors checked the haplotype maps for this.)

Reference

Jia P, Wang L, Fanous AH, Pato CN, Edwards TL, et al. (2012) Network-Assisted Investigation of Combined Causal Signals from Genome-Wide Association Studies in Schizophrenia. PLoS Comput Biol 8(7): e1002587. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002587

Read Full Post »

In their paper released today, Jafari et al make major strides in answering this question. First, they systematically knocked down 611 transcription factors in Drosophila (~80% of the total) in four representative classes of olfactory sensory neurons. They identified seven whose loss led to a strong decrease in odorant receptor expression.

Next, they showed that knocking down at least one of these seven transcription factors in almost all of the known olfactory sensory neuron classes (32/34) caused that class to stop expressing its olfactory receptor.

rows = transcription factors, columns = olfactory sensory neuron classes; grey = wildtype-like expression, black = no expression, odorant receptor expression detected by ISH; orange = trichoid, one of the three major odorant receptor expression domains; note that the raw data in table s2 is a bit more noisy than the simplified version above, as expected; doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001280

In their discussion, the authors mention that the seven transcription factors they found is likely to be an underestimate. This makes sense because the library wasn’t available to screen every transcription factor, and RNAi is stochastic. Regardless, their data set and paradigm should open up many avenues for studying combinatorial transcriptional coding.

Reference

Jafari S, Alkhori L, Schleiffer A, Brochtrup A, Hummel T, et al. (2012) Combinatorial Activation and Repression by Seven Transcription Factors Specify Drosophila Odorant Receptor Expression. PLoS Biol 10(3): e1001280. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001280

Read Full Post »

In mice, each olfactory neuron expresses exactly one of ~ 1000 types of olfactory receptors. Through combinatorial coding, the system is able to recognize a wide range of odors and their combinations. But how exactly is this diversity of responses achieved?

Nara et al. recently set out to answer this question. They put dissociated mice olfactory epithelium cells on glass coverslips, loaded them with a calcium indicator, and monitored them for changes in calcium signaling following the application of 13 different odorant mixtures.

OSN = olfactory sensory neuron, the actual number of neurons in each group is shown above each bar (out of a total of 217 tested); doi: 10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.1282-11.2011

As you can see above, most neurons responded (i.e., demonstrated an increased calcium concentration) to just one mixture, but some neurons did express receptors which allowed them to respond to many mixtures.

If a neuron responded to a given mixture, it was then tested for a response to each of the individual odorants in that mixture. Here is the response curve for one of their neurons, which responded to many different mixtures:

a sharp line indicates a change in fluorescence intensity, which is a proxy for neural activity; the bars indicate when the odors were added; the final response to KCl indicates neuron viability; Fi = change in fluorescence; doi: 10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.1282-11.2011

This neuron was considered an example of a “broad tuning,” since it responded to different odors with high structural variability.

Although all of the responses marked in red were classified as a “recognition,” some responses (such as 4-2) seem to be stronger than others (such as 6-10).

It might be interesting to analyze multiple replicates of responses from the same odor on the same neuron, to allow the authors to parse signal from noise and see whether these gradations in response are significant.

Cracking the full odorant code will require an even more high-throughput set of experiments, and probably would have to have at least one data point from each type of odorant receptor. This study is a clear proof of principle that such an extension would be possible and valuable.

Reference

Nara K, et al. 2011 A Large-Scale Analysis of Odor Coding in the Olfactory Epithelium. doi: 10.1523/​JNEUROSCI.1282-11.2011

Read Full Post »

Iwamoto et al. found this in their recent study, by looking at the post-mortem prefrontal cortex and cerebellum of humans and chimpanzees. They separated nuclei from these regions into neuron and non-neuron (i.e., glia) groups with purities of 95 and 99.9%, respectively, using NeuN as a marker for neurons.

They then used magnetic beads to extract methylated DNA molecules from each of these groups and examined the DNA with a tiling array. By looking at the correlation of tiling array probe replicates within the same group (i.e., either neurons or non-neurons), they were able to tell which group had more variability.

They found that this correlation was lower in neuron samples (average R = 0.850) than in non-neuron samples (average R = 0.875). The effect size is not huge, but it is extremely unlikely to be due to chance (see this for yourself in the histogram in fig 8 if you have access).

This is intriguing, if indirect, evidence that epigenetic patterns have an especially large effect on the function of neurons.

It’d be interesting to see a study take a similar approach but select for specific types of brain cells (with different antibodies) to see if there is still high variation within that one class of cells. This would allow us to distinguish between epigenetic changes due to cell type differentiation and those due to neural activity and experience. Of course, purifying a discrete class of brain cells on the basis of one antibody would likely not be so easy.

Reference

Iwamoto K, et al. 2011 Neurons show distinctive DNA methylation profile and higher interindividual variations compared with non-neurons. Genome Research doi:10.1101/gr.112755.110.

Read Full Post »

In a study conceptually similar to another one I mentioned a few months ago, Wolf et al discuss their results from comparing and contrasting USC’s rat brain connectivity atlas with the Allen mouse brain gene expression atlas.

To combine these, they first had to map the regions from the rat brain to the mouse brain.

The authors then trained a linear classifier to try to predict whether two given brain regions have a connection or not, using vectors of gene expression of the 500 most predictive genes in both incoming and outgoing connections as features. They use 80% training and 20% testing cross-validation. Finally, they randomly shuffle the brain regions and re-do the analyses to compute empirical p-values.

The Allen brain atlas is hierarchical, which is useful for some analyses but could lead to double counting of brain regions here. So the authors only analyze the brain regions at the lowest level of the hierarchy–the outermost nodes in the circular diagram below.

Only brain regions with more than 5 outgoing or incoming connections were analyzed. They found that connectivity was able to be predicted by the gene expression in many regions. See below for details:

second to outermost ring = outgoing connections (c), outermost ring = incoming connections (d); green with dot = predictions have <5% prob of being as accurate due to chance, yellow = prediction has >5% prob of being as accurate due to chance; doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002040

They also analyzed genes that are thought to be involved in brain disorders like schizophrenia. Schizophrenia-related genes are much more likely to be involved in connectivity patterns that would be expected due to chance, bolstering the hypothesis that this disorder is related to neural connectivity. Defining the null hypothesis here seems a bit tricky though, so we’ll need a wide breadth of studies to help confirm this finding.

It would be interesting to see if the predictive ability of gene expression is higher using the developing mouse brain atlas as opposed to the adult. This is expected because that’s when most long-range axons form, but there is also lots of dendrite rearrangment and plasticity in adults, too.

References

Wolf L, Goldberg C, Manor N, Sharan R, Ruppin E (2011) Gene Expression in the Rodent Brain is Associated with Its Regional Connectivity. PLoS Comput Biol 7(5): e1002040. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002040

Read Full Post »

How neurons remain neurons

A short Feb ’11 review by Oliver Hobert (HT: J Snyder) explains the process. A particular protein called a terminal selector coordinates it, and acts by binding to DNA sequences. One might describe the process as involving three main steps:

1) Initiation. Initiation occurs when neuroblasts terminally divide. An initiator protein binds to the DNA upstream of the gene encoding the terminal selector (in particular, to the “cis-regulatory element” of the DNA). This activates transcription of the terminal selector, and thus its translation as well. Crucially, the initiator protein is itself only expressed for short window of time.

2) Propagation. The terminal selector binds to the cis-regulatory elements upstream of “terminal differentiation genes,” activating their expression. These genes are involved in neural function, such as neurotransmitter metabolism and ion channels. Some also presumably act to arrest the cell’s growth phase in G0.

3) Maintenance. Through a common mechanism known as transcriptional autoregulation, the terminal selector gene maintains its levels by binding to a cis-regulatory element upstream of its own gene, thus activating its own expression. So, long after the initiator protein is no longer present (and indeed for the lifespan of the animal), the expression of the terminator selector gene will remain high, and it will, in turn, continue to activate the expression of the terminal differentiation genes.

This is also an interesting case study in the interplay between chromatin states and the action of transcription factors. New (“de novo”) events of transcription factor binding require the chromatin to “open up” to allow them to bind the DNA. An individual transcription factor protein molecule probably only binds to the DNA for short periods of time (low dissociation constants suggest it’s often on the scale of milliseconds). This also leads to remodeling of the chromatin state via histone modifications, which over the long run might make binding of the transcription factors easier.

But how important are the relative contributions of de novo transcription factor binding, histone modifications, and the initial chromatin state of DNA upstream the terminator selector and terminal differentiation genes? As far as I can tell, these remain somewhat pressing and open questions.

References

Holbert O, 2011, Maintaining a memory by transcriptional autoregulation, Current Biology. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.005

Kiełbasa SM, Vingron M (2008) Transcriptional Autoregulatory Loops Are Highly Conserved in Vertebrate Evolution. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3210. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003210

Wang Y, et al. 2009 Quantitative Transcription Factor Binding Kinetics at the Single-Molecule Level. Biophys Journal 10.1016/j.bpj.2008.09.040.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »