Alternative splicing: A playground of evolution
description
Transcript of Alternative splicing: A playground of evolution
Alternative splicing: A playground of evolution
Mikhail Gelfand
Research and Training Center for BioinformaticsInstitute for Information Transmission Problems RAS,
Moscow, Russia
RECOMB, 20 May 2008
% of alternatively spliced human and mouse genes, by year of publication
Human (genome / random sample)
Human (individual chromosomes)
Mouse (genome / random sample)
All genes
Only multiexon genes
Genes with high EST coverage
2008
C.Burge
100%
Roles of alternative splicing
• Functional:– creating protein diversity
• human: ~30.000 genes, >100.000 proteins
– maintaining protein identity• e.g. membrane (receptor) and secreted isoforms• dominant negative isoforms• combinatorial (transcription factors, signaling domains)
– regulatory• e.g. via chanelling to NMD (nonsense-mediated decay)
• Evolutionary
• Evolution of alternative exon-intron structure
• Origin of new (alternative) exons and sites
• Evolutionary rates in constitutive and alternative regions
Plan
Elementary alternatives
Cassette exon
Alternative donor site
Alternative acceptor site
Retained intron
Mutually exclusive exons
Sources of data• ESTs:
1999 global 2002-3 comparative– mapping exon-intron structure to genome– global alignment of genomes– identifying non-conserved exons and splice sites
• oligonucleotide arrays (chips):2001 global2004 comparative– qualitative analysis (inclusion values)– genome-specific constitutive / alternative exons
• mRNA-seq (new generation high-throughput):2008 globalexpected 2009-10 comparative
Alternative exons are often genome-specific
(Modrek & Lee, 2003)
~ 25% AS events in ~50% genes are not conserved
Na/K-ATPase Fxyd2/FXYD2
p53
Nurtdinov…Gelfand, 2003
Alternative exon-intron structure in fruit flies and malarial mosquito
• Same procedure (AS data from FlyBase)
– cassette exons, splicing sites
– also mutually exclusive exons, retained introns
• Follow the fate of D. melanogaster exons in the D. pseudoobscura and Anopheles genomes
• Technically more challenging:
– incomplete genomes
– the quality of alignment with the Anopheles genome is lower, especially for terminal exons
– frequent intron insertion/loss (~4.7 introns per gene in Drosophila vs. ~3.5 introns per gene in Anopheles)
Malko…Gelfand, 2006
Conservation of coding segments
constitutive segments
alternative segments
D. melanogaster – D. pseudoobscura
97% 75-80%
D. melanogaster – Anopheles gambiae
77% ~45%
Conservation of D.melanogaster elementary alternatives in D. pseudoobscura genes
blue – exact green – divided exons yellow – joined exonorange – mixed red – non-conserved• retained introns are the least conserved
(are all of them really functional?)• mutually exclusive exons are as conserved as constitutive exons
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CONSTANTexon
Donor site Acceptor site Retained intron Cassette exon Exclusive exon
Conservation of D.melanogaster elementary alternatives in Anopheles gambiae genes
blue – exact green – divided exons yellow – joined exonsorange – mixed red – non-conserved• ~30% joined, ~10% divided exons (less introns in Aga)• mutually exclusive exons are conserved exactly• cassette exons are the least conserved
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CONSTANTexon
Donor site Acceptor site Retained intron Cassette exon Exclusive exon
Genome-specific AS: real or noise?
young or deteriorating?
• minor isoforms, small inclusion rate
• often frameshifting and/or stop-containing => NMD– regulatory role?
Sorek, Shamir & Ast, 2004
Alternative exon-intron structure in the human, mouse and dog genomes
• Human-mouse-dog triples of orthologous genes
• We follow the fate of human alternative sites and exons in the mouse and dog genomes
• Each human AS isoform is spliced-aligned to the mouse and dog genome. Definition of conservation:– conservation of the corresponding region
(homologous exon is actually present in the considered genome);
– conservation of splicing sites (GT and AG)
Nurtdinov…Gelfand, 2007
Caveats
• we consider only possibility of AS in mouse and dog: do not require actual existence of corresponding isoforms in known transcriptomes
• we do not account for situations when alternative human exon (or site) is constitutive in mouse or dog
• functionality assignments (translated / NMD-inducing) are not very reliable
Gains/losses: loss in mouse
Commonancestor
Gains/losses: gain in human (or noise)
Commonancestor
Gains/losses: loss in dog (or possible gain in human+mouse)
Commonancestor
Human-specific alternatives: noise?
Conserved alternatives
Triple comparison
Human-specific alternatives: noise?
Conserved alternatives
Lost in dog
Lost in mouse
Translated and NMD-inducing cassette exons
• Mainly included exons are highly conserved irrespective of function• Mainly skipped translated exons are more conserved than NMD-inducing
ones • Numerous lineage-specific losses
– more in mouse than in dog– more of NMD-inducing than of translated exons
• ~40% of almost always skipped (<1% inclusion) human exons are conserved in at least one lineage (mouse or dog)
Mouse+rat vs human and dog: a possibility to distinguish between exon gain and noise
Nurtdinov…Gelfand, 2009
The rate of exon gain: decreases with the exon inclusion rate; increases with the sequence evolutionary rate
• Caveat: spurious exons still may seem to be conserved in the rodent lineage due to short time
Conserved rodent-specific exons and pseudoexons
Estimation of “FDR” by analysis of conservation of pseudoexons• intronic fragments with the same characteristics (length distribution etc.)• apply standard rules to estimate “conservation”• obtain the number (fraction) of rodent-specific exons that could be
pseudoexons conserved by chance (brown)• obtain the number (fraction) of real rodent-specific exons (dark green):
~50%, that is, ~15% of mouse-specific exons (the rest is likely noise)
Alternative donor and acceptor sites: same trends
• Higher conservation of ~uniformly used sites• Internal sites are more conserved than external ones (as expected)
Evolution of (alternative) exon-intron structure in 11 Drosophila spp.
Dana
Dmel
Dsec
Dyak
Dere
Dpse
Dmoj
DvirDgriD. melanogasterD. secheliaD. yakubaD. erectaD. ananassaeD. pseudoobscuraD. mojavensisD. virilisD. grimshawi
D. Pollard, http://rana.lbl.gov/~dan/trees.html
D.willistonii
D.persimilis
Gain and loss of alternative segments and constitutive exons
Dmel
Dsec
Dyak
DereDana
Dpse
Dmoj
DvirDgri
– 34.– 0.9
+ 131.+ 0.4
– 13.– 0.6
– 5.– 0.2
± 57.± 1.0
Sample size397 / 18596
– 134.– 1.1
– 24.– 1.2
– 14.– 1.6
– 40.– 2.3
+ 143.+ 1.1
– 100.– 6.6
+ 184.+ 1.1
– 37.– 8.7
– 57.– 0.5
+ 85.+ 0.8
Dwil
– 16.– 0.3
+ 45.+ 0.9
Unique events per 1000 substitutions. Caveat: We cannot observe exon gain outside and exon loss within the D.mel. lineage
Dper– 175.– 20.2
– 75.– 7.2
Gain and loss of alternative segments and constitutive exons
Dmel
Dsec
Dyak
DereDana
Dpse
Dmoj
DvirDgri
– 151.– 3.6
+ 188.+ 0.7
– 68.– 1.4
– 72.– 0.4
± 81.± 1.3
Sample size452 / 18874
– 233.– 1.8
– 33.– 2.9
– 40.– 2.1
– 83.– 4.2
+ 226.+ 2.7
– 330.– 9.3
+ 213.+ 1.3
– 164.– 11.7
– 272.– 1.0
+ 98.+ 1.3
Dwil
– 49.– 1.1
+ 120.+ 1.7
Non-unique events per 1000 substitutions (Dollo parsimony)
Dper– 408.– 27.6
– 238.– 9.8
Conserved alternative splicing in nematodes
• 92% of cassette exons from Caenorhabditis elegans are conserved in Caenorhabditis briggsae and/or Caenorhabditis remanei (EST-genome comparisons)– in minor isoforms as well– especially for complex events
• there is less difference between levels of AS (exon inclusion) in natural C.elegans isolates than in mutation accumulation lines (microarray analysis) => positive selection on the level of AS.
Irimia…Roy, 2007; Barberan-Sohler & Zaler, 2008
Plants: little conservation of alternative splicing
• Arabidopsis thaliana – Oriza sativa (rice)
• Oriza sativa (rice) – Zea mays (maize)
• Few AS events are conserved (5% of genes compared to ~50% of genes with AS)
• the level of conservation is the same for translated and NDM isoforms
Severing…van Hamm, 2009
Constitutive exons becoming alternative
• human-mouse comparison, EST data => 612 exons constitutively spliced in one species and alternatively in the other
• all are major isoform (predominantly included)• analysis of other species (selected cases):
ancestral exons have been constitutive• characteristics of such exons (molecular
evolution: Kn/Ks, conservation of intron flanks etc) are similar to those of constitutive exons
Lev-Maor…Ast, 2007
Changes in inclusion rate
• orthologous alternatively spliced (cassette) exons of human and chimpanzee
• quantitative microarray profiling• estimate the inclusion rate by comparison of
exon and exon-junction probes
=> 6-8% of altertnative exons have significantly different inclusion levels
Calarco…Blencowe, 2007
Sources of new exons
• exon shuffling and duplications– mutually exlusive exons
• exonisation: new exons, new sites– in repeats
• constitutive exons becoming alternative
Alternative splice sites: Model of random site fixation
• Plots: Fraction of exon-extending alternative sites as dependent on exon length– Main site defined as the one in
protein or in more ESTs– Same trends for the acceptor
(top) and donor (bottom) sites
• The distribution of alt. region lengths is consistent with fixation of random sites– Extend short exons– Shorten long exons
A natural model: genetic diseases
• Mutations in splice sites yield exon skips or activation of cryptic sites
• Exon skip or activation of a cryptic site depends on:– Density of exonic splicing enhancers (lower in skipped exons)– Presence of a strong cryptic nearby
Av. dist. to a stronger site
Skipped exons
Cryptic site exons
Non-mutated exons
Donor sites 220 75 289
Acceptor sites 185 66 81
Kurmangaliev & Gelfand, 2008
Creation of sites
acceptor sites in exon in intron
cryptic sites (mutations in the
main site)88 29
new sites 32 78
Vorechovsky, 2006; Buratti…Vorechovsky, 2007
donor sites in exon in intron
cryptic sites (mutations in the
main site)121 133
new sites 46 46
MAGE-A family of human CT-antigens• Retroposition of a spliced mRNA, then duplication• Numerous new (alternative) exons in individual copies arising from
point mutations
Creation of donor sites
Improvement of an acceptor site
Exonisation of repeats• early studies: 61 alternatively
spliced translated exon with hits to Alu (no constitutive exons)
• 84% frame-shiting or stop-containing
• exonisation by point mutations in cryptic sites in the Alu consensus– studied in experiment
• both donor and acceptor sites• recent studiy: 1824 human
exons, 506 mouse exons– Alu, L1, LTR may generate
completely new exons
Sorek, Ast, Graur, 2002; Lev-Maor…Ast, 2003; Sorek…Ast, 2004; Sela…Ast, 2007
human mouse
unique 1060 (Alu)
285 (B1, B2, B4, ID)
MIR 181 27
L1 219 102
L2 103 9
CR1 12 0
LTP 155 72
DNA 93 11
Evolutionary rate in constitutive and alternative regions
• Human and mouse orthologous genes• D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura
• Estimation of the dn/ds ratio: higher fraction of non-synonymous substitutions (changing amino acid) => weaker stabilizing (or stronger positive) selection
Human/mouse genes: non-symmetrical histogram of
dn/ds(const. regions)–dn/ds(alt. regions)
1 5
3
5
9 1 0
1 8
4 0
6 7
1 3 6
3 2 9
7 5 2 6 4 2
1 9 9
7 3
2 71 8
7 7
01 0 01
1 0
1 0 0
1 0 0 0
– 1 – 0 .9– – 0 .8 – 0 .7 – 0 .6 – 0 .5 – 0 .4 – 0 .3 – 0 .2 – 0 .1 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1
G en es
C– A
Black: shadow of the left half.In a larger fraction of genes dn/ds(alt) > dn/ds(const), especially for larger values
Concatenated regions:Alternative regions evolve faster than constitutive ones(*) in some other studies dN(alt)<dN(const): less synonymous substitutions in alternaitve regions
AП
0,1680,183
П
0,068
A
0,076
0,405 0,414П A
dN
dN/dS
dS
П A
0,790,80
A
0,220,25
0,28
0,31
П
dN/dS
dS
dN
1
0
Weaker stabilizing selection (or positive selection) in alternative regions
(insignificant in Drosophila)
AП
0,1680,183
П
0,068
A
0,076
0,405 0,414П A
dN/dS
dN
dS
П A
0,790,80
A
0,220,25
0,28
0,31
П
dN/dS
dS
dN
1
0
Different behavior of terminal alternatives
П A
AN
AI
AC
1,43
0,790,80
0,90
0,62
A
AN
AI
AC
0,22
0,250,23
0,33
0,25
0,28
0,31
0,37
0,23
0,28
П
AN
AI
A AN
П
0,1680,183 0,186
AI
0,169
AC
0,297
П
0,068
A
0,076
AN
0,076
AI
0,074
AC
0,132
0,405 0,414 0,4100,437П A AN
AI
0,445
AC
dN/dS
dS
dN
1,5
0
Mammals: Density of substitutions increases in the N-to-C direction
Drosophila: Synonymous substitutions prevalent in terminal alternative regions; non-synonymous substitutions, in internal alternative regions
Many drosophilas, different alternatives
dN in mutually exclusive exons same as in constitutive exons
dS lower in almost all alternatives: regulation?
Relaxed (positive?) selection in alternative regions
The MacDonald-Kreitman test: evidence for positive selection in (minor isoform) alternative regions• Human and chimpanzee genome substitutions vs human SNPs• Exons conserved in mouse and/or dog• Genes with at least 60 ESTs (median number) • Fisher’s exact test for significance
Pn/Ps (SNPs) Kn/Ks (genomes) diff. Signif.
Const. 0.72 0.62 – 0.10 0
Major 0.78 0.65 – 0.13 0.5%
Minor 1.41 1.89 + 0.48 0.1%
Minor isoform alternative regions:• More non-synonymous SNPs: Pn(alt_minor)=.12% >> Pn(const)=.06%• More non-synonym. substitutions: Kn(alt_minor)=.91% >> Kn(const)=.37%• Positive selection (as opposed to lower stabilizing selection):
α = 1 – (Pa/Ps) / (Ka/Ks) ~ 25% positions • Similar results for all highly covered genes or all conserved exons
An attempt of integration
• AS is often species-specific
• young AS isoforms are often minor and tissue-specific
• … but still functional– although species-specific isoforms may result from aberrant splicing
• AS regions show evidence for decreased negative selection– excess non-synonymous codon substitutions
• AS regions show evidence for positive selection – excess fixation of non-synonymous substitutions (compared to SNPs)
• AS tends to shuffle domains and target functional sites in proteins
• Thus AS may serve as a testing ground for new functions without sacrificing old ones
What next?
• Changes in inclusion rates (mRNA-seq)– revisit constitutive-becoming-alternative exons
• Other taxonomical groups• Evolution of regulation
– donor and acceptor splicing sites– splicing enhabcers and silencers– cellular context (SR-proteins etc.)
• Control for:– functionality: translated / NMD-inducing (frameshifts, stop codons)– exon inclusion (or site choice) level: major / minor isoform– tissue specificity pattern (?)– type of alternative – 1: N-terminal / internal / C-terminal– type of alternative – 2: cassette and mutually exclusive exons,
alternative sites, etc.
Acknowledgements
• Discussions– Eugene Koonin (NCBI)– Igor Rogozin (NCBI) – Vsevolod Makeev (GosNIIGenetika)– Dmitry Petrov (Stanford)– Dmitry Frishman (GSF, TUM)– Sergei Nuzhdin (USC)
• Support– Howard Hughes Medical Institute– Russian Academy of Sciences
(program “Molecular and Cellular Biology”)– Russian Foundation of Basic Research
Authors
• Andrei Mironov (Moscow State University)
• Ramil Nurtdinov (Moscow State University) – human/mouse+rat/dog
• Dmitry Malko (GosNIIGenetika, Moscow) – drosophila/mosquito
• Ekaterina Ermakova (IITP) – Kn/Ks
• Vasily Ramensky (Institute of Molecular Biology, Moscow) – SNPs, MacDonald-Kreitman test
• Irena Artamonova (Inst. of General Genetics and IITP, Moscow) – human/mouse, plots, MAGE-A
Bonus track: conserved secondary structures regulating (alternative)
splicing in the Drosophila spp.
• ~ 50 000 introns
• 17% alternative, 2% with alt. polyA signals
• >95% of D.melanogaster introns mapped to at least 7 of 12 other Drosophila genomes
• Search for conserved complementary words at intron termini (within 150 nt. of intron boundaries), then align
• Restrictive search => 200 candidates
• 6 tested in experiment (3 const., 3 alt.). All 3 alt. ones confirmed
CG33298 (phopspholipid translocating ATPase): alternative donor sites
Atrophin (histone deacetylase): alternative acceptor sites
Nmnat (nicotinamide mononucleotide
adenylytransferase): alternative splicing and polyadenylation
Less restrictive search => many more candidates
Properties of regulated introns
• Often alternative• Longer than usual• Overrepresented in genes linked to
development
Authors
• Andrei Mironov (idea)• Dmitry Pervouchine (bioinformatics)• Veronica Raker, Center for Genome
Regulation, Barcelona (experiment)• Juan Valcarcel, Center for Genome
Regulation, Barcelona (advice)• Mikhail Gelfand (general pessimism)