Search

Much of gene regulation is carried out by proteins that bind DNA or RNA molecules at specific sequences. One class of such proteins is transcription factors, which bind short DNA sequences to regulate transcription. Another class is RNA binding proteins, which bind short RNA sequences to regulate RNA maturation, transport, and stability. Here, we study the robustness and evolvability of these regulatory mechanisms. To this end, we use experimental binding data from 172 human and fruit fly transcription factors and RNA binding proteins as well as human polymorphism data to study the evolution of binding sites in vivo. We find little difference between the robustness of regulatory protein-RNA interactions and transcription factor-DNA interactions to DNA mutations. In contrast, we find that RNA-mediated regulation is less evolvable than transcriptional regulation, because mutations are less likely to create interactions of an RNA molecule with a new RNA binding protein than they are to create interactions of a gene regulatory region with a new transcription factor. Our observations are consistent with the high level of conservation observed for interactions between RNA binding proteins and their target molecules as well as the evolutionary plasticity of regulatory regions bound by transcription factors. They may help explain why transcriptional regulation is implicated in many more evolutionary adaptations and innovations than RNA-mediated gene regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many developmental, physiological, and behavioral processes depend on the precise expression of genes in space and time. Such spatiotemporal gene expression phenotypes arise from the binding of sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs) to DNA, and from the regulation of nearby genes that such binding causes. These nearby genes may themselves encode TFs, giving rise to a transcription factor network (TFN), wherein nodes represent TFs and directed edges denote regulatory interactions between TFs. Computational studies have linked several topological properties of TFNs — such as their degree distribution — with the robustness of a TFN's gene expression phenotype to genetic and environmental perturbation. Another important topological property is assortativity, which measures the tendency of nodes with similar numbers of edges to connect. In directed networks, assortativity comprises four distinct components that collectively form an assortativity signature. We know very little about how a TFN's assortativity signature affects the robustness of its gene expression phenotype to perturbation. While recent theoretical results suggest that increasing one specific component of a TFN's assortativity signature leads to increased phenotypic robustness, the biological context of this finding is currently limited because the assortativity signatures of real-world TFNs have not been characterized. It is therefore unclear whether these earlier theoretical findings are biologically relevant. Moreover, it is not known how the other three components of the assortativity signature contribute to the phenotypic robustness of TFNs. Here, we use publicly available DNaseI-seq data to measure the assortativity signatures of genome-wide TFNs in 41 distinct human cell and tissue types. We find that all TFNs share a common assortativity signature and that this signature confers phenotypic robustness to model TFNs. Lastly, we determine the extent to which each of the four components of the assortativity signature contributes to this robustness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Latent phenotypes are non-adaptive byproducts of adaptive phenotypes. They exist in biological systems as different as promiscuous enzymes and genome-scale metabolic reaction networks, and can give rise to evolutionary adaptations and innovations. We know little about their prevalence in the gene expression phenotypes of regulatory circuits, important sources of evolutionary innovations. Results Here, we study a space of more than sixteen million three-gene model regulatory circuits, where each circuit is represented by a genotype, and has one or more functions embodied in one or more gene expression phenotypes. We find that the majority of circuits with single functions have latent expression phenotypes. Moreover, the set of circuits with a given spectrum of functions has a repertoire of latent phenotypes that is much larger than that of any one circuit. Most of this latent repertoire can be easily accessed through a series of small genetic changes that preserve a circuit's main functions. Both circuits and gene expression phenotypes that are robust to genetic change are associated with a greater number of latent phenotypes. Conclusions Our observations suggest that latent phenotypes are pervasive in regulatory circuits, and may thus be an important source of evolutionary adaptations and innovations involving gene regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene regulatory circuits drive the development, physiology, and behavior of organisms from bacteria to humans. The phenotypes or functions of such circuits are embodied in the gene expression patterns they form. Regulatory circuits are typically multifunctional, forming distinct gene expression patterns in different embryonic stages, tissues, or physiological states. Any one circuit with a single function can be realized by many different regulatory genotypes. Multifunctionality presumably constrains this number, but we do not know to what extent. We here exhaustively characterize a genotype space harboring millions of model regulatory circuits and all their possible functions. As a circuit's number of functions increases, the number of genotypes with a given number of functions decreases exponentially but can remain very large for a modest number of functions. However, the sets of circuits that can form any one set of functions becomes increasingly fragmented. As a result, historical contingency becomes widespread in circuits with many functions. Whether a circuit can acquire an additional function in the course of its evolution becomes increasingly dependent on the function it already has. Circuits with many functions also become increasingly brittle and sensitive to mutation. These observations are generic properties of a broad class of circuits and independent of any one circuit genotype or phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) drive the cellular processes that sustain life. To do so reliably, GRNs must be robust to perturbations, such as gene deletion and the addition or removal of regulatory interactions. GRNs must also be robust to genetic changes in regulatory regions that define the logic of signal-integration, as these changes can affect how specific combinations of regulatory signals are mapped to particular gene expression states. Previous theoretical analyses have demonstrated that the robustness of a GRN is influenced by its underlying topological properties, such as degree distribution and modularity. Another important topological property is assortativity, which measures the propensity with which nodes of similar connectivity are connected to one another. How assortativity influences the robustness of the signal-integration logic of GRNs remains an open question. Here, we use computational models of GRNs to investigate this relationship. We separately consider each of the three dynamical regimes of this model for a variety of degree distributions. We find that in the chaotic regime, robustness exhibits a pronounced increase as assortativity becomes more positive, while in the critical and ordered regimes, robustness is generally less sensitive to changes in assortativity. We attribute the increased robustness to a decrease in the duration of the gene expression pattern, which is caused by a reduction in the average size of a GRN''s in-components. This study provides the first direct evidence that assortativity influences the robustness of the signal-integration logic of computational models of GRNs, illuminates a mechanistic explanation for this influence, and furthers our understanding of the relationship between topology and robustness in complex biological systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Robustness, the maintenance of a character in the presence of genetic change, can help preserve adaptive traits but also may hinder evolvability, the ability to bring forth novel adaptations. We used genotype networks to analyze the binding site repertoires of 193 transcription factors from mice and yeast, providing empirical evidence that robustness and evolvability need not be conflicting properties. Network vertices represent binding sites where two sites are connected if they differ in a single nucleotide. We show that the binding sites of larger genotype networks are not only more robust, but the sequences adjacent to such networks can also bind more transcription factors, thus demonstrating that robustness can facilitate evolvability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene regulatory circuits are to the cell what arithmetic logic units are to the chip: fundamental components of information processing that map an input onto an output. Gene regulatory circuits come in many different forms, distinct structural configurations that determine who regulates whom. Studies that have focused on the gene expression patterns (functions) of circuits with a given structure (form) have examined just a few structures or gene expression patterns. Here, we use a computational model to exhaustively characterize the gene expression patterns of nearly 17 million three-gene circuits in order to systematically explore the relationship between circuit form and function. Three main conclusions emerge. First, function does not follow form. A circuit of any one structure can have between twelve and nearly thirty thousand distinct gene expression patterns. Second, and conversely, form does not follow function. Most gene expression patterns can be realized by more than one circuit structure. And third, multifunctionality severely constrains circuit form. The number of circuit structures able to drive multiple gene expression patterns decreases rapidly with the number of these patterns. These results indicate that it is generally not possible to infer circuit function from circuit form, or vice versa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]