Abstract
Imprinted genes have been associated with a wide range of diseases. Many of these diseases have symptoms that can be understood in the context of the evolutionary forces that favored imprinted expression at these loci. Modulation of perinatal growth and resource acquisition has played a central role in the evolution of imprinting and many of the diseases associated with imprinted genes involve some sort of growth or feeding disorder. In the first part of this chapter, we discuss the relationship between the evolution of imprinting and the clinical manifestations of imprinting-associated diseases. In the second half, we consider the variety of processes that can disrupt imprinted gene expression and function. We ask specifically if there is reason to believe that imprinted genes are particularly susceptible to deregulation—and whether a disruption of an imprinted gene is more likely to have deleterious consequences than a disruption of an unimprinted gene.
There is more to a gene than its DNA sequence. C. H. Waddington used the term “epigenetic” to describe biological differences between tissues that result from the process of development1,2. Waddington needed a new term to describe this variation which was neither the result, of genotypic differences between the cells nor well described as phenotypic variation. We now understand that heritable modifications of the DNA—such as cytosine methylation—and aspects of chromatin structure—including histone modifications—are the mechanisms underlying what Waddington called the “epigenotype”. Epigenetic modifications are established in particular cell lines during development and are responsible for the patterns of gene expression seen in different tissue types.
In contemporary usage, the term epigenetic refers to heritable changes in gene expression that are not coded in the DNA sequence itself3. In recent years, much attention has been paid to a particular type of epigenetic variation: genomic imprinting. In the case of imprinting, the maternally and paternally inherited genes within a single cell have epigenetic differences that result in divergent patterns of gene expression4. In the simplest scenario, only one of the two alleles at an imprinted locus is expressed. In other cases, an imprinted locus can include a variety of maternally expressed, paternally expressed and biallelically expressed transcripts5–10. Some of these transcripts produce different proteins through alternate splicing, while others produce noncoding RNA transcripts11–15. Genomic imprinting can also interact with the “epigenotype” in Waddington’s sense: many genes are imprinted in a tissue-specific manner, with monoallelic, expression in some cell types and biallelic expression in others16–20.
Other chapters in this volume cover our current understanding of the mechanisms of imprinting, the phenotypic effects of imprinted genes in mammals and what we know about imprinting in plants. In this chapter we discuss the link between imprinted genes and human disease. First, we consider the phenotypes associated with imprinted genes and ask whether the disorders associated with these genes share a common motif. Second, we consider the nature and frequency of mutations of imprinted genes. We ask whether we should expect that imprinted genes are particularly fragile. That is, are they more likely to undergo mutation and/or are mutations of imprinted genes particularly likely to result in human disease? In general we consider how the field of evolutionary medicine—the use of evolution to understand why our body’s design allows for the existence of disease at all21—might contribute to our comprehension of disorders linked to genomic imprinting.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Waddington CH. An Introduction to Modern Genetics. London: Allen and Unwin; 1939.
Waddington CH. The epigenotype. Endeavour 1942; 1:18–20.
Egger G, Liang GN, Aparicio A et al. Epigenetics in human disease and prospects for epigenetic therapy. Nature 2004; 429(6990):457–463.
Reik W, Walter J. Genomic imprinting: Parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2(1):21–32.
Plagge A, Kelsey G. Imprinting the Gnas locus. Cytogenet Genome Res 2006; 113(1–4):178–187.
Holmes R, Williamson C, Peters J et al. A comprehensive transcript map of the mouse Gnas imprinted complex. Genome Res 2003; 13(6B):1410–1415.
Wroe SF, Kelsey C, Skinner JA et al. An imprinted transcript antisense to Nesp, adds complexity to the cluster of imprinted genes at the mouse Gnas locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97(7):3342–3346.
Weiss U, Ischia R, Eder S et al. Neuroendocrine secretory protein 55 (NESP55): Alternative splicing onto transcripts of the GNAS gene and posttranslational processing of a maternally expressed protein. Neuroendocrinology 2000; 71(3):177–186.
Peters J, Wroe SF, Wells CA et al. A cluster of oppositely imprinted transcripts at the Gnas locus in the distal imprinting region of mouse chromosome 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999; 96(7):3830–3835.
Hayward BE, Kamiya M, Strain L et al. The human GNAS1 gene is imprinted and encodes distinct paternally and biallelically expressed G proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95(17):10038–10043.
Tufarelli C. The silence RNA keeps: cis mechanisms of RNA mediated epigenetic silencing in mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2006; 361(1465):67–79.
O’Neill MJ. The influence of noncoding RNAs on allele-specific gene expression in mammals. Hum Mol Genet 2005; 14:R113–R120.
Turner M, Williamson C, Nottingham W et al. Nespas: the emerging story of its function in the gnas imprinting cluster. Genet Res 2004; 84(2):118.
Hernandez A, Martinez ME, Croteau W et al. Complex organization and structure of sense and antisense transcripts expressed from the D103 gene imprinted locus. Genomics 2004; 83(3):413–424.
Sleutels F, Zwart R, Barlow DP. The noncoding Air RNA is required for silencing autosomal imprinted genes. Nature 2002; 415(6873):810–813.
Liu J, Chen M, Deng CX et al. Identification of the control region for tissue-specific imprinting of the stimulatory G protein alpha-subunit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102(15):5513–5518.
Williamson CM, Ball ST, Nottingham WT et al. A cis-acting control region is required exclusively for the tissue-specific imprinting of Gnas. Nat Genet 2004; 36(8):894–899.
Kashiwagi A, Meguro M, Hoshiya H et al. Predominant maternal expression of the mouse Atp 10c in hippocampus and olfactory bulb. J Hum Genet 2003; 48(4):194–198.
Yamasaki Y, Kayashima T, Soejima H et al. Neuron-specific relaxation of Igf2r imprinting is associated with neuron-specific histone modifications and lack of its antisense transcript Air. Hum Mol Genet 2005; 14(17):2511–2520.
Yamasaki K, Joh K, Ohta T et al. Neurons but not glial cells show reciprocal imprinting of sense and antisense transcripts of Ube3a. Hum Mol Genet 2003; 12(8):837–847.
Nesse RM, Williams GC. Why we Get Sick. New York: Times Books; 1994.
Constancia M, Kelsey G, Reik W. Resourceful imprinting. Nature 2004; 432(7013):53–57.
Wilkins JF, Haig D. What good is genomic imprinting: The function of parent-specific gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 2003; 4(5):359–368.
Haig D. Genomic Imprinting and Kinship. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University press 2002.
Hamilton WD. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. J Theor Biol 1964; 7:1–16.
Haig D. Parental antagonism, relatedness asymmetries and genomic imprinting. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1997; 264(1388):1657–1662.
Haig D. Placental hormones, genomic imprinting and maternal-fetal communication. J Evol Biol 1996; 9(3):357–380.
Ubeda F, Haig D. Dividing the child. Genetica 2003; 117(1):103–110.
Wilkins JF, Haig D. Genomic imprinting of two antagonistic loci. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001; 268(1479):1861–1867.
Tycko B, Morison IM. Physiological functions of imprinted genes. J Cell Physiol 2002; 192(3):245–258.
Killian JK, Nolan CM, Wylie AA et al. Divergent evolution in M6P/IGF2R imprinting from the Jurassic to the Quaternary. Hum Mol Genet 2001; 10(17):1721–1728.
Killian JK, Nolan CM, Stewart N et al. Monotreme IGF2 expression and ancestral origin of genomic imprinting. J Exp Zool 2001; 291(2):205–212.
Scott RJ, Spielman M. Genomic imprinting in plants and mammals: how life history constrains convergence. Cytogenet Genome Res 2006; 113(1–4):53–67.
Skuse DH, Purcell S, Daly MJ et al. What can studies on Turner syndrome tell us about the role of X-linked genes in social cognition? Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2004; 130B(1):8–9.
Plagge A, Isles AR, Gordon E et al. Imprinted Nesp55 influences behavioral reactivity to novel environments. Moll Cell Biol 2005; 25(8):3019–3026.
Plagge A, Gordon E, Dean W et al. The imprinted signaling protein XL alphas is required for postnatal adaptation to feeding. Nat Genet 2004; 36(8):818–826.
Li LL, Keverne EB, Aparicio SA et al. Regulation of maternal behavior and offspring growth by paternally expressed Peg3. Science 1999; 284:330–333.
Lefebvre L, Viville S, Barton SC et al. Abnormal maternal behavior and growth retardation associated with loss of the imprinted gene Mest. Nat Genet 1998; 20:163–169.
Lawton BR, Sevigny L, Obergfell C et al. Allelic expression of IGF2 in live-bearing, matrotrophic fishes. Dev Genes Evol 2005; 215(4):207–212.
Crespi B, Semeniuk C. Parent-offspring conflict in the evolution of vertebrate reproductive mode. Am Nat 2004; 163(5):635–653.
Goodwin NB, Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD. Life-history correlates of the evolution of live bearing in fishes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002; 357(1419):259–267.
Reynolds JD, Goodwin NB, Freckleton RP. Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002; 357(1419):269–281.
Haig D. Genetic Conflicts in Human pregnancy. Quarterly Review of Biology 1993; 14:249–264.
Trivers R. Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 1974; 14:249–264.
Arngrimsson R. Epigenetics of hypertension in pregnancy. Nat Genet 2005; 37(5):460–461.
van Dijk M, Mulders J, Poutsma A et al. Maternal segregation of the Dutch preeclampsia locus at 10q22 with a new member of the winged helix gene family. Nat Genet 2005; 37(5):514–519.
Oudejans CBM, Mulders J, Lachmeijer AMA et al. The parent-of-origin effect of 10q22 in pre-eclamptic females coincides with two regions clustered for genes with down-regulated expression in androgenetic placentas. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10(8):589–598.
Haig D, Wharton R. Prader-Willi syndrome and the evolution of human childhood. Am J Hum Biol 2003; 15(3):320–329.
Wilkins JF, Haig D. Inbreeding, maternal care and genomic imprinting. J Theor Biol 2003; 221(4):559–564.
Brenton JD, Viville S, Surani MA. Genomic imprinting and cancer. Cancer Surv 1995; 25:161–171.
Jirtle RL. Genomic imprinting and cancer. Exp Cell Res 1999; 248(1):18–24.
Reik W, Constancia M, Fowden A et al. Regulation of supply and demand for maternal nutrients in mammals by imprinted genes. J Physiol 2003; 547(1):35–44.
Varmuza S, Mann M. Genomic Imprinting-Defusing the Ovarian Time Bomb. Trends Genet 1994; 10(4):118–123.
Wilkins JF. Genomic imprinting and methylation: epigenetic canalization and conflict. Trends Genet 2005; 21(6):356–365.
Gorelick R. Neo-Lamarckian medicine. Med Hypotheses 2004; 62(2):299–303.
Hanson MA, Gluckman PD. Developmental processes and the induction of cardiovascular function: conceptual aspects. J Physiol 2005; 565(1):27–34.
Waterland RA, Jirtle RL. Early nutrition, epigenetic changes at transposons and imprinted genes and enhanced susceptibility to adult chronic diseases. Nutrition 2004; 20(1):63–68.
Jablonka E, Lamb MJ. Epigenetic inheritance in evolution. J Evol Biol 1998; 11(1):159–183.
Gallou-Kabani C, Junien C. Nutritional epigenomics of metabolic syndrome-New perspective against the epidemic. Diabetes 2005; 54(7):1899–1906.
Hales NC, P. BDJ. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Br Med Bull 2001; 60:5–20.
Barker DJP. Fetal programming of coronary heart disease. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2002; 13(9):364–368.
Preece MA, Moore GE. Genomic imprinting, uniparental disomy and foetal growth. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2000; 11(7):270–275.
Haig D, Trivers R. The evolution of parental imprinting: a review of hypotheses. In: Ohlsson R, Hall K, Ritzen M, eds. Genomic Imprinting: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995:17–28.
Hurst LD, McVean GT. Growth effects of uniparental disomies and the conflict theory of genomic imprinting. Trends Genet 1997; 13(11):436–443.
Iwasa Y, Mochizuki A, Takeda Y. The evolution of genomic imprinting: Abortion overshoot explain aberrations. Evol Ecol Res 1999; 1(2):129–150.
Burt A, Trivers RL. Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 2006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Úbeda, F., Wilkins, J.F. (2008). Imprinted Genes and Human Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective. In: Wilkins, J.F. (eds) Genomic Imprinting. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 626. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77576-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77576-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-77575-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-77576-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)