» Articles » PMID: 17210929

Characterization and Predictive Discovery of Evolutionarily Conserved Mammalian Alternative Promoters

Overview
Journal Genome Res
Specialty Genetics
Date 2007 Jan 11
PMID 17210929
Citations 55
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent studies suggest that surprisingly many mammalian genes have alternative promoters (APs); however, their biological roles, and the characteristics that distinguish them from single promoters (SPs), remain poorly understood. We constructed a large data set of evolutionarily conserved promoters, and used it to identify sequence features, functional associations, and expression patterns that differ by promoter type. The four promoter categories CpG-rich APs, CpG-poor APs, CpG-rich SPs, and CpG-poor SPs each show characteristic strengths and patterns of sequence conservation, frequencies of putative transcription-related motifs, and tissue and developmental stage expression preferences. APs display substantially higher sequence conservation than SPs and CpG-poor promoters than CpG-rich promoters. Among CpG-poor promoters, APs and SPs show sharply contrasting developmental stage preferences and TATA box frequencies. We developed a discriminator to computationally predict promoter type, verified its accuracy through experimental tests that incorporate a novel method for deconvolving mixed sequence traces, and used it to find several new APs. The discriminator predicts that almost half of all mammalian genes have evolutionarily conserved APs. This high frequency of APs, together with the strong purifying selection maintaining them, implies a crucial role in expanding the expression diversity of the mammalian genome.

Citing Articles

Age-related promoter-switch regulates Runx1 expression in adult rat hearts.

Song J, Zhang X, Lv S, Liu M, Hua X, Yue L BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023; 23(1):541.

PMID: 37936072 PMC: 10631011. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03583-3.


Reciprocal regulation of flower induction by ELF3α and ELF3β generated via alternative promoter usage.

Wang P, Li Y, Liu Z, Li X, Wang Y, Liu W Plant Cell. 2023; 35(6):2095-2113.

PMID: 36883592 PMC: 10226570. DOI: 10.1093/plcell/koad067.


Widespread occurrence of hybrid internal-terminal exons in human transcriptomes.

Fiszbein A, McGurk M, Calvo-Roitberg E, Kim G, Burge C, Pai A Sci Adv. 2022; 8(3):eabk1752.

PMID: 35044812 PMC: 8769537. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abk1752.


Promoter switching in response to changing environment and elevated expression of protein-coding genes overlapping at their 5' ends.

Rosikiewicz W, Sikora J, Skrzypczak T, Kubiak M, Makalowska I Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):8984.

PMID: 33903630 PMC: 8076222. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-87970-w.


Embryo polarity in moth flies and mosquitoes relies on distinct old genes with localized transcript isoforms.

Yoon Y, Klomp J, Martin-Martin I, Criscione F, Calvo E, Ribeiro J Elife. 2019; 8.

PMID: 31591963 PMC: 6783274. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.46711.


References
1.
Schug J, Schuller W, Kappen C, Salbaum J, Bucan M, Stoeckert Jr C . Promoter features related to tissue specificity as measured by Shannon entropy. Genome Biol. 2005; 6(4):R33. PMC: 1088961. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2005-6-4-r33. View

2.
Yeo G, Van Nostrand E, Holste D, Poggio T, Burge C . Identification and analysis of alternative splicing events conserved in human and mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(8):2850-5. PMC: 548664. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0409742102. View

3.
Siepel A, Bejerano G, Pedersen J, Hinrichs A, Hou M, Rosenbloom K . Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Res. 2005; 15(8):1034-50. PMC: 1182216. DOI: 10.1101/gr.3715005. View

4.
Kim T, Barrera L, Zheng M, Qu C, Singer M, Richmond T . A high-resolution map of active promoters in the human genome. Nature. 2005; 436(7052):876-80. PMC: 1895599. DOI: 10.1038/nature03877. View

5.
Robertson K . DNA methylation and human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2005; 6(8):597-610. DOI: 10.1038/nrg1655. View