4.7 Article

Global variability in gene expression and alternative splicing is modulated by mitochondrial content

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 633-644

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.178426.114

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [BFU2009-10792, BFU2013-45918-R]
  2. Medical Research Council (U.K.)
  3. Fundacao Ciencia e Tecnologia (Portugal)
  4. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia
  5. Fundacion Ramon Areces

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Noise in gene expression is a main determinant of phenotypic variability. Increasing experimental evidence suggests that genome-wide cellular constraints largely contribute to the heterogeneity observed in gene products. It is still unclear, however, which global factors affect gene expression noise and to what extent. Since eukaryotic gene expression is an energy demanding process, differences in the energy budget of each cell could determine gene expression differences. Here, we quantify the contribution of mitochondrial variability (a natural source of ATP variation) to global variability in gene expression. We find that changes in mitochondrial content can account for similar to 50% of the variability observed in protein levels. This is the combined result of the effect of mitochondria dosage on transcription and translation apparatus content and activities. Moreover, we find that mitochondrial levels have a large impact on alternative splicing, thus modulating both the abundance and type of mRNAs. A simple mathematical model in which mitochondrial content simultaneously affects transcription rate and splicing site choice can explain the alternative splicing data. The results of this study show that mitochondrial content (and/or probably function) influences mRNA abundance, translation, and alternative splicing, which ultimately affects cellular phenotype.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available