4.8 Article

Massively parallel functional dissection of mammalian enhancers in vivo

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 265-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2136

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [HG003988]
  2. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [DP5OD009145]
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) [GM61390]
  4. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [R01HD059862]
  5. University of California, San Francisco Liver Center [P30 DK026743]
  6. National Institute on Aging [AG039173]
  7. Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation
  8. NIH [T32 GM007175]
  9. Amgen Research Excellence in Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences Fellowship
  10. CIHR
  11. Department of Energy, University of California [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The functional consequences of genetic variation in mammalian regulatory elements are poorly understood. We report the in vivo dissection of three mammalian enhancers at single-nucleotide resolution through a massively parallel reporter assay. For each enhancer, we synthesized a library of >100,000 mutant haplotypes with 2-3% divergence from the wild-type sequence. Each haplotype was linked to a unique sequence tag embedded within a transcriptional cassette. We introduced each enhancer library into mouse liver and measured the relative activities of individual haplotypes en masse by sequencing the transcribed tags. Linear regression analysis yielded highly reproducible estimates of the effect of every possible single-nucleotide change on enhancer activity. The functional consequence of most mutations was modest, with similar to 22% affecting activity by >1.2-fold and similar to 3% by >2-fold. Several, but not all, positions with higher effects showed evidence for purifying selection, or co-localized with known liver-associated transcription factor binding sites, demonstrating the value of empirical high-resolution functional analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据