4.8 Article

Developmental phenomics suggests that H3K4 monomethylation confers multi-level phenotypic robustness

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 41, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111832

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [TS 428/1-1]
  2. ERC Consolidator grant METACELL [773089]
  3. European Molecular Biology Laboratory Interdisciplinary Postdoc Programme (EIPOD) under Marie Sk1odowska-Curie Actions COFUND [664726, 847543]
  4. Israel Science Foundation [2567/20]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [773089] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of hypomethylation on gene expression, morphology, metabolism, behavior, and offspring production in Drosophila melanogaster. The results demonstrate that hypomethylation disrupts gene expression and reduces phenotypic robustness. However, these phenotypic changes are only observed in specific genetic backgrounds or outside of standard laboratory environments.
How histone modifications affect animal development remains difficult to ascertain. Despite the prevalence of histone 3 lysine 4 monomethylation (H3K4me1) on enhancers, hypomethylation appears to have minor effects on phenotype and viability. Here, we genetically reduce H3K4me1 deposition in Drosophila melanogaster and find that hypomethylation reduces transcription factor enrichment in nuclear microenvironments, disrupts gene expression, and reduces phenotypic robustness. Using a developmental phenomics approach, we find changes in morphology, metabolism, behavior, and offspring production. However, many phenotypic changes are only detected when hypomethylated flies develop outside of standard laboratory environments or with specific genetic backgrounds. Therefore, quantitative phenomics measurements can unravel how pleiotropic modulators of gene expression affect developmental robustness under conditions resembling the natural environments of a species.

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