4.6 Review

Genomic imprinting and kinship: How good is the evidence?

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 553-585

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.142741

关键词

brown adipose tissue; callipyge; Gnas; huddling; Igf2; Igf2r

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The kinship theory of genomic imprinting proposes that parent-specific gene expression evolves at a locus because a gene's level of expression in one individual has fitness effects on other individuals who have different probabilities of carrying the maternal and paternal alleles of the individual in which the gene is expressed. Therefore, natural selection favors different levels of expression depending on an allele's sex-of-origin in the previous generation. This review considers the strength of evidence in support of this hypothesis for imprinted genes in four clusters, associated with the imprinted loci Igf2, Igf2r, callipyge, and Gnas. The clusters associated with Igf2 and Iglfr both contain paternally expressed transcripts that act as enhancers of prenatal growth and maternally expressed transcripts that act as inhibitors of prenatal growth. This is consistent with predictions of the kinship theory. However, the clusters also contain imprinted genes whose phenotypes as yet remain unexplained by the theory. The principal effects of imprinted genes in the callipyge and Gnas clusters appear to involve lipid and energy metabolism. The kinship theory predicts that maternally expressed transcripts will favor higher levels of nonshivering thermogenesis (NST) in brown adipose tissue (BAT) of animals that huddle for wan-nth as offspring. The phenotypes of reciprocal heterozygotes for Gnas knockouts provide provisional support for this hypothesis, as does some evidence from other imprinted genes (albeit more tentatively). The diverse effects of imprinted genes on the development of white adipose tissue (WAT) have so far defied a unifying hypothesis in terms of the kinship theory.

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

4.6
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