4.7 Article

Genome-wide gene expression regulation as a function of genotype and age in C-elegans

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 929-937

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.102160.109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene expression becomes more variable with age, and it is widely assumed that this is due to a decrease in expression regulation. But currently there is no understanding how gene expression regulatory patterns progress with age. Here we explored genome-wide gene expression variation and regulatory loci (eQTL) in a population of developing and aging C. elegans recombinant inbred worms. We found almost 900 genes with an eQTL, of which almost half were found to have a genotype-by-age effect ((gxa)eQTL). The total number of eQTL decreased with age, whereas the variation in expression increased. In developing worms, the number of genes with increased expression variation (1282) was similar to the ones with decreased expression variation (1328). In aging worms, the number of genes with increased variation (1772) was nearly five times higher than the number of genes with a decreased expression variation (373). The number of cis-acting eQTL in juveniles decreased by almost 50% in old worms, whereas the number of trans-acting loci decreased by similar to 27%, indicating that cis-regulation becomes relatively less frequent than trans-regulation in aging worms. Of the 373 genes with decreased expression level variation in aging worms, similar to 39% had an eQTL compared with similar to 14% in developing worms. gxaeQTL were found for similar to 21% of these genes in aging worms compared with only similar to 6% in developing worms. We highlight three examples of linkages: in young worms (pgp-6), in old worms (daf-16), and throughout life (lips-16). Our findings demonstrate that eQTL patterns are strongly affected by age, and suggest that gene network integrity declines with age.

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

4.7
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