Advertisement
Sino Biological
Sino Biological

Gene evolution reversed

Primordial vertebrate gene reconstructed by fusing its descendants

By | August 8, 2006

Time travel may be possible, at least in a laboratory -- researchers have reconstructed a now-extinct vertebrate gene that split into parts 500 million years ago. During the study, published this week in Developmental Cell, researchers replaced two mouse genes with a synthesized "ancestral" version that contains parts of both. "The most striking finding was that we succeeded in 'simplifying' the mouse genome," said Petr Tvrdik, lead author of the study. "We could replace two genes that are obviously essential by a single, bifunctional gene." Tvrdik and his coauthor Mario Capecchi, both at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, focused on the mouse Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 genes, the two most significant descendants of the ancient vertebrate Hox1 gene. The Hox family of genes, all of which have between two and four paralogs in modern vertebrates, play an essential role in embryo development. The Hox1 paralogs help to shape the central hindbrain -- mice lacking Hoxb1 are deficient in motor neuron function and can't perform certain facial movements such as blinking. Mice lacking Hoxa1 have a defective breathing mechanism, and die soon after birth. In humans, Hoxa1 mutations sometimes occur; victims survive into adulthood, but suffer from impaired eye movements, deafness, delayed motor development, and breathing difficulties. Researchers had previously hypothesized that Hox paralogs encode similar proteins and differ mainly in their regulatory sequence. To test this in the case of Hoxa1 and Hoxb1, Tvrdik and Capecchi swapped the protein-coding regions of the two genes. The mice turned out to be normal. "We did find subtle differences, but the mice were happy with swapped genes," Tvrdik said. "Intrigued by this, we asked if we could go even further in constructing a single gene that would perhaps do both of these seemingly separated functions in the mouse brain." Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 switch on around the same time in a mouse embryo. But due to differences in the regulatory sequence, one remains active only for about a day, while the other continues to act for several more days. Since Hoxa1's protein can substitute for that of Hoxb1 in the brain, Tvrdik and Capecchi hypothesized that if Hoxa1's activation pattern could be suitably modified, it could take over Hoxb1's function as well -- essentially reverting to the ancient Hox1 gene. To achieve this synthesis, the researchers inserted Hoxb1's autoregulatory element, a 107 bp sequence, into Hoxa1's promoter. In mice with Hoxb1 knocked out, two copies of this composite gene restored viability and normal facial movements. "Rather strikingly, the mouse with the bifunctional Hoxa1 gene was fine even in the absence of the other gene," Tvrdik said. Based on their results, the researchers propose a new form of gene therapy, where a small regulatory fragment from a defective gene could be used to activate a similar, but functional, gene. This might require much less DNA transfer compared to conventional gene therapy since only a small regulatory fragment needs to be inserted into the second gene, Tvrdik said. "Perhaps the most astonishing finding from this work is that mice can survive with normal neurological functions given one functional Hox1 paralog in place of the Hoxa1/Hoxb1 pair, Jonathan Eggenschwiler of the department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University said in an Email. However, Eggenschwiler, who was not involved in the paper, added that even though mice with a single version of Hox1 appear normal, "slight positive selective pressure in favor of two diversified Hox1 paralogs may only be evident over long evolutionary timescales." The study highlights the importance of the cis-regulatory elements in the divergence of gene function, said Steven Potter of the Developmental Biology department at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, also not a co-author. The elegant and novel feature of the study, according to Potter, is that the authors combine the cis-regulatory elements from different paralogs to create a multifunctional Hox gene. "That was a bold experiment," he said. "I probably would have never tried it, because I wouldn't have thought it could work." Chandra Shekhar cshekhar@the-scientist.com Links within this article P. Tvrdik and M. Capecchi, "Reversal Hox1 gene subfunctionalization in the mouse," Developmental Cell, 11:1-12, August 2006. http://www.developmentalcell.com/ Petr Tvrdik http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/labmembers.html Mario Capecchi http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/ C. Holding, "Hox: Total knockout," The Scientist, July 18, 2003. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/21472/ S. Blackman, "Old genes, new tricks," The Scientist, August 28, 2003. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/21554/ J.M. Greer at al., "Maintenance of functional equivalence during paralogous Hox gene evolution," Nature, 403(6770):661-5, Feb 10, 2000. PM_ID: 10688203 Jonathan Eggenschwiler http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/research_facultymember.php?id=57 Stephen Potter http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/div/dev-biology/fs/fac/steven-potter.htm
Advertisement
Keystone Symposia
Keystone Symposia

Comments

Avatar of: David Bump

David Bump

Posts: 15

August 9, 2006

This is a really great example of genetic research! Of course, dragging in an unprovable but generally accepted claim that it reproduces an earlier stage in evolution always helps boost attention. \n\nAre we really supposed to believe that the split (which seems to have such little effect) happened "500 million years ago" -- during the Cambrian, when the first vertebrates appeared -- and also that nothing much else happened to the 2-4 new paralogs? \n\nAh yes, they were evolutionarily conserved due to their important function(s), perhaps. In other words, not much evolution happened in this case -- or perhaps evolution didn't have anything to do with it.
Avatar of: Alvaro Cervantes

Alvaro Cervantes

Posts: 2

August 29, 2006

I admire these group of researcher for their great dedication to science. I aknowledge the tremendous amount of work performed in this research and hope that more and more people side with science to uncover the secrets of nature. keep that good job...
Avatar of: Jacob Reimer

Jacob Reimer

Posts: 1

February 5, 2007

Read an article in Litmus Magazine about why this headline is misleading and fails to capture what is interesting about this research: http://www.litmusmag.net/sin-1.29.07.html

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
NuAire Inc.
NuAire Inc.
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist