38 research outputs found
Loss of RNA–Dependent RNA Polymerase 2 (RDR2) Function Causes Widespread and Unexpected Changes in the Expression of Transposons, Genes, and 24-nt Small RNAs
Transposable elements (TEs) comprise a substantial portion of many eukaryotic genomes and are typically transcriptionally silenced. RNA–dependent RNA polymerase 2 (RDR2) is a component of the RNA–directed DNA methylation (RdDM) silencing pathway. In maize, loss of mediator of paramutation1 (mop1) encoded RDR2 function results in reactivation of transcriptionally silenced Mu transposons and a substantial reduction in the accumulation of 24 nt short-interfering RNAs (siRNAs) that recruit RNA silencing components. An RNA–seq experiment conducted on shoot apical meristems (SAMs) revealed that, as expected based on a model in which RDR2 generates 24 nt siRNAs that suppress expression, most differentially expressed DNA TEs (78%) were up-regulated in the mop1 mutant. In contrast, most differentially expressed retrotransposons (68%) were down-regulated. This striking difference suggests that distinct silencing mechanisms are applied to different silencing templates. In addition, >6,000 genes (24% of analyzed genes), including nearly 80% (286/361) of genes in chromatin modification pathways, were differentially expressed. Overall, two-thirds of differentially regulated genes were down-regulated in the mop1 mutant. This finding suggests that RDR2 plays a significant role in regulating the expression of not only transposons, but also of genes. A re-analysis of existing small RNA data identified both RDR2–sensitive and RDR2–resistant species of 24 nt siRNAs that we hypothesize may at least partially explain the complex changes in the expression of genes and transposons observed in the mop1 mutant
A Position Effect on the Heritability of Epigenetic Silencing
In animals and yeast, position effects have been well documented. In animals, the best example of this process is Position Effect Variegation (PEV) in Drosophila melanogaster. In PEV, when genes are moved into close proximity to constitutive heterochromatin, their expression can become unstable, resulting in variegated patches of gene expression. This process is regulated by a variety of proteins implicated in both chromatin remodeling and RNAi-based silencing. A similar phenomenon is observed when transgenes are inserted into heterochromatic regions in fission yeast. In contrast, there are few examples of position effects in plants, and there are no documented examples in either plants or animals for positions that are associated with the reversal of previously established silenced states. MuDR transposons in maize can be heritably silenced by a naturally occurring rearranged version of MuDR. This element, Muk, produces a long hairpin RNA molecule that can trigger DNA methylation and heritable silencing of one or many MuDR elements. In most cases, MuDR elements remain inactive even after Muk segregates away. Thus, Muk-induced silencing involves a directed and heritable change in gene activity in the absence of changes in DNA sequence. Using classical genetic analysis, we have identified an exceptional position at which MuDR element silencing is unstable. Muk effectively silences the MuDR element at this position. However, after Muk is segregated away, element activity is restored. This restoration is accompanied by a reversal of DNA methylation. To our knowledge, this is the first documented example of a position effect that is associated with the reversal of epigenetic silencing. This observation suggests that there are cis-acting sequences that alter the propensity of an epigenetically silenced gene to remain inactive. This raises the interesting possibility that an important feature of local chromatin environments may be the capacity to erase previously established epigenetic marks
Mu Transposon Insertion Sites and Meiotic Recombination Events Co-Localize with Epigenetic Marks for Open Chromatin across the Maize Genome
The Mu transposon system of maize is highly active, with each of the ∼50–100 copies transposing on average once each generation. The approximately one dozen distinct Mu transposons contain highly similar ∼215 bp terminal inverted repeats (TIRs) and generate 9-bp target site duplications (TSDs) upon insertion. Using a novel genome walking strategy that uses these conserved TIRs as primer binding sites, Mu insertion sites were amplified from Mu stocks and sequenced via 454 technology. 94% of ∼965,000 reads carried Mu TIRs, demonstrating the specificity of this strategy. Among these TIRs, 21 novel Mu TIRs were discovered, revealing additional complexity of the Mu transposon system. The distribution of >40,000 non-redundant Mu insertion sites was strikingly non-uniform, such that rates increased in proportion to distance from the centromere. An identified putative Mu transposase binding consensus site does not explain this non-uniformity. An integrated genetic map containing more than 10,000 genetic markers was constructed and aligned to the sequence of the maize reference genome. Recombination rates (cM/Mb) are also strikingly non-uniform, with rates increasing in proportion to distance from the centromere. Mu insertion site frequencies are strongly correlated with recombination rates. Gene density does not fully explain the chromosomal distribution of Mu insertion and recombination sites, because pronounced preferences for the distal portion of chromosome are still observed even after accounting for gene density. The similarity of the distributions of Mu insertions and meiotic recombination sites suggests that common features, such as chromatin structure, are involved in site selection for both Mu insertion and meiotic recombination. The finding that Mu insertions and meiotic recombination sites both concentrate in genomic regions marked with epigenetic marks of open chromatin provides support for the hypothesis that open chromatin enhances rates of both Mu insertion and meiotic recombination
Translating it into real life: a qualitative study of the cognitions, barriers and supports for key obesogenic behaviors of parents of preschoolers
BACKGROUND: Little is known about preschool parents' cognitions, barriers, supports and modeling of key obesogenic behaviors, including breakfast, fruit and vegetable consumption, sugary beverage intake, feeding practices, portion sizes, active playtime, reduced screen-time, sleep and selection of child-care centers with characteristics that promote healthy behaviors. METHODS: Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine these factors via survey and focus groups among 139 parents of 2- to 5-year-old children. Standard content analysis procedures were used to identify trends and themes in the focus group data, and Analysis of Variance was used to test for differences between groups in the survey data. RESULTS: Results showed 80% of parents ate breakfast daily, consumed sugary beverages 2.7 ± 2.5SD days per week, and had at least two different vegetables and fruits an average of 5.2 ± 1.8SD and 4.6 ± 2.0SD days per week. Older parents and those with greater education drank significantly fewer sugary drinks. Parents played actively a mean 4.2 ± 2.2 hours/week with their preschoolers, who watched television a mean 2.4 ± 1.7 hours/day. Many parents reported having a bedtime routine for their preschooler and choosing childcare centers that replaced screen-time with active play and nutrition education. Common barriers to choosing healthful behaviors included lack of time; neighborhood safety; limited knowledge of portion size, cooking methods, and ways to prepare healthy foods or play active indoor games; the perceived cost of healthy options, and family members who were picky eaters. Supports for performing healthful behaviors included planning ahead, introducing new foods and behaviors often and in tandem with existing preferred foods and behaviors, and learning strategies from other parents. CONCLUSIONS: Future education programs with preschool parents should emphasize supports and encourage parents to share helpful strategies with each other.This item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at [email protected]