Genetic and epigenetic variations contributed by Alu retrotransposition

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>De novo </it>retrotransposition of Alu elements has been recognized as a major driver for insertion polymorphisms in human populations. In this study, we exploited Alu-anchored bisulfite PCR libraries to identify evolutionarily recent Alu element insertions, and to investigate their genetic and epigenetic variation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 327 putatively recent Alu insertions were identified, altogether represented by 1,762 sequence reads. Nearly all such <it>de novo </it>retrotransposition events (316/327) were novel. Forty-seven out of forty-nine randomly selected events, corresponding to nineteen genomic loci, were sequence-verified. Alu element insertions remained hemizygous in one or more individuals in sixteen of the nineteen genomic loci. The Alu elements were found to be enriched for young Alu families with characteristic sequence features, such as the presence of a longer poly(A) tail. In addition, we documented the occurrence of a duplication of the AT-rich target site in their immediate flanking sequences, a hallmark of retrotransposition. Furthermore, we found the sequence motif (TT/AAAA) that is recognized by the ORF2P protein encoded by LINE-1 in their 5'-flanking regions, consistent with the fact that Alu retrotransposition is facilitated by LINE-1 elements. While most of these Alu elements were heavily methylated, we identified an Alu localized 1.5 kb downstream of TOMM5 that exhibited a completely unmethylated left arm. Interestingly, we observed differential methylation of its immediate 5' and 3' flanking CpG dinucleotides, in concordance with the unmethylated and methylated statuses of its internal 5' and 3' sequences, respectively. Importantly, TOMM5's CpG island and the 3 Alu repeats and 1 MIR element localized upstream of this newly inserted Alu were also found to be unmethylated. Methylation analyses of two additional genomic loci revealed no methylation differences in CpG dinucleotides flanking the Alu insertion sites in the two homologous chromosomes, irrespective of the presence or absence of the insertion.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We anticipate that the combination of methodologies utilized in this study, which included repeat-anchored bisulfite PCR sequencing and the computational analysis pipeline herein reported, will prove invaluable for the generation of genetic and epigenetic variation maps.</p

Evolutionary Conservation of the Functional Modularity of Primate and Murine LINE-1 Elements

LINE-1 (L1) retroelements emerged in mammalian genomes over 80 million years ago with a few dominant subfamilies amplifying over discrete time periods that led to distinct human and mouse L1 lineages. We evaluated the functional conservation of L1 sequences by comparing retrotransposition rates of chimeric human-rodent L1 constructs to their parental L1 counterparts. Although amino acid conservation varies from ∼35% to 63% for the L1 ORF1p and ORF2p, most human and mouse L1 sequences can be functionally exchanged. Replacing either ORF1 or ORF2 to create chimeric human-mouse L1 elements did not adversely affect retrotransposition. The mouse ORF2p retains retrotransposition-competency to support both Alu and L1 mobilization when any of the domain sequences we evaluated were substituted with human counterparts. However, the substitution of portions of the mouse cys-domain into the human ORF2p reduces both L1 retrotransposition and Alu trans-mobilization by 200–1000 fold. The observed loss of ORF2p function is independent of the endonuclease or reverse transcriptase activities of ORF2p and RNA interaction required for reverse transcription. In addition, the loss of function is physically separate from the cysteine-rich motif sequence previously shown to be required for RNP formation. Our data suggest an additional role of the less characterized carboxy-terminus of the L1 ORF2 protein by demonstrating that this domain, in addition to mediating RNP interaction(s), provides an independent and required function for the retroelement amplification process. Our experiments show a functional modularity of most of the LINE sequences. However, divergent evolution of interactions within L1 has led to non-reciprocal incompatibilities between human and mouse ORF2 cys-domain sequences

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3