Epistatic Interaction Maps Relative to Multiple Metabolic Phenotypes

An epistatic interaction between two genes occurs when the phenotypic impact of one gene depends on another gene, often exposing a functional association between them. Due to experimental scalability and to evolutionary significance, abundant work has been focused on studying how epistasis affects cellular growth rate, most notably in yeast. However, epistasis likely influences many different phenotypes, affecting our capacity to understand cellular functions, biochemical networks adaptation, and genetic diseases. Despite its broad significance, the extent and nature of epistasis relative to different phenotypes remain fundamentally unexplored. Here we use genome-scale metabolic network modeling to investigate the extent and properties of epistatic interactions relative to multiple phenotypes. Specifically, using an experimentally refined stoichiometric model for Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we computed a three-dimensional matrix of epistatic interactions between any two enzyme gene deletions, with respect to all metabolic flux phenotypes. We found that the total number of epistatic interactions between enzymes increases rapidly as phenotypes are added, plateauing at approximately 80 phenotypes, to an overall connectivity that is roughly 8-fold larger than the one observed relative to growth alone. Looking at interactions across all phenotypes, we found that gene pairs interact incoherently relative to different phenotypes, i.e. antagonistically relative to some phenotypes and synergistically relative to others. Specific deletion-deletion-phenotype triplets can be explained metabolically, suggesting a highly informative role of multi-phenotype epistasis in mapping cellular functions. Finally, we found that genes involved in many interactions across multiple phenotypes are more highly expressed, evolve slower, and tend to be associated with diseases, indicating that the importance of genes is hidden in their total phenotypic impact. Our predictions indicate a pervasiveness of nonlinear effects in how genetic perturbations affect multiple metabolic phenotypes. The approaches and results reported could influence future efforts in understanding metabolic diseases and the role of biochemical regulation in the cell.

[1]  G. Church,et al.  Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks , 2002 .

[2]  G. Church,et al.  Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[3]  Evan S Snitkin,et al.  Model-driven analysis of experimentally determined growth phenotypes for 465 yeast gene deletion mutants under 16 different conditions , 2008, Genome Biology.

[4]  B O Palsson,et al.  Flux-balance analysis of mitochondrial energy metabolism: consequences of systemic stoichiometric constraints. , 2001, American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology.

[5]  V. McKusick Mendelian Inheritance in Man and Its Online Version, OMIM , 2007, The American Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  B. Palsson,et al.  In silico predictions of Escherichia coli metabolic capabilities are consistent with experimental data , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  E. Ruppin,et al.  Multiple knockout analysis of genetic robustness in the yeast metabolic network , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[8]  C. Wilke,et al.  Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Scott M. Williams,et al.  Epistasis and its implications for personal genetics. , 2009, American journal of human genetics.

[10]  A. Kondrashov,et al.  Muller's ratchet under epistatic selection. , 1994, Genetics.

[11]  L. Hurst Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process , 2000, Heredity.

[12]  Grant W. Brown,et al.  Integration of chemical-genetic and genetic interaction data links bioactive compounds to cellular target pathways , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  P. Phillips Epistasis — the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[14]  R. Kishony,et al.  Functional classification of drugs by properties of their pairwise interactions , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[15]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  R. Lenski,et al.  Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria , 1997, Nature.

[17]  Chris S. Haley,et al.  Epistasis: too often neglected in complex trait studies? , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[18]  Charles Boone,et al.  Signature-tagged mutagenesis: barcoding mutants for genome-wide screens , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[19]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Global Mapping of the Yeast Genetic Interaction Network , 2004, Science.

[20]  R. Korona,et al.  Epistatic buffering of fitness loss in yeast double deletion strains , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[21]  J Villadsen,et al.  Optimization of ethanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by metabolic engineering of the ammonium assimilation. , 2000, Metabolic engineering.

[22]  Gary D Bader,et al.  The Genetic Landscape of a Cell , 2010, Science.

[23]  P. Aloy,et al.  A molecular interpretation of genetic interactions in yeast , 2008, FEBS letters.

[24]  Brian D. Peyser,et al.  Gene function prediction from congruent synthetic lethal interactions in yeast , 2005, Molecular systems biology.

[25]  John D. Storey,et al.  Genetic interactions between polymorphisms that affect gene expression in yeast , 2005, Nature.

[26]  Hiroyuki Ogata,et al.  KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[27]  B. Palsson,et al.  Large-scale evaluation of in silico gene deletions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2003, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[28]  Markus J. Herrgård,et al.  Reconstruction and validation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae iND750, a fully compartmentalized genome-scale metabolic model. , 2004, Genome research.

[29]  H. Cordell Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[30]  Evan S Snitkin,et al.  Optimality criteria for the prediction of metabolic fluxes in yeast mutants. , 2008, Genome informatics. International Conference on Genome Informatics.

[31]  R. Kishony,et al.  Antibiotic interactions that select against resistance , 2007, Nature.

[32]  L. Guarente Synthetic enhancement in gene interaction: a genetic tool come of age. , 1993, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[33]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Exploration of the Function and Organization of the Yeast Early Secretory Pathway through an Epistatic Miniarray Profile , 2005, Cell.

[34]  Robert P. St.Onge,et al.  Defining genetic interaction , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  U. Sauer,et al.  Metabolic functions of duplicate genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2005, Genome research.

[36]  C. Wilke,et al.  A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[37]  S. Oliver,et al.  Plasticity of genetic interactions in metabolic networks of yeast , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Jorge Ferrer,et al.  Epistasis of Transcriptomes Reveals Synergism between Transcriptional Activators Hnf1α and Hnf4α , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[39]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Systematic pathway analysis using high-resolution fitness profiling of combinatorial gene deletions , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[40]  U. Sauer,et al.  Large-scale 13C-flux analysis reveals mechanistic principles of metabolic network robustness to null mutations in yeast , 2005, Genome Biology.

[41]  A. Dean,et al.  Pervasive Cryptic Epistasis in Molecular Evolution , 2010, PLoS genetics.

[42]  H. Holzhütter The principle of flux minimization and its application to estimate stationary fluxes in metabolic networks. , 2004, European journal of biochemistry.