Comparative modular analysis of gene expression in vertebrate organs

BackgroundThe degree of conservation of gene expression between homologous organs largely remains an open question. Several recent studies reported some evidence in favor of such conservation. Most studies compute organs' similarity across all orthologous genes, whereas the expression level of many genes are not informative about organ specificity.ResultsHere, we use a modularization algorithm to overcome this limitation through the identification of inter-species co-modules of organs and genes. We identify such co-modules using mouse and human microarray expression data. They are functionally coherent both in terms of genes and of organs from both organisms. We show that a large proportion of genes belonging to the same co-module are orthologous between mouse and human. Moreover, their zebrafish orthologs also tend to be expressed in the corresponding homologous organs. Notable exceptions to the general pattern of conservation are the testis and the olfactory bulb. Interestingly, some co-modules consist of single organs, while others combine several functionally related organs. For instance, amygdala, cerebral cortex, hypothalamus and spinal cord form a clearly discernible unit of expression, both in mouse and human.ConclusionsOur study provides a new framework for comparative analysis which will be applicable also to other sets of large-scale phenotypic data collected across different species.

[1]  Diethard Tautz,et al.  Contrasting evolution of expression differences in the testis between species and subspecies of the house mouse. , 2006, Genome research.

[2]  Ruolin Yang,et al.  Characterization and Comparison of the Tissue-Related Modules in Human and Mouse , 2010, PloS one.

[3]  Sven Bergmann,et al.  A modular approach for integrative analysis of large-scale gene-expression and drug-response data , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[4]  A. Orth,et al.  Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Rafael A. Irizarry,et al.  A Model-Based Background Adjustment for Oligonucleotide Expression Arrays , 2004 .

[6]  H. Parkinson,et al.  Large scale comparison of global gene expression patterns in human and mouse , 2010, Genome Biology.

[7]  Jianzhi Zhang,et al.  Evolutionary conservation of expression profiles between human and mouse orthologous genes. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Mistranslation-Induced Protein Misfolding as a Dominant Constraint on Coding-Sequence Evolution , 2008, Cell.

[9]  S. Ishikawa,et al.  Tissue-specific demethylation in CpG-poor promoters during cellular differentiation. , 2011, Human molecular genetics.

[10]  Frederic B. Bastian,et al.  Homolonto: generating homology relationships by pairwise alignment of ontologies and application to vertebrate anatomy , 2010, Bioinform..

[11]  S. Firestein,et al.  The olfactory receptor gene superfamily of the mouse , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  S. Bergmann,et al.  The evolution of gene expression levels in mammalian organs , 2011, Nature.

[13]  Yupeng Wang,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Gene Expression Evolution Between Humans and Mice , 2009, Evolutionary bioinformatics online.

[14]  S. Batalov,et al.  A gene atlas of the mouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  M. Nei,et al.  Extensive Gains and Losses of Olfactory Receptor Genes in Mammalian Evolution , 2007, PloS one.

[16]  Cynthia Friedman,et al.  Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families. , 2002, Human molecular genetics.

[17]  Sébastien Moretti,et al.  Bgee: Integrating and Comparing Heterogeneous Transcriptome Data Among Species , 2008, DILS.

[18]  Anne Niknejad,et al.  vHOG, a multispecies vertebrate ontology of homologous organs groups , 2012, Bioinform..

[19]  I. Yanai,et al.  Incongruent expression profiles between human and mouse orthologous genes suggest widespread neutral evolution of transcription control. , 2004, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[20]  David Waxman,et al.  A Problem With the Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Gene Expression Divergence , 2009, Genetics.

[21]  Eugene V Koonin,et al.  Evolutionary significance of gene expression divergence. , 2005, Gene.

[22]  Y. Xing,et al.  Assessing the conservation of mammalian gene expression using high-density exon arrays. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[23]  Jean YH Yang,et al.  Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics , 2004, Genome Biology.

[24]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Improved scoring of functional groups from gene expression data by decorrelating GO graph structure , 2006, Bioinform..

[25]  X. Gu,et al.  Tissue-driven hypothesis of genomic evolution and sequence-expression correlations , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Christopher J. Lee,et al.  Genome-wide detection of tissue-specific alternative splicing in the human transcriptome. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[27]  Matthew N. McCall,et al.  The Gene Expression Barcode: leveraging public data repositories to begin cataloging the human and murine transcriptomes , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  Damian Smedley,et al.  BioMart – biological queries made easy , 2009, BMC Genomics.

[29]  A. Su,et al.  Gene expression evolves faster in narrowly than in broadly expressed mammalian genes. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  S. Pääbo,et al.  Parallel Patterns of Evolution in the Genomes and Transcriptomes of Humans and Chimpanzees , 2005, Science.

[31]  Sven Bergmann,et al.  Iterative signature algorithm for the analysis of large-scale gene expression data. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.