Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:51:22.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cap Analysis of Gene Expression Clarifies Transcriptomic Divergence Within Monozygotic Twin Pairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2023

Hirokazu Katoh
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Science, Okayama, Japan Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Hiroaki Asai
Affiliation:
Division of Virology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Keiko Takemoto
Affiliation:
Institute for Life and Medical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Rie Tomizawa
Affiliation:
Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Chika Honda
Affiliation:
Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Mikio Watanabe
Affiliation:
Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan Department of Biomedical Informatics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Tomoyuki Honda*
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Science, Okayama, Japan Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan Division of Virology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Osaka Twin Research Group
Affiliation:
Center for Twin Research, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Tomoyuki Honda; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Phenotypic variation is the result of gene expression based on complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors. It is well known that genetic and environmental factors influence gene expression, but our understanding of their relative importance remains limited. To obtain a hint for the understanding of their contributions, we took advantage of monozygotic twins, as they share genetic and shared environmental factors but differ in nonshared factors, such as environmental differences and stochastic factors. In this study, we performed cap analysis of gene expression on three pairs of twins and clustered each individual based on their expression profiles of annotated genes. The dendrogram of annotated gene transcripts showed a monophyletic clade for each twin pair. We also analyzed the expression of retrotransposons, such as human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) and long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs), given their abundance in the genome. Clustering analyses demonstrated that HERV and LINE expression diverged even within monozygotic twin pairs. Thus, HERVs and LINEs are more susceptible to nonshared factors than annotated genes. Motif analysis of differentially expressed annotated genes suggests that specificity protein/Krüppel-like factor family transcription factors are involved in the expression divergence of annotated gene influenced by nonshared factors. Collectively, our findings suggest that expressions of annotated genes and retrotransposons are differently regulated, and that the expression of retrotransposons is more susceptible to nonshared factors than annotated genes.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Society for Twin Studies

Evaluating the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors in phenotypic outcome remains a major question in biology. Researchers have long taken advantage of the identical genomes of monozygotic (MZ) twins to evaluate genetic and environmental influences on traits and on gene expression (Boomsma et al., Reference Boomsma, Busjahn and Peltonen2002). In the classical twin modeling, phenotypic variance is decomposed of genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared factors (McAdams et al., Reference McAdams, Rijsdijk, Zavos and Pingault2021). Nonshared factors are composed of twin-specific environmental differences and stochastic factors. Early microarray studies have revealed that the proportion of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) within MZ twin pairs was low compared to those between unrelated individuals (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Sharma, Horn-Saban, Lancet, Ramachandran and Brahmachari2005), and that the variance of the gene expression within MZ twin pairs is smaller than those of siblings or unrelated individuals (Cheung et al., Reference Cheung, Conlin, Weber, Arcaro, Jen, Morley and Spielman2003). Powell et al. (Reference Powell, Henders, McRae, Wright, Martin, Dermitzakis, Montgomery and Visscher2012) calculated correlations of the expression levels of 9555 genes within MZ twin pairs (50 pairs in total) and estimated heritability of each gene. Mean heritability was 0.38 and 0.32 for lymphoblastoid cell lines and whole blood, respectively (Powell et al., Reference Powell, Henders, McRae, Wright, Martin, Dermitzakis, Montgomery and Visscher2012). In the MuTHER (Multiple Tissue Human Expression Resource) project, 856 twins (one-third MZ and two-thirds dizygotic [DZ], aged from 38.7 to 84.6 years) were recruited and genomewide expression profiling was performed across multiple tissues. The mean heritability estimates of expressed transcripts was 0.16−0.26 (Grundberg et al., Reference Grundberg, Small, Hedman, Nica, Buil, Keildson, Bell, Yang, Meduri, Barrett, Nisbett, Sekowska, Wilk, Shin, Glass, Travers, Min, Ring, Ho and Spector2012). Wright et al. (Reference Wright, Sullivan, Brooks, Zou, Sun, Xia, Madar, Jansen, Chung, Zhou, Abdellaoui, Batista, Butler, Chen, Chen, D’Ambrosio, Gallins, Ha, Hottenga and Boomsma2014) profiled gene expression of peripheral blood in 2752 twins (690 MZ twin pairs and 618 DZ twin pairs, median of age of 32 years) by using microarray and estimated heritability of genes by using the classic twin modeling. They showed that the mean heritability was 0.10−0.14. Ouwens et al. (Reference Ouwens, Jansen, Nivard, van Dongen, Frieser, Hottenga, Arindrarto, Claringbould, van Iterson, Mei, Franke, Heijmans, ’t Hoen, van Meurs and Brooks2020) also estimated the heritability of gene expression in whole blood as 0.20 using the twin RNA-seq data (1497 adult individuals, including 459 MZ twin pairs, and 150 DZ twin pairs, aged from 17.6 to 79.6). These previous studies imply that, while genetic factors regulate gene expression, nongenetic factors appear to have a larger influence on gene expression on a genomewide scale.

In addition to genes coding for proteins and functional RNAs, the human genome harbors many repetitive sequences, including transposable elements (TEs; Lander et al., Reference Lander, Linton, Birren, Nusbaum, Zody, Baldwin, Devon, Dewar, Doyle, Fitzhugh, Funke, Gage, Harris, Heaford, Howland, Kann, Lehoczky, Levine, McEwan and Morgan2001). Classified based on their mechanism of propagation (Bhat et al., Reference Bhat, Ghatage, Bhan, Lahane, Dhar, Kumar, Pandita, Bhat, Ramos and Pandita2022; Hoyt et al., Reference Hoyt, Storer, Hartley, Grady, Gershman, de Lima, Limouse, Halabian, Wojenski, Rodriguez, Altemose, Rhie, Core, Gerton, Makalowski, Olson, Rosen, Smit, Straight and O’Neill2022; Piégu et al., Reference Piégu, Bire, Arensburger and Bigot2015), retrotransposons are the largest class of TEs. Retrotransposons move within the genome via a copy-and-paste mechanism, first forming RNA intermediates, being reverse-transcribed to DNA, and then integrating at a new genomic site. Retrotransposons are further separated into two subclasses: the first encodes their own catalytic enzymes and comprises human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) and long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs); the other consists of short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) and composite retroelement SINE-VNTR-Alus (SVAs), which are nonautonomous and rely on LINE-encoded proteins for retrotransposition (Konkel & Batzer, Reference Konkel and Batzer2010). While gene-coding sequences comprise about 1.5% of the human genome, HERVs and LINEs account for approximately one-third (Lander et al., Reference Lander, Linton, Birren, Nusbaum, Zody, Baldwin, Devon, Dewar, Doyle, Fitzhugh, Funke, Gage, Harris, Heaford, Howland, Kann, Lehoczky, Levine, McEwan and Morgan2001). In general, epigenetic mechanisms (e.g., DNA methylation and histone modification) silence HERV and LINE expression, preventing their potential threat to host genome stability (Sammarco et al., Reference Sammarco, Pieters, Salony, Toman, Zolotarov and Lafon Placette2022). Although the regulatory mechanism of retrotransposon expression is not fully understood, HERV and LINE expression is considered to be regulated by genetic and environmental factors, similarly to the protein-coding genes. For example, external stimuli, such as UV radiation, infections and chemicals, as well as internal stimuli, such as hormones and cytokines, stimulate transcription of HERVs (Durnaoglu et al., Reference Durnaoglu, Lee and Ahnn2021). Addition of hypomethylation reagents increases LINE-1 mRNA expression and activates retrotransposition in cancer cells (Chénais, Reference Chénais2022). We previously found that therapeutic vaccination for human visceral leishmaniasis and post kala azar dermal leishmaniasis upregulated transcripts containing MLT-int of ERVs, which belong to the mammalian apparent long terminal repeat (LTR)-retrotransposon (MaLR) family (T. Honda et al., Reference Honda, Watanabe, Tomizawa and Sakai2019; Osman et al., Reference Osman, Mistry, Keding, Gabe, Cook, Forrester, Wiggins, Di Marco, Colloca, Siani, Smith, Aebischer, Kaye and Lacey2017). To further investigate the contribution of genetic and environmental factors on HERV and LINE expression, a twin study is useful. As MZ twins share genetic factors and shared environmental factors, difference in retrotransposon/gene expression within MZ twin pairs is explained by the influence of nonshared factors. To our best knowledge, at present there is no study investigating expression profiles of retrotransposons in twins or estimating the heritability of retrotransposon expression using the classical twin modeling. Thus, the influence of factors shared or nonshared by MZ twins on the regulation of retrotransposon expression remains unclear.

Here, we quantified the expression of annotated genes, as well as of HERVs and LINEs, from blood samples of three MZ twin pairs by using cap analysis of gene expression (CAGE; Arner et al., Reference Arner, Daub, Vitting-Seerup, Andersson, Lilje, Drabløs, Lennartsson, Rönnerblad, Hrydziuszko, Vitezic, Freeman, Alhendi, Arner, Axton, Baillie, Beckhouse, Bodega, Briggs, Brombacher and Hayashizaki2015; Forrest et al., Reference Forrest, Kawaji, Rehli, Baillie, De Hoon, Haberle, Lassmann, Kulakovskiy, Lizio, Itoh, Andersson, Mungall, Meehan, Schmeier, Bertin, Jørgensen, Dimont, Arner, Schmidl and Hayashizaki2014). CAGE is more quantitative than RNA-seq because CAGE enables counting the number of transcripts without PCR amplification. The primary objective of our pilot study is to evaluate divergence of gene and retrotransposon expression within MZ twin pairs, between unrelated individuals, and within individuals. Clustering analysis of annotated gene expression showed a monophyletic clade for each twin pair. On the other hand, retrotransposon expression was more divergent than annotated gene expression even within MZ twin pairs. Motif analysis of differentially expressed annotated genes (DEGs) in MZ twins revealed enrichment of sequences potentially bound by Specificity protein 1 (Sp1) and Sp2 transcriptional factors (TFs). In contrast, TFs involved in the regulation of retrotransposons differentially expressed in each pair of MZ twins did not converge to specific TFs. These results imply that there are distinct regulatory mechanisms for expression between annotated genes and retrotransposons. Our findings provide basic information for further understanding of how gene and retrotransposon expression is influenced by factors shared or nonshared by MZ twins.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited from the registry of the Center for Twin Research at Osaka University (C. Honda et al., Reference Honda, Watanabe, Tomizawa and Sakai2019). Three pairs of MZ twins (T1, T2, and T3) participated in this study (Table 1). Individuals in the pairs were designated by sample ID with lower case of ‘a’ or ‘b’. To evaluate divergence of gene expression in an individual along with time, we recruited two participants, T1-a and T2-a, who agreed to provide blood samples at multiple time points. T1-a was 21 years old, having blood samples taken at four time points (Wave1–Wave4). T2-a was 51 years old, having samples taken at two time points (Wave1 and Wave2). Sample IDs of temporal samples from an individual can be designated with a suffix such as ‘2y2w’, which means about 2 years and 2 weeks after Wave1. Difference of expression profile between temporal samples represents divergence within individuals. As T1 and T2 were youths (15−24 years) and adults (25−64 years) respectively, based on the definition of Statistics Canada (Statistics Canada, 2017), we then recruited the third pair as T3-a and T3-b, being 66 years old, from seniors (65 years and over) to determine whether divergence within MZ twin pairs becomes larger with aging. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the Ethics Committee of Osaka University approved the protocol (No. 696). Blood samples were taken at 9:00 after over 12 h of fasting. Genomic DNA was isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells using a commercial kit (QIAamp DNA Mini Kit; QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). Zygosity was confirmed via perfect matching of 15 short tandem repeat (STR) loci using the PowerPlex® 16 System (Promega, Madison, WI, USA).

Table 1. Characteristics of MZ twin samples

a Time point of the first blood sample taken from individuals.

b Time points of the second blood sample taken from individuals.

c Time points of the third blood sample taken from individuals.

d Time points of the fourth blood sample taken from individuals.

e Sample IDs used in this study.

Cap Analysis of Gene Expression (CAGE)

Total RNA was extracted from peripheral blood. To assess quality, Bioanalyzer (Agilent) was used to ensure that RIN (RNA integrity number) was over 7.0, and A260/280 and A260/230 ratios were over 1.7. First-strand cDNA was transcribed to the 5′ end of capped RNAs and attached to CAGE barcode tags. Sequenced CAGE tags were mapped to the human GRCh38 genome after discarding ribosomal or non-A/C/G/T base containing RNAs. Reads were quality-filtered using fastp (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Chen and Gu2018) and mapped using HISAT2 (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Paggi, Park, Bennett and Salzberg2019). Reads with mapping quality (MAPQ) ≥ 20 were collected. Strand-specific coverage of CAGE tags was counted using bedtools at a single base-resolution (Quinlan & Hall, Reference Quinlan and Hall2010). Then, CAGE tags were classified based on their genomic locations as transcripts. The 5’-capping site of annotated gene transcripts lies on the genomic region of transcription start sites (TSSs) defined by FANTOM5 (Abugessaisa et al., Reference Abugessaisa, Noguchi, Hasegawa, Harshbarger, Kondo, Lizio, Severin, Carninci, Kawaji and Kasukawa2017). Similarly, HERV and LINE transcripts were defined based on the annotated regions in the RepeatMasker (https://www.repeatmasker.org/). The number of 5’-capping sites of transcripts within a given region were counted in total by using bigWigAverageOverBed (Kent Utility Tools: https://hgdownload.soe.ucsc.edu/admin/exe/linux.x86_64/). Counts were normalized as tags per million (TPM) after scaling with normalization factors calculated using Relative Log Expression (RLE) by using the edgeR package of R 4.2.2 (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, McCarthy and Smyth2009).

Motif Discovery and Identification of Transcription Factors

To perform motif enrichment analysis, we selected the top 200 transcripts showing the highest magnitude of absolute fold change (|FC|) as differentially expressed transcripts and 3000 background transcripts with the lowest |FC| from a comparison within MZ twin pairs. Genomic sequences of a defined region with both sides of flanking 500 bases were retrieved from the GRCh38 genome using bedtools (Quinlan & Hall, Reference Quinlan and Hall2010). Six to 20 bases in length of consensus sequences enriched in the retrieved sequences of differentially expressed transcripts were discovered using HOMER (Heinz et al., Reference Heinz, Benner, Spann, Bertolino, Lin, Laslo, Cheng, Murre, Singh and Glass2010); the p value cut-off was <.01. These sequences were matched against the human motif database (HOCOMOCO Human v11CORE) to identify associated TFs using the Tomtom program of MEME Suite 5.5.1 (https://meme-suite.org/meme/tools/tomtom); the E-value cut-off was <0.05.

Cluster Analysis and Statistics

We used Spearman’s rank correlation of expression levels of annotated genes and retrotransposons as an indicator of the resemblance between the samples. Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated between a pair of samples using the R 4.2.2, with significance threshold of p = .001 (Bonferroni corrected). The distance between samples was defined as: 1 – correlation. A dendrogram of hierarchical clustering was generated using Ward’s method in R 4.2.2. Violin plots were generated using the NumPy, Pandas, Matplotlib, and Seaborn packages of Python 3.7.3. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student’s t test were performed, with significance thresholds of p = .05 and p = .016 (Bonferroni corrected) respectively.

Results

To evaluate divergence of gene and retrotransposon expression within MZ twin pairs, between unrelated individuals, and within individuals at different time points, we recruited participants as described in Materials and Methods. Table 1 summarizes the biological properties of participants and time points of blood sampling for CAGE. T1-a and T1-b were male MZ twins at 21 years old at Wave1. T2-a and T2-b were female MZ twins at 51 years old at Wave1. To investigate expression divergence within individuals, additional sampling at different time points was performed for T1-a (Wave2, Wave3, and Wave4) and for T2-a (Wave2). The third pair, T3, was recruited to check whether expression divergence becomes larger with aging. T3-a and T3-b were female MZ twins aged 66 years at Wave1. Mapping statistics of raw FASTQ reads against the GRCh38 reference genome are presented in Supplementary Table S1. Over 95% of reads were mapped to the genome, and over 83% of reads were uniquely mapped in the samples.

Divergent Expression of Annotated Gene Transcripts

The number of transcripts from regions corresponding to annotated TSSs was counted at a single-base resolution by CAGE. All correlations of annotated gene expression were significant (Supplementary Table S2, p < .001, Bonferroni corrected). We then performed hierarchical clustering based on Spearman’s correlations for annotated gene transcripts (Figure 1A). As expected, the dendrogram of annotated gene transcripts showed a monophyletic clade for each twin pair (Figure 1A), indicating that annotated gene transcripts are influenced by factors shared with each twin pair. Although a previous study has found that the number of genes differentially expressed in MZ twin pairs increases with age (Viñuela et al., Reference Viñuela, Brown, Buil, Tsai, Davies, Bell, Dermitzakis, Spector and Small2018), we did not detect increased divergence of annotated gene expression with age (correlations within T1-a and T1-b, T2-a and T2-b, and T3-a and T3-b were 0.817, 0.820, 0.818 respectively).

Figure 1. Hierarchical clustering of gene expression profiles and violin plots of correlations between two samples. Dendrogram of annotate gene (A), HERV (C), and LINE (E) transcripts are depicted. Sample IDs from T1, T2, and T3 are depicted in brown, green, and blue respectively. ‘a’ or ‘b’ in the ID represents the individual in a MZ twin pair with dark or light in similar color. Sample IDs without suffix represent samples at the time point Wave1. Temporal samples from an individual with a suffix are as follows. T1-a-2y, two years after the time point of Wave1 of the T1-a. T1-a-2y2w, two weeks after the time point of Wave2 of T1-a. T1-a-2y4w, four weeks after the time point of Wave2 of T1-a. T2-a-3y, three years after the time point of Wave1 of T2-a. Correlations of annotated gene (B), HERV (D), and LINE (F) transcripts were categorized by blood relationships and time points between two samples (left, Unrelated: comparison between unrelated individuals; middle, MZ: comparison within MZ twin pairs; right, IND: comparison within individuals) and their distributions are plotted. ***p < .005; ****p < .001; n.s., nonsignificant. P value thresholds were corrected by Bonferroni method.

We categorized correlations into four groups based on the blood relationship and time points between two samples: (1) inter-individual (referred to as Unrelated), which represents comparison between unrelated individuals at the Wave1; (2) intra-MZ twin pairs (referred to as MZ), which represents comparison within MZ twins at the Wave1; (3) intra-individual (referred to as IND), which represents comparison within individuals; (4) remained, which represents comparison between a temporal sample (Wave2, Wave3, or Wave4) with unrelated individual. In the following sections, a group, to which the correlation belongs, is represented as a superscript, except for the remained (4) group (Supplementary Table S2).

Correlations of annotated gene expression differed between the three groups (p < .05, ANOVA; Supplementary Table S3). CorrelationUnrelated was lower than correlationMZ and correlationIND (p < .016, Student’s t test), but correlationMZ and correlationIND were comparable (Supplementary Table S3 and Figure 1B). These results clearly demonstrate that MZ twins have similar expression profiles of annotated genes despite nonshared factors.

Divergent Expression of Retrotransposon Transcripts

Next, we focused on the expression profiles of HERV and LINE transcripts. All correlation of HERV and LINE expression were significant (Supplementary Tables S4 and S5, p < .001, Bonferroni corrected). We performed an ANOVA following Student’s t test for correlations of annotated gene, HERV, and LINE transcript expression (Supplementary Table S6). We found that the mean correlation of annotated gene expression was higher than those of HERV and LINE expression (p < .016). Because the mean correlation was higher than those of HERV and LINE expression even within MZ twin pairs, these results suggest that retrotransposon expression is more susceptible to nonshared factors, such as different environment, than annotated gene expression.

The dendrogram of HERV expression showed high divergence for T3, although T1 and T2 still constituted monophyletic clades (Figure 1C). CorrelationUnrelated and correlationMZ of HERV expression seemed more divergent than correaltionIND (Figure 1D), although only the difference between mean correlationUnrelated and mean correlationIND was significant (p < .016). The dendrogram of LINE expression revealed that no MZ twin pairs constitute a monophyletic clade (Figure 1E). CorrelationUnrelated and correlationMZ of LINE expression seemed more divergent than correaltionIND, although only the difference between mean correlationUnrelated and mean correlationIND was significant (p < .016), similarly to those of HERV expression (Figure 1F). Thus, HERV and LINE expression profiles appear to diverge even within genetically identical MZ twin pairs, confirming the impact of nonshared factors on their expression.

Identification of TFs Binding to Enriched Consensus Motifs

Finally, we searched for consensus sequences to identify TFs that could be potentially influenced by nonshared factors. For annotated gene transcripts, we discovered 89, 79, and 82 consensus sequences enriched around the TSSs of DEGs in T1, T2, and T3 respectively. After comparing against the human motif database, we identified 20, 22, and 24 TFs for T1, T2, and T3 respectively. Two TFs were common among the three MZ twin pairs (Figure 2A): Sp1 and Sp2. Our findings suggest that these two TFs might be involved in divergence of annotated gene expression influenced by nonshared factors.

Figure 2. Venn diagrams of the number of TFs involved in the regulation of annotated genes and retrotransposons differentially expressed in T1, T2, and T3. (A) annotated genes. (B) HERVs. (C) LINEs.

We performed the same analysis for HERVs and LINEs. For HERVs, 56, 72, and 264 consensus sequences enriched in the retrieved genomic regions of differentially expressed HERVs were discovered in T1, T2, and T3 respectively. By comparing against the human motif database, 8, 27, and 73 TFs were identified for MZ T1, T2, and T3 respectively (Figure 2B). For LINEs, 66, 67, and 135 enriched consensus sequences and 6, 29, and 21 TFs were discovered for T1, T2, and T3 respectively. However, consensus motifs or TFs that influence the divergence of HERV or LINE expression in each MZ twin did not converge to any specific motifs or TFs (Figure 2C). These results imply that a wide variety of pathways are involved in divergence of retrotransposon expression within MZ twin pairs.

Discussion

This is a pilot study using a small sample size to obtain a hint for understanding of the impact of factors shared or nonshared by MZ twin pairs on gene and retrotransposon expression. Consistent with earlier reports (Cheung et al., Reference Cheung, Conlin, Weber, Arcaro, Jen, Morley and Spielman2003; Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Sharma, Horn-Saban, Lancet, Ramachandran and Brahmachari2005), we confirmed that annotated gene expression was more highly correlated within MZ twin pairs than between unrelated individuals (Figure 1A and 1B). These results indicate that annotated gene expression is substantially influenced by shared factors within MZ twin pairs. Shared factors within MZ twin pairs are composed of genetic and shared environment factors. As previous twin studies have suggested that nongenetic factors appear to have a larger influence on gene expression on a genomewide scale (Grundberg et al., Reference Grundberg, Small, Hedman, Nica, Buil, Keildson, Bell, Yang, Meduri, Barrett, Nisbett, Sekowska, Wilk, Shin, Glass, Travers, Min, Ring, Ho and Spector2012; Ouwens et al., Reference Ouwens, Jansen, Nivard, van Dongen, Frieser, Hottenga, Arindrarto, Claringbould, van Iterson, Mei, Franke, Heijmans, ’t Hoen, van Meurs and Brooks2020; Powell et al., Reference Powell, Henders, McRae, Wright, Martin, Dermitzakis, Montgomery and Visscher2012; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Sullivan, Brooks, Zou, Sun, Xia, Madar, Jansen, Chung, Zhou, Abdellaoui, Batista, Butler, Chen, Chen, D’Ambrosio, Gallins, Ha, Hottenga and Boomsma2014), shared environment factors and/or unknown shared factors may have an impact on annotated gene expression. We also found that divergence of annotated gene expression within individuals was comparable to that within MZ twin pairs (Figure 1A and 1B). These results suggest that MZ twin pairs are identical regarding divergence of annotated gene expression. A previous twin study has suggested that the number of genes differentially expressed within MZ twin pairs increased with age (Viñuela et al., Reference Viñuela, Brown, Buil, Tsai, Davies, Bell, Dermitzakis, Spector and Small2018). However, we did not detect increased divergence of annotated gene expression with age. As this discrepancy may be due to the small sample size in our study, further investigation regarding age-related divergence in gene expression using a larger sample size is required.

Retrotransposon expression profiles were highly divergent (Figure 1C, 1E, and Supplementary Table S6), implying that retrotransposon expression is substantially influenced by nonshared factors and is, therefore, considered to be regulated by mechanisms distinct from annotated gene expression. Among retrotransposons, HERVs comprise at least 8% of the human genome (Kazazian & Moran, Reference Kazazian and Moran2017) and are thought to be remnants of ancestral viral infections (Durnaoglu et al., Reference Durnaoglu, Lee and Ahnn2021; Suntsova et al., Reference Suntsova, Garazha, Ivanova, Kaminsky, Zhavoronkov and Buzdin2015). While the majority are defective, several phylogenetically distinct HERVs can produce retroviral proteins (Bannert & Kurth, Reference Bannert and Kurth2004; Chan et al., Reference Chan, Sapir, Park, Rual, Contreras-Galindo, Reiner and Markovitz2019). HERVs have been shown to contribute to various biological events, such as cell-cell fusion during placentation (Mi et al., Reference Mi, Lee, Li, Veldman, Finnerty, Racie, Lavallie, Tang, Edouard, Howes, Keith and McCoy2000), establishment and/or maintenance of the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells (Lu et al., Reference Lu, Sachs, Ramsay, Jacques, Göke, Bourque and Ng2014; Macfarlan et al., Reference Macfarlan, Gifford, Driscoll, Lettieri, Rowe, Bonanomi, Firth, Singer, Trono and Pfaff2012), and activation of immune-related genes (Chuong et al., Reference Chuong, Elde and Feschotte2016). Dysregulation of HERVs may be involved in various human diseases, including autoimmune disorders, neurological disorders, infectious diseases, and cancer (Gonzalez-Cao et al., Reference Gonzalez-Cao, Iduma, Karachaliou, Santarpia, Blanco and Rosell2016; Suntsova et al., Reference Suntsova, Garazha, Ivanova, Kaminsky, Zhavoronkov and Buzdin2015). Among LINEs accounting for approximately 17% of the human genome, LINE-1 (L1) is the only active class of autonomous retrotransposons in humans (Richardson et al., Reference Richardson, Doucet, Kopera, Moldovan, Garcia-Perez and Moran2015). L1-encoded ORF2p contains a reverse transcriptase domain and an endonuclease domain, which are responsible for L1-mediated retrotransposition. L1 can lead to retrotransposition of L1 itself and other mobile elements, such as Alu and SVA (Dewannieux et al., Reference Dewannieux, Esnault and Heidmann2003; Raiz et al., Reference Raiz, Damert, Chira, Held, Klawitter, Hamdorf, Löwer, Strätling, Löwer and Schumann2012). Although its biological significance remains unclear, L1 is also hypothesized to contribute to biological processes; for example, the L1 antisense promoter plays a role in cell proliferation (T. Honda et al., Reference Honda, Nishikawa, Nishimura, Teng, Takemoto and Ueda2020). On the other hand, L1 dysregulation has detrimental effects on health and host genome stability, with multiple studies linking L1 to various cancers (T. Honda, Reference Honda2016; Kemp & Longworth, Reference Kemp and Longworth2015; Sciamanna et al., Reference Sciamanna, Gualtieri, Piazza and Spadafora2014; Sciamanna et al., Reference Sciamanna, Serafino and Spadafora2018). For example, the role of de novo L1 insertions is reported in hepatocellular carcinoma (Shukla et al., Reference Shukla, Upton, Muñoz-Lopez, Gerhardt, Fisher, Nguyen, Brennan, Baillie, Collino, Ghisletti, Sinha, Iannelli, Radaelli, Dos Santos, Rapoud, Guettier, Samuel, Natoli, Carninci and Faulkner2013); Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus causes cellular transformation via L1 activation (Nakayama et al., Reference Nakayama, Ueno, Ueda and Honda2019); and endonuclease activity of ORF2p can cause DNA damage through the formation of double-strand breaks (Gasior et al., Reference Gasior, Wakeman, Xu and Deininger2006; Kines et al., Reference Kines, Sokolowski, De Haro, Christian and Belancio2014). Our results showed that the expression profiles of HERVs and LINEs diverged even within MZ twin pairs. Considering the physiological significance of retrotransposons, differences in their expression likely contribute to intra-MZ phenotypic divergence.

We also identified consensus TFs that were potentially influenced by differences within MZ twin pairs. Thus, versatile GC-rich element-binding TFs, Sp1 and Sp2, were identified in all intra-MZ twin comparisons (Figure 2A). The Sp1 and Sp2, belonging to the Sp subfamily of the Sp/KLFs superfamily, were identified as potential TFs involved in gene expression influenced by environmental factors. They are characterized by a highly conserved DNA-binding domain near the C-terminus, which recognizes the GC (consensus sequence: GGGGCGGGG) and GT/CACC (GGTGTGGGG) boxes (Philipsen & Suske, Reference Philipsen and Suske1999). Sp/KLFs are expressed ubiquitously, activating or repressing the transcription of many genes in response to physiological and pathological stimuli. For example, Sp family members are key mediators of gene expression induced by hormones (Solomon et al., Reference Solomon, Majumdar, Martinez-Hernandez and Raghow2008), which are notably influenced by environmental stimuli. Sp1 is involved in the development of atherosclerosis, including inflammation, lipid metabolism, plaque stability, vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation, and endothelial dysfunction (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Zhou, Liu, Wu, Nie, Huang and Zhang2022). Together with previous studies, our findings suggest that the Sp subfamily plays a major role in differential gene expression within MZ twin pairs. In contrast, we did not identify any common TFs for retrotransposons (Figure 2B and 2C). These results suggest that difference in retrotransposon expression within MZ twin pairs is influenced by a combination of wide variety of TFs. Our findings will benefit future efforts to further clarify the molecular mechanisms of how gene and retrotransposon expression is influenced by environmental differences.

In conclusion, this pilot study using a small sample size provides a hint for understanding of how the expression of genes and retrotransposons is influenced by factors shared or nonshared by MZ twins. We demonstrated that retrotransposon expression is more variable than gene expression even within MZ twin pairs, suggesting that factors nonshared by MZ twin pairs, such as environmental or stochastic influence, play substantial roles in retrotransposon expression. As retrotransposon activation potentially causes human diseases such as cancers, we hypothesized that environmental factors may contribute to disease development via retrotransposon expression modulation. If this hypothesis is true, targeting relevant environmental factors may prevent disease development. Undoubtedly, retrotransposons exhibit divergent expression even within genetically identical MZ twin pairs, which may contribute to any phenotypic discordance within MZ twin pairs. Further studies on the molecular basis of the divergence of gene and retrotransposon expression influenced by nonshared factors within MZ twin pairs will improve our understanding of phenotypic diversity and benefit the development of effective therapeutic interventions for human diseases.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2023.42

Data availability

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

CAGE was conducted in collaboration with DNAFORM (Japan).

Financial support

This study was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI (grant numbers 15K08496, 18H02664, 18K19449) and grants from the Takeda Science Foundation (T.H.).

Ethical standards

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Osaka University (No. 696). Written informed consent was obtained from participants. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

Abugessaisa, I., Noguchi, S., Hasegawa, A., Harshbarger, J., Kondo, A., Lizio, M., Severin, J., Carninci, P., Kawaji, H., & Kasukawa, T. (2017). FANTOM5 CAGE profiles of human and mouse reprocessed for GRCh38 and GRCm38 genome assemblies. Scientific Data, 4, 170107. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.107 Google Scholar
Arner, E., Daub, C. O., Vitting-Seerup, K., Andersson, R., Lilje, B., Drabløs, F., Lennartsson, A., Rönnerblad, M., Hrydziuszko, O., Vitezic, M., Freeman, T. C., Alhendi, A. M. N., Arner, P., Axton, R., Baillie, J. K., Beckhouse, A., Bodega, B., Briggs, J., Brombacher, F., … Hayashizaki, Y. (2015). Transcribed enhancers lead waves of coordinated transcription in transitioning mammalian cells. Science, 347, 10101014. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259418 Google Scholar
Bannert, N., & Kurth, R. (2004). Retroelements and the human genome: New perspectives on an old relation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 1457214579. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404838101 Google Scholar
Bhat, A., Ghatage, T., Bhan, S., Lahane, G. P., Dhar, A., Kumar, R., Pandita, R. K., Bhat, K. M., Ramos, K. S., & Pandita, T. K. (2022). Role of transposable elements in genome stability: Implications for health and disease. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23, 7802. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23147802 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomsma, D., Busjahn, A., & Peltonen, L. (2002). Classical twin studies and beyond. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 872882. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg932 Google Scholar
Chan, S. M., Sapir, T., Park, S.-S., Rual, J.-F., Contreras-Galindo, R., Reiner, O., & Markovitz, D. M. (2019). The HERV-K accessory protein Np9 controls viability and migration of teratocarcinoma cells. PLOS ONE, 14, e0212970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212970 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, S., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y., & Gu, J. (2018). Fastp: An ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics, 34, i884i890. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560 Google Scholar
Chénais, B. (2022). Transposable elements and human diseases: Mechanisms and implication in the response to environmental pollutants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23, 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23052551 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, V. G., Conlin, L. K., Weber, T. M., Arcaro, M., Jen, K. Y., Morley, M., & Spielman, R. S. (2003). Natural variation in human gene expression assessed in lymphoblastoid cells. Nature Genetics, 33, 422425. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1094 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chuong, E. B., Elde, N. C., & Feschotte, C. (2016). Regulatory evolution of innate immunity through co-option of endogenous retroviruses. Science, 351, 10831087. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5497 Google Scholar
Dewannieux, M., Esnault, C., & Heidmann, T. (2003). LINE-mediated retrotransposition of marked Alu sequences. Nature Genetics, 35, 4148. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1223 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durnaoglu, S., Lee, S. K., & Ahnn, J. (2021). Human endogenous retroviruses as gene expression regulators: Insights from animal models into human diseases. Molecules and Cells, 44, 861878. https://doi.org/10.14348/MOLCELLS.2021.5016 Google Scholar
Forrest, A. R. R., Kawaji, H., Rehli, M., Baillie, J. K., De Hoon, M. J. L., Haberle, V., Lassmann, T., Kulakovskiy, I. V., Lizio, M., Itoh, M., Andersson, R., Mungall, C. J., Meehan, T. F., Schmeier, S., Bertin, N., Jørgensen, M., Dimont, E., Arner, E., Schmidl, C., … Hayashizaki, Y. (2014). A promoter-level mammalian expression atlas. Nature, 507, 462470. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13182 Google Scholar
Gasior, S. L., Wakeman, T. P., Xu, B., & Deininger, P. L. (2006). The human LINE-1 retrotransposon creates DNA double-strand breaks. Journal of Molecular Biology, 357, 13831393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2006.01.089 Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Cao, M., Iduma, P., Karachaliou, N., Santarpia, M., Blanco, J., & Rosell, R. (2016). Human endogenous retroviruses and cancer. Cancer Biology and Medicine, 13, 483488. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0080 Google ScholarPubMed
Grundberg, E., Small, K. S., Hedman, Å. K., Nica, A. C., Buil, A., Keildson, S., Bell, J. T., Yang, T. P., Meduri, E., Barrett, A., Nisbett, J., Sekowska, M., Wilk, A., Shin, S. Y., Glass, D., Travers, M., Min, J. L., Ring, S., Ho, K., … Spector, T. D. (2012). Mapping cis-and trans-regulatory effects across multiple tissues in twins. Nature Genetics, 44, 10841089. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2394 Google Scholar
Heinz, S., Benner, C., Spann, N., Bertolino, E., Lin, Y. C., Laslo, P., Cheng, J. X., Murre, C., Singh, H., & Glass, C. K. (2010). Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Molecular Cell, 38, 576589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004 Google Scholar
Honda, C., Watanabe, M., Tomizawa, R., & Sakai, N. (2019). Update on Osaka University Twin Registry: An overview of multidisciplinary research resources and biobank at Osaka University Center for Twin Research. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 22, 597601. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2019.70 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honda, T. (2016). Links between human LINE-1 retrotransposons and hepatitis virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Frontiers in Chemistry, 4, 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2016.00021 Google Scholar
Honda, T., Nishikawa, Y., Nishimura, K., Teng, D., Takemoto, K., & Ueda, K. (2020). Effects of activation of the LINE-1 antisense promoter on the growth of cultured cells. Scientific Reports, 10, 22136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79197-y Google Scholar
Honda, T., Takemoto, K., & Ueda, K. (2019). Identification of a retroelement-containing human transcript induced in the nucleus by vaccination. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20, 2875. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20122875 Google Scholar
Hoyt, S. J., Storer, J. M., Hartley, G. A., Grady, P. G. S., Gershman, A., de Lima, L. G., Limouse, C., Halabian, R., Wojenski, L., Rodriguez, M., Altemose, N., Rhie, A., Core, L. J., Gerton, J. L., Makalowski, W., Olson, D., Rosen, J., Smit, A. F. A., Straight, A. F., … O’Neill, R. J. (2022). From telomere to telomere: The transcriptional and epigenetic state of human repeat elements. Science, 376, eabk3112. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk3112 Google Scholar
Jiang, J. F., Zhou, Z. Y., Liu, Y. Z., Wu, L., Nie, B. Bin, Huang, L., & Zhang, C. (2022). Role of Sp1 in atherosclerosis. Molecular Biology Reports, 49, 98939902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07516-9 Google Scholar
Kazazian, H. H., & Moran, J. V. (2017). Mobile DNA in health and disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 361370. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1510092 Google Scholar
Kemp, J. R., & Longworth, M. S. (2015). Crossing the LINE toward genomic instability: LINE-1 retrotransposition in cancer. Frontiers in Chemistry, 3, 68. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2015.00068 Google Scholar
Kim, D., Paggi, J. M., Park, C., Bennett, C., & Salzberg, S. L. (2019). Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nature Biotechnology, 37, 907915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4 Google Scholar
Kines, K. J., Sokolowski, M., De Haro, D. L., Christian, C. M., & Belancio, V. P. (2014). Potential for genomic instability associated with retrotranspositionally-incompetent L1 loci. Nucleic Acids Research, 42, 1048810502. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku687 Google Scholar
Konkel, M. K., & Batzer, M. A. (2010). A mobile threat to genome stability: The impact of non-LTR retrotransposons upon the human genome. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 20, 211221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2010.03.001 Google Scholar
Lander, E. S., Linton, L. M., Birren, B., Nusbaum, C., Zody, M. C., Baldwin, J., Devon, K., Dewar, K., Doyle, M., Fitzhugh, W., Funke, R., Gage, D., Harris, K., Heaford, A., Howland, J., Kann, L., Lehoczky, J., Levine, R., McEwan, P., … Morgan, M. J. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860921. https://doi.org/10.1038/35057062 Google Scholar
Lu, X., Sachs, F., Ramsay, L. A., Jacques, P. É., Göke, J., Bourque, G., & Ng, H. H. (2014). The retrovirus HERVH is a long noncoding RNA required for human embryonic stem cell identity. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 21, 423425. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2799 Google Scholar
Macfarlan, T. S., Gifford, W. D., Driscoll, S., Lettieri, K., Rowe, H. M., Bonanomi, D., Firth, A., Singer, O., Trono, D., & Pfaff, S. L. (2012). Embryonic stem cell potency fluctuates with endogenous retrovirus activity. Nature, 487, 5763. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11244 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAdams, T. A., Rijsdijk, F. V., Zavos, H. M. S., & Pingault, J. B. (2021). Twins and causal inference: Leveraging nature’s experiment. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 11, a039552. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a039552 Google Scholar
Mi, S., Lee, X., Li, X., Veldman, G. M., Finnerty, H., Racie, L., Lavallie, E., Tang, X., Edouard, P., Howes, S., Keith, J. C. Jr, McCoy, J. M. (2000). Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved. Nature, 403, 785789. https://doi.org/10.1038/35001608 Google Scholar
Nakayama, R., Ueno, Y., Ueda, K., & Honda, T. (2019). Latent infection with Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus enhances retrotransposition of long interspersed element-1. Oncogene, 38, 43404351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-019-0726-5 Google Scholar
Osman, M., Mistry, A., Keding, A., Gabe, R., Cook, E., Forrester, S., Wiggins, R., Di Marco, S., Colloca, S., Siani, L., Smith, D. F., Aebischer, T., Kaye, P. M., & Lacey, C. J. (2017). A third generation vaccine for human visceral leishmaniasis and post kala azar dermal leishmaniasis: First-in-human trial of ChAd63-KH. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11, e0005527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005527 Google Scholar
Ouwens, K. G., Jansen, R., Nivard, M. G., van Dongen, J., Frieser, M. J., Hottenga, J. J., Arindrarto, W., Claringbould, A., van Iterson, M., Mei, H., Franke, L., Heijmans, B. T., ’t Hoen, P. A. C., van Meurs, J., Brooks, A. I.; BIOS Consortium; Penninx, B. W. J. H., & Boomsma, D. I. (2020). A characterization of cis- and trans-heritability of RNA-Seq-based gene expression. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0511-5 Google Scholar
Philipsen, S., & Suske, G. (1999). A tale of three fingers: The family of mammalian Sp/XKLF transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Research, 27, 29913000. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/27.15.2991 Google Scholar
Piégu, B., Bire, S., Arensburger, P., & Bigot, Y. (2015). A survey of transposable element classification systems — A call for a fundamental update to meet the challenge of their diversity and complexity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 86, 90109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.03.009 Google Scholar
Powell, J. E., Henders, A. K., McRae, A. F., Wright, M. J., Martin, N. G., Dermitzakis, E. T., Montgomery, G. W., & Visscher, P. M. (2012). Genetic control of gene expression in whole blood and lymphoblastoid cell lines is largely independent. Genome Research, 22, 456466. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.126540.111 Google Scholar
Quinlan, A. R., & Hall, I. M. (2010). BEDTools: A flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics, 26, 841842. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 Google Scholar
Raiz, J., Damert, A., Chira, S., Held, U., Klawitter, S., Hamdorf, M., Löwer, J., Strätling, W. H., Löwer, R., & Schumann, G. G. (2012). The non-autonomous retrotransposon SVA is trans-mobilized by the human LINE-1 protein machinery. Nucleic Acids Research, 40, 16661683. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr863 Google Scholar
Richardson, S. R., Doucet, A. J., Kopera, H. C., Moldovan, J. B., Garcia-Perez, J. L., & Moran, J. V. (2015). The influence of LINE-1 and SINE Retrotransposons on mammalian genomes. Microbiology Spectrum, 3. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.mdna3-0061-2014 Google Scholar
Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2009). edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics, 26, 139140. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 Google Scholar
Sammarco, I., Pieters, J., Salony, S., Toman, I., Zolotarov, G., & Lafon Placette, C. (2022). Epigenetic targeting of transposon relics: Beating the dead horses of the genome? Epigenetics, 17, 13311344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2021.2022066 Google Scholar
Sciamanna, I., Gualtieri, A., Piazza, P. V., & Spadafora, C. (2014). Regulatory roles of LINE-1-encoded reverse transcriptase in cancer onset and progression. Oncotarget, 5, 80398051. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.2504 Google Scholar
Sciamanna, I., Serafino, A., & Spadafora, C. (2018). LINE-1-encoded reverse transcriptase in the genesis and therapy of cancer. Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/68766 Google Scholar
Sharma, A., Sharma, V. K., Horn-Saban, S., Lancet, D., Ramachandran, S., & Brahmachari, S. K. (2005). Assessing natural variations in gene expression in humans by comparing with monozygotic twins using microarrays. Physiological Genomics, 21, 117123. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.00228.2003 Google Scholar
Shukla, R., Upton, K. R., Muñoz-Lopez, M., Gerhardt, D. J., Fisher, M. E., Nguyen, T., Brennan, P. M., Baillie, J. K., Collino, A., Ghisletti, S., Sinha, S., Iannelli, F., Radaelli, E., Dos Santos, A., Rapoud, D., Guettier, C., Samuel, D., Natoli, G., Carninci, P., … Faulkner, G. J. (2013). Endogenous retrotransposition activates oncogenic pathways in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell, 153, 101111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.032 Google Scholar
Solomon, S. S., Majumdar, G., Martinez-Hernandez, A., & Raghow, R. (2008). A critical role of Sp1 transcription factor in regulating gene expression in response to insulin and other hormones. Life Sciences, 83, 305312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2008.06.024 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistics Canada. (2017). Age categories, life cycle groupings. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/concepts/definitions/age2 Google Scholar
Suntsova, M., Garazha, A., Ivanova, A., Kaminsky, D., Zhavoronkov, A., & Buzdin, A. (2015). Molecular functions of human endogenous retroviruses in health and disease. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 72, 36533675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-1947-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viñuela, A., Brown, A. A., Buil, A., Tsai, P. C., Davies, M. N., Bell, J. T., Dermitzakis, E. T., Spector, T. D., & Small, K. S. (2018). Age-dependent changes in mean and variance of gene expression across tissues in a twin cohort. Human Molecular Genetics, 27, 732741. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddx424 Google Scholar
Wright, F. A., Sullivan, P. F., Brooks, A. I., Zou, F., Sun, W., Xia, K., Madar, V., Jansen, R., Chung, W., Zhou, Y. H., Abdellaoui, A., Batista, S., Butler, C., Chen, G., Chen, T. H., D’Ambrosio, D., Gallins, P., Ha, M. J., Hottenga, J. J., … Boomsma, D. I. (2014). Heritability and genomics of gene expression in peripheral blood. Nature Genetics, 46, 430437. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2951 Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of MZ twin samples

Figure 1

Figure 1. Hierarchical clustering of gene expression profiles and violin plots of correlations between two samples. Dendrogram of annotate gene (A), HERV (C), and LINE (E) transcripts are depicted. Sample IDs from T1, T2, and T3 are depicted in brown, green, and blue respectively. ‘a’ or ‘b’ in the ID represents the individual in a MZ twin pair with dark or light in similar color. Sample IDs without suffix represent samples at the time point Wave1. Temporal samples from an individual with a suffix are as follows. T1-a-2y, two years after the time point of Wave1 of the T1-a. T1-a-2y2w, two weeks after the time point of Wave2 of T1-a. T1-a-2y4w, four weeks after the time point of Wave2 of T1-a. T2-a-3y, three years after the time point of Wave1 of T2-a. Correlations of annotated gene (B), HERV (D), and LINE (F) transcripts were categorized by blood relationships and time points between two samples (left, Unrelated: comparison between unrelated individuals; middle, MZ: comparison within MZ twin pairs; right, IND: comparison within individuals) and their distributions are plotted. ***p < .005; ****p < .001; n.s., nonsignificant. P value thresholds were corrected by Bonferroni method.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Venn diagrams of the number of TFs involved in the regulation of annotated genes and retrotransposons differentially expressed in T1, T2, and T3. (A) annotated genes. (B) HERVs. (C) LINEs.

Supplementary material: File

Katoh et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S6

Download Katoh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.3 KB