ГЕНЕТИЧЕСКАЯ РЕГУЛЯЦИЯ ПРОТЕОМА В ОНТОГЕНЕЗЕ (СООБЩЕНИЕ 2) АКТИВАЦИЯ И РЕПРЕССИЯ ЧАСТИ ГЕНОМА: ЗАКОНОМЕРНЫЕ СОБЫТИЯ В ОНТОГЕНЕЗЕ
Аннотация
Все разнообразные типы клеток многоклеточного организма имеют одинаковое количество и неизменную последовательность нуклеотидов ДНК. Различия между клетками зависят от активности различных генов. В клетках разных типов транскрибируют разные наборы генов, которые синтезируют разные наборы белков. Активность генов контролируют белки, которые являются производными других генов. Взаимодействуют не гены, а продукты их деятельности. Ферментная природа модификаций, осуществляемая белками-ферментами, оставляет за ДНК функцию всех вариантов ацетилирования, метилирования, фосфорилирования и т.п., а постоянное участие модифицированных белков в процессах репликации, гетерохроматизации, инактивации X-хромосомы, импринтирования аллелей демонстрирует обязательное участие транскрипционной системы ДНК в классических взаимодействиях генома и протеома.
Литература
1. Альбертс Б., Брей Д., Льюис Дж. и др. Молекулярная биология клетки. – Пер. с англ. – Т. Ι. – М.: Мир, 1994. – 504 с.
2. Альбертс Б., Брей Д., Льюис Дж. и др. Молекулярная биология клетки. – Пер. с англ. – Т. ΙI. – М.: Мир, 1994. – 539 с.
3. Альбертс Б., Брей Д., Льюис Дж. и др. Молекулярная биология клетки. – Пер. с англ. – Т. ΙII. – М.: Мир, 1994. – 504 с.
4. Жимулев И.Ф. Общая молекулярная генетика. – Новосибирск: Сибирское университетское изд-во, 2003. – 478 с.
5. Инге-Вечтомов С.Г. Генетика с основами селекции. – М.: Высшая школа, 1989. – 592 с.
6. Корочкин Л.И. Биология индивидуального развития. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2002. – 264 с.
7. Льюин Б. Гены. – М.: Бином. Лаборатория знаний, 2012. – 896 с.
8. Майборода А.А. Дифференцировка пола: норма и патология. // Сибирский медицинский журнал (Иркутск). – 2016. – Т. 140. № 1. – С. 88-91.
9. Ньюссбаум Р.Л., Мак-Иннес Р.Р., Виллард Х.В. Медицинская генетика. – Пер. с англ. – М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2010. – 624 с.
10. Barlow D.P., et al. The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the T-me locus. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 349. – P. 84-87.
11. Barlow D.P., Bartolomei M.S. Геномный импринтинг у млекопитающих. – М.: Техносфера, 2013. – С. 348-367.
12. Bartolomei M.S., et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse Н19 gene. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 153-155.
13. Bell A.C., Felsenfeld G. Methylation of a CTFC-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. // Nature. – 2000. – Vol. 405. – P. 482-485.
14. Brockdorff N., Turner B. Компенсация дозы у млекопитающих. Л. Эпигенетика. – М.: Техносфера, 2013. – С. 312-332.
15. Carred L., Willard H.F. X inovaction profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females // Nature. – 2005. – Vol. 434. – P. 400-404.
16. De Chirara, et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growts factor ІІ gene. // Cell. – 1991. – Vol. 64. – P. 849-859.
17. Ferguson-Smith A.C., et al. Embryological and molecular investigations of parental imprinting on mouse chromosome 7. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 667-670.
18. Heard E., Mongelard E., Arnauld D., et al. Human XIST yeast artificial chromosome transgenes show partial X inactivacion center function in mouse embryonic stem cells. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. – 1999. – Vol. 96. – P. 6841-6846.
19. Gross D.S., Garrard W.T. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. // Ann. Rev. Biochem – 1988. – Vol. 57. – P. 159-197.
20. Jiang Y.H., et al. Mutation of the Angelman ubiguitin ligase in mice causes increased cytoplasmic p. 53 and deficit is of contextual learning and long-term potentiation (see comments). // Neuron. – 1998. – Vol. 21. – P. 799-811.
21. Kishino Т., et al. ИВЕЗА/Е-6-АР mutations cause Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Cenet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 70-73.
22. Lehmann-Werman R., et al. Identification of tissue-specific cell death using methylation patterus of circulating DNA. // Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences USA. – 2016. – Vol. 113 (13). – P. E1826-E1834.
23. Lyon M.F. X-chromosome inactivation: a report hipoteses. // Cytogenet. Cell. Genet. – 1998. – Vol. 80. – P. 133-137.
24. Matsuura T., et al. De novo truncating mutations in E6-AP ubiguitin –protein ligase gene (UВЕ3А) in Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Genet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 74-77.
25. Plath K., Talbot D., Harrier K.M., et al. Developmentally regulated alterations in Polycomb repressive complex L proteins on the inactive X-chromosome. // J. Cell. Biol. – 2004. – Vol. 167. – P. 1025-1035.
26. Sado T., Okuno M., Li E., Sasaki H. De novo DNA methylation is dispensable for the initiation and propagation of X chromosome inactivation. // Development 2004. – Vol. 131. – P. 975-982.
27. Sado T., Fenner M.H., Tan S.S., et al. X-inactivation in the mouse embryo deficient for Dnmt1: Distinct effect of hypometylation on imprinted and random X inactivation. // Dev. Biol. – 2000. – Vol. 225. – P. 294-303.
28. Thorvaldsen J.L., et al. Deletion of the H19 differentially methylated domain results in loss of imprinted expression of H19 and Jgf2. // Cenes. Dev. – 1998. – Vol. 12. – P. 3693-3702.
29. Verona R.E., et al. Genomic imprinting: Intricacies of epigenetic regulation in crusters. // Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. – 2003. – Vol. 19. – P. 237-259.
30. Wutz A., Jaenisch R. A shift from reversible to irreversible X inactivation is triggered during ES cell differentiation. // Mol. Cell. – 2000. – Vol. 5. – P. 695-705.
REFERENCES
1. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. Ι. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 504 p. (in Russian)
2. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. ΙI. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 539 p. (in Russian)
3. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. ΙII. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 504 p. (in Russian)
4. Zhimulev I.F. General molecular genetics. – Novosibirsk: Sibirskoye universitetskoye izd-vo, 2003. – 478 p. (in Russian)
5. Inge-Vechtomov S.G. Genetics with the basics of breeding. – Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1989. – 592 p. (in Russian)
6. Korochkin L.I. Biology of individual development. – Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 2002. – 264 p. (in Russian)
7. Lewin B. Genes. – Moscow: Binom. Laboratoriya znaniy, 2012. – 896 p. (in Russian)
8. Mayboroda A.A. Differentiation of sex: norma and pathology. // Sibirskij Medicinskij Zurnal (Irkutsk). – 2016. – Vol. 140. № 1. – P. 88-91. (in Russian)
9. Newsbaum R., McRains R.R., Willard H.V. Medical genetics. – Trans. with English. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2010. – 624 p. (in Russian)
10. Barlow D.P., et al. The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the T-me locus. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 349. – P. 84-87.
11. Barlow D.P., Bartolomei M.S. Genomic imprinting in mammals. – Moscow: Technosphere, 2013. – P. 348-367. (in Russian)
12. Bartolomei M.S., et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse Н19 gene. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 153-155.
13. Bell A.C., Felsenfeld G. Methylation of a CTFC-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. // Nature. – 2000. – Vol. 405. – P. 482-485.
14. Brockdorff N., Turner B. Compensation of the dose in mammals. Epigenetics. – Moscow: Technosphere, 2013. – P. 312-332. (in Russian)
15. Carred L., Willard H.F. X inovaction profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females // Nature. – 2005. – Vol. 434. – P. 400-404.
16. De Chirara, et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growts factor ІІ gene. // Cell. – 1991. – Vol. 64. – P. 849-859.
17. Ferguson-Smith A.C., et al. Embryological and molecular investigations of parental imprinting on mouse chromosome 7. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 667-670.
18. Heard E., Mongelard E., Arnauld D., et al. Human XIST yeast artificial chromosome transgenes show partial X inactivacion center function in mouse embryonic stem cells. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. – 1999. – Vol. 96. – P. 6841-6846.
19. Gross D.S., Garrard W.T. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. // Ann. Rev. Biochem – 1988. – Vol. 57. – P. 159-197.
20. Jiang Y.H., et al. Mutation of the Angelman ubiguitin ligase in mice causes increased cytoplasmic p. 53 and deficit is of contextual learning and long-term potentiation (see comments). // Neuron. – 1998. – Vol. 21. – P. 799-811.
21. Kishino Т., et al. ИВЕЗА/Е-6-АР mutations cause Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Cenet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 70-73.
22. Lehmann-Werman R., et al. Identification of tissue-specific cell death using methylation patterus of circulating DNA. // Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences USA. – 2016. – Vol. 113 (13). – P. E1826-E1834.
23. Lyon M.F. X-chromosome inactivation: a report hipoteses. // Cytogenet. Cell. Genet. – 1998. – Vol. 80. – P. 133-137.
24. Matsuura T., et al. De novo truncating mutations in E6-AP ubiguitin –protein ligase gene (UВЕ3А) in Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Genet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 74-77.
25. Plath K., Talbot D., Harrier K.M., et al. Developmentally regulated alterations in Polycomb repressive complex L proteins on the inactive X-chromosome. // J. Cell. Biol. – 2004. – Vol. 167. – P. 1025-1035.
26. Sado T., Okuno M., Li E., Sasaki H. De novo DNA methylation is dispensable for the initiation and propagation of X chromosome inactivation. // Development 2004. – Vol. 131. – P. 975-982.
27. Sado T., Fenner M.H., Tan S.S., et al. X-inactivation in the mouse embryo deficient for Dnmt1: Distinct effect of hypometylation on imprinted and random X inactivation. // Dev. Biol. – 2000. – Vol. 225. – P. 294-303.
28. Thorvaldsen J.L., et al. Deletion of the H19 differentially methylated domain results in loss of imprinted expression of H19 and Jgf2. // Cenes. Dev. – 1998. – Vol. 12. – P. 3693-3702.
29. Verona R.E., et al. Genomic imprinting: Intricacies of epigenetic regulation in crusters. // Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. – 2003. – Vol. 19. – P. 237-259.
30. Wutz A., Jaenisch R. A shift from reversible to irreversible X inactivation is triggered during ES cell differentiation. // Mol. Cell. – 2000. – Vol. 5. – P. 695-705.
2. Альбертс Б., Брей Д., Льюис Дж. и др. Молекулярная биология клетки. – Пер. с англ. – Т. ΙI. – М.: Мир, 1994. – 539 с.
3. Альбертс Б., Брей Д., Льюис Дж. и др. Молекулярная биология клетки. – Пер. с англ. – Т. ΙII. – М.: Мир, 1994. – 504 с.
4. Жимулев И.Ф. Общая молекулярная генетика. – Новосибирск: Сибирское университетское изд-во, 2003. – 478 с.
5. Инге-Вечтомов С.Г. Генетика с основами селекции. – М.: Высшая школа, 1989. – 592 с.
6. Корочкин Л.И. Биология индивидуального развития. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2002. – 264 с.
7. Льюин Б. Гены. – М.: Бином. Лаборатория знаний, 2012. – 896 с.
8. Майборода А.А. Дифференцировка пола: норма и патология. // Сибирский медицинский журнал (Иркутск). – 2016. – Т. 140. № 1. – С. 88-91.
9. Ньюссбаум Р.Л., Мак-Иннес Р.Р., Виллард Х.В. Медицинская генетика. – Пер. с англ. – М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2010. – 624 с.
10. Barlow D.P., et al. The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the T-me locus. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 349. – P. 84-87.
11. Barlow D.P., Bartolomei M.S. Геномный импринтинг у млекопитающих. – М.: Техносфера, 2013. – С. 348-367.
12. Bartolomei M.S., et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse Н19 gene. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 153-155.
13. Bell A.C., Felsenfeld G. Methylation of a CTFC-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. // Nature. – 2000. – Vol. 405. – P. 482-485.
14. Brockdorff N., Turner B. Компенсация дозы у млекопитающих. Л. Эпигенетика. – М.: Техносфера, 2013. – С. 312-332.
15. Carred L., Willard H.F. X inovaction profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females // Nature. – 2005. – Vol. 434. – P. 400-404.
16. De Chirara, et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growts factor ІІ gene. // Cell. – 1991. – Vol. 64. – P. 849-859.
17. Ferguson-Smith A.C., et al. Embryological and molecular investigations of parental imprinting on mouse chromosome 7. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 667-670.
18. Heard E., Mongelard E., Arnauld D., et al. Human XIST yeast artificial chromosome transgenes show partial X inactivacion center function in mouse embryonic stem cells. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. – 1999. – Vol. 96. – P. 6841-6846.
19. Gross D.S., Garrard W.T. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. // Ann. Rev. Biochem – 1988. – Vol. 57. – P. 159-197.
20. Jiang Y.H., et al. Mutation of the Angelman ubiguitin ligase in mice causes increased cytoplasmic p. 53 and deficit is of contextual learning and long-term potentiation (see comments). // Neuron. – 1998. – Vol. 21. – P. 799-811.
21. Kishino Т., et al. ИВЕЗА/Е-6-АР mutations cause Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Cenet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 70-73.
22. Lehmann-Werman R., et al. Identification of tissue-specific cell death using methylation patterus of circulating DNA. // Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences USA. – 2016. – Vol. 113 (13). – P. E1826-E1834.
23. Lyon M.F. X-chromosome inactivation: a report hipoteses. // Cytogenet. Cell. Genet. – 1998. – Vol. 80. – P. 133-137.
24. Matsuura T., et al. De novo truncating mutations in E6-AP ubiguitin –protein ligase gene (UВЕ3А) in Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Genet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 74-77.
25. Plath K., Talbot D., Harrier K.M., et al. Developmentally regulated alterations in Polycomb repressive complex L proteins on the inactive X-chromosome. // J. Cell. Biol. – 2004. – Vol. 167. – P. 1025-1035.
26. Sado T., Okuno M., Li E., Sasaki H. De novo DNA methylation is dispensable for the initiation and propagation of X chromosome inactivation. // Development 2004. – Vol. 131. – P. 975-982.
27. Sado T., Fenner M.H., Tan S.S., et al. X-inactivation in the mouse embryo deficient for Dnmt1: Distinct effect of hypometylation on imprinted and random X inactivation. // Dev. Biol. – 2000. – Vol. 225. – P. 294-303.
28. Thorvaldsen J.L., et al. Deletion of the H19 differentially methylated domain results in loss of imprinted expression of H19 and Jgf2. // Cenes. Dev. – 1998. – Vol. 12. – P. 3693-3702.
29. Verona R.E., et al. Genomic imprinting: Intricacies of epigenetic regulation in crusters. // Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. – 2003. – Vol. 19. – P. 237-259.
30. Wutz A., Jaenisch R. A shift from reversible to irreversible X inactivation is triggered during ES cell differentiation. // Mol. Cell. – 2000. – Vol. 5. – P. 695-705.
REFERENCES
1. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. Ι. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 504 p. (in Russian)
2. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. ΙI. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 539 p. (in Russian)
3. Alberts B., Bray D., Lewis J., et al. Molecular cell biology. – Trans. with English. – Vol. ΙII. – Moscow: Mir, 1994. – 504 p. (in Russian)
4. Zhimulev I.F. General molecular genetics. – Novosibirsk: Sibirskoye universitetskoye izd-vo, 2003. – 478 p. (in Russian)
5. Inge-Vechtomov S.G. Genetics with the basics of breeding. – Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1989. – 592 p. (in Russian)
6. Korochkin L.I. Biology of individual development. – Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 2002. – 264 p. (in Russian)
7. Lewin B. Genes. – Moscow: Binom. Laboratoriya znaniy, 2012. – 896 p. (in Russian)
8. Mayboroda A.A. Differentiation of sex: norma and pathology. // Sibirskij Medicinskij Zurnal (Irkutsk). – 2016. – Vol. 140. № 1. – P. 88-91. (in Russian)
9. Newsbaum R., McRains R.R., Willard H.V. Medical genetics. – Trans. with English. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2010. – 624 p. (in Russian)
10. Barlow D.P., et al. The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the T-me locus. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 349. – P. 84-87.
11. Barlow D.P., Bartolomei M.S. Genomic imprinting in mammals. – Moscow: Technosphere, 2013. – P. 348-367. (in Russian)
12. Bartolomei M.S., et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse Н19 gene. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 153-155.
13. Bell A.C., Felsenfeld G. Methylation of a CTFC-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. // Nature. – 2000. – Vol. 405. – P. 482-485.
14. Brockdorff N., Turner B. Compensation of the dose in mammals. Epigenetics. – Moscow: Technosphere, 2013. – P. 312-332. (in Russian)
15. Carred L., Willard H.F. X inovaction profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females // Nature. – 2005. – Vol. 434. – P. 400-404.
16. De Chirara, et al. Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growts factor ІІ gene. // Cell. – 1991. – Vol. 64. – P. 849-859.
17. Ferguson-Smith A.C., et al. Embryological and molecular investigations of parental imprinting on mouse chromosome 7. // Nature. – 1991. – Vol. 351. – P. 667-670.
18. Heard E., Mongelard E., Arnauld D., et al. Human XIST yeast artificial chromosome transgenes show partial X inactivacion center function in mouse embryonic stem cells. // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. – 1999. – Vol. 96. – P. 6841-6846.
19. Gross D.S., Garrard W.T. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. // Ann. Rev. Biochem – 1988. – Vol. 57. – P. 159-197.
20. Jiang Y.H., et al. Mutation of the Angelman ubiguitin ligase in mice causes increased cytoplasmic p. 53 and deficit is of contextual learning and long-term potentiation (see comments). // Neuron. – 1998. – Vol. 21. – P. 799-811.
21. Kishino Т., et al. ИВЕЗА/Е-6-АР mutations cause Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Cenet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 70-73.
22. Lehmann-Werman R., et al. Identification of tissue-specific cell death using methylation patterus of circulating DNA. // Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences USA. – 2016. – Vol. 113 (13). – P. E1826-E1834.
23. Lyon M.F. X-chromosome inactivation: a report hipoteses. // Cytogenet. Cell. Genet. – 1998. – Vol. 80. – P. 133-137.
24. Matsuura T., et al. De novo truncating mutations in E6-AP ubiguitin –protein ligase gene (UВЕ3А) in Angelman syndrome. // Nat. Genet. – 1997. – Vol. 15. – P. 74-77.
25. Plath K., Talbot D., Harrier K.M., et al. Developmentally regulated alterations in Polycomb repressive complex L proteins on the inactive X-chromosome. // J. Cell. Biol. – 2004. – Vol. 167. – P. 1025-1035.
26. Sado T., Okuno M., Li E., Sasaki H. De novo DNA methylation is dispensable for the initiation and propagation of X chromosome inactivation. // Development 2004. – Vol. 131. – P. 975-982.
27. Sado T., Fenner M.H., Tan S.S., et al. X-inactivation in the mouse embryo deficient for Dnmt1: Distinct effect of hypometylation on imprinted and random X inactivation. // Dev. Biol. – 2000. – Vol. 225. – P. 294-303.
28. Thorvaldsen J.L., et al. Deletion of the H19 differentially methylated domain results in loss of imprinted expression of H19 and Jgf2. // Cenes. Dev. – 1998. – Vol. 12. – P. 3693-3702.
29. Verona R.E., et al. Genomic imprinting: Intricacies of epigenetic regulation in crusters. // Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. – 2003. – Vol. 19. – P. 237-259.
30. Wutz A., Jaenisch R. A shift from reversible to irreversible X inactivation is triggered during ES cell differentiation. // Mol. Cell. – 2000. – Vol. 5. – P. 695-705.
Опубликована
2018-06-05
Как цитировать
МАЙБОРОДА, Аскольд Александрович.
ГЕНЕТИЧЕСКАЯ РЕГУЛЯЦИЯ ПРОТЕОМА В ОНТОГЕНЕЗЕ (СООБЩЕНИЕ 2) АКТИВАЦИЯ И РЕПРЕССИЯ ЧАСТИ ГЕНОМА: ЗАКОНОМЕРНЫЕ СОБЫТИЯ В ОНТОГЕНЕЗЕ.
Сибирский медицинский журнал (Иркутск) 16+, [S.l.], v. 151, n. 4, p. 5-11, июнь 2018.
ISSN 1815-7572. Доступно на: <http://smj.ismu.baikal.ru/index.php/osn/article/view/251>. Дата доступа: 25 янв. 2025
Выпуск
Раздел
Научные обзоры
