Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.

The ability of retroviruses and transposons to insert their genetic material into host DNA makes them widely used tools in molecular biology, cancer research and gene therapy. However, these systems have biases that may strongly affect research outcomes. To address this issue, we generated very larg...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Johann de Jong, Waseem Akhtar, Jitendra Badhai, Alistair G Rust, Roland Rad, John Hilkens, Anton Berns, Maarten van Lohuizen, Lodewyk F A Wessels, Jeroen de Ridder
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-04-01
Series:PLoS Genetics
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983033?pdf=render
id doaj-1fdb8ab45ba54001862e8a69f4a6e2fa
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1fdb8ab45ba54001862e8a69f4a6e2fa2020-11-25T02:36:32ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Genetics1553-73901553-74042014-04-01104e100425010.1371/journal.pgen.1004250Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.Johann de JongWaseem AkhtarJitendra BadhaiAlistair G RustRoland RadJohn HilkensAnton BernsMaarten van LohuizenLodewyk F A WesselsJeroen de RidderThe ability of retroviruses and transposons to insert their genetic material into host DNA makes them widely used tools in molecular biology, cancer research and gene therapy. However, these systems have biases that may strongly affect research outcomes. To address this issue, we generated very large datasets consisting of ~ 120,000 to ~ 180,000 unselected integrations in the mouse genome for the Sleeping Beauty (SB) and piggyBac (PB) transposons, and the Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (MMTV). We analyzed ~ 80 (epi)genomic features to generate bias maps at both local and genome-wide scales. MMTV showed a remarkably uniform distribution of integrations across the genome. More distinct preferences were observed for the two transposons, with PB showing remarkable resemblance to bias profiles of the Murine Leukemia Virus. Furthermore, we present a model where target site selection is directed at multiple scales. At a large scale, target site selection is similar across systems, and defined by domain-oriented features, namely expression of proximal genes, proximity to CpG islands and to genic features, chromatin compaction and replication timing. Notable differences between the systems are mainly observed at smaller scales, and are directed by a diverse range of features. To study the effect of these biases on integration sites occupied under selective pressure, we turned to insertional mutagenesis (IM) screens. In IM screens, putative cancer genes are identified by finding frequently targeted genomic regions, or Common Integration Sites (CISs). Within three recently completed IM screens, we identified 7%-33% putative false positive CISs, which are likely not the result of the oncogenic selection process. Moreover, results indicate that PB, compared to SB, is more suited to tag oncogenes.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983033?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Johann de Jong
Waseem Akhtar
Jitendra Badhai
Alistair G Rust
Roland Rad
John Hilkens
Anton Berns
Maarten van Lohuizen
Lodewyk F A Wessels
Jeroen de Ridder
spellingShingle Johann de Jong
Waseem Akhtar
Jitendra Badhai
Alistair G Rust
Roland Rad
John Hilkens
Anton Berns
Maarten van Lohuizen
Lodewyk F A Wessels
Jeroen de Ridder
Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
PLoS Genetics
author_facet Johann de Jong
Waseem Akhtar
Jitendra Badhai
Alistair G Rust
Roland Rad
John Hilkens
Anton Berns
Maarten van Lohuizen
Lodewyk F A Wessels
Jeroen de Ridder
author_sort Johann de Jong
title Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
title_short Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
title_full Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
title_fullStr Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
title_full_unstemmed Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
title_sort chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS Genetics
issn 1553-7390
1553-7404
publishDate 2014-04-01
description The ability of retroviruses and transposons to insert their genetic material into host DNA makes them widely used tools in molecular biology, cancer research and gene therapy. However, these systems have biases that may strongly affect research outcomes. To address this issue, we generated very large datasets consisting of ~ 120,000 to ~ 180,000 unselected integrations in the mouse genome for the Sleeping Beauty (SB) and piggyBac (PB) transposons, and the Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (MMTV). We analyzed ~ 80 (epi)genomic features to generate bias maps at both local and genome-wide scales. MMTV showed a remarkably uniform distribution of integrations across the genome. More distinct preferences were observed for the two transposons, with PB showing remarkable resemblance to bias profiles of the Murine Leukemia Virus. Furthermore, we present a model where target site selection is directed at multiple scales. At a large scale, target site selection is similar across systems, and defined by domain-oriented features, namely expression of proximal genes, proximity to CpG islands and to genic features, chromatin compaction and replication timing. Notable differences between the systems are mainly observed at smaller scales, and are directed by a diverse range of features. To study the effect of these biases on integration sites occupied under selective pressure, we turned to insertional mutagenesis (IM) screens. In IM screens, putative cancer genes are identified by finding frequently targeted genomic regions, or Common Integration Sites (CISs). Within three recently completed IM screens, we identified 7%-33% putative false positive CISs, which are likely not the result of the oncogenic selection process. Moreover, results indicate that PB, compared to SB, is more suited to tag oncogenes.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3983033?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT johanndejong chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT waseemakhtar chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT jitendrabadhai chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT alistairgrust chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT rolandrad chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT johnhilkens chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT antonberns chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT maartenvanlohuizen chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT lodewykfawessels chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
AT jeroenderidder chromatinlandscapesofretroviralandtransposonintegrationprofiles
_version_ 1724799594560225280