July 12, 2018
Gene/Sequence Resources (GSR) is a great way to figure out which tools at SGD can help you analyze the yeast genome. Given a gene name, chromosomal region, or raw DNA/protein sequence, GSR retrieves a list of sequence analysis tools, options for accessing biological information, and table/map displays.
We’ve recently updated GSR to expand its search capabilities and provide more options for downloading, analyzing, and comparing sequences from different S. cerevisiae strains. New features in Gene/Sequence Resources include:
Categories: Website changes
July 02, 2018
When someone says they can “read you like a book”, they probably aren’t saying that they know your entire genome sequence. (…or for you Westworld fans, you certainly hope they aren’t saying they’ve got access to the Delos Incorporated “library”!).
But in fact everyone’s genome CAN be thought of as a book, sort of like a giant cookbook. Within your genome are many “recipes” for gene products — DNA sequences that each give instructions on how, when, and where to make a protein or RNA molecule. The recipes of the genome are used to “cook up” a person!
When a parent cell divides and creates another cell, it makes a copy of its genome “cookbook” and passes it down to the new cell. It’s extremely important to make sure that there aren’t any errors in the newly copied text, as mistakes in recipes for crucial enzymes can have disastrous results for the cell. Indeed, our cells (as well as yeast cells, and in fact, all organisms) have enzymes that are dedicated to scrupulously inspecting the new copies of our genome cookbooks that are made during cell division, and then helping to correct any errors.
A certain class of these enzymes are known as DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. These enzymes carefully proofread the newly made copy of the genome, and if something doesn’t match the original version, they will help fix the error.
You might think that having more of these MMR proteins would be a good thing, because there would be more thorough checking and repairing of the new copy of the genome. But the situation isn’t so simple, especially when it comes to human cancer.
Previous studies show that some cancers and cancer predisposition syndromes have less of the MMR proteins. This makes sense because cancers almost always arise due to genome mutations, and it is known that if a cell has less of the error-checking MMR proteins, there are more genome mutations. However, other studies report a puzzling discrepancy: in some cancers, there are in fact MORE of the MMR proteins rather than less!
In their recent GENETICS study, Chakraborty and coworkers decided to investigate this discrepancy further. They analyzed data from two databases of human cancer genome information, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics, specifically looking at how much the genes encoding MMR proteins were turned on or off in cancer.
They observed that many types of human cancer cells make more of two particular MMR proteins: MSH2 and MSH6. It turns out (as it often does!) that our good buddy Saccharomyces cerevisiae has MMR proteins very similar to the human ones, also encoded by genes called MSH2 and MSH6. So Chakraborty and coworkers made yeast cells that overexpress the yeast genes MSH2 and MSH6 and used the awesome power of yeast genetics (and genomics) (#APOYG!) to investigate whether this might lead to cellular and genome changes like those seen in human cancers.
Using various yeast genetic assays to measure rates of genome alterations such as homologous recombination, mutations, and loss of large chromosome regions, Chakraborty et al. observed increased rates for all of these measures of genome instability in cells when both MSH2 and MSH6 were overexpressed, but not for overexpression of either one alone (or of other MMR proteins). So even though there are more of the “good guy” MMR proteins in these cells, this actually ends up making the genome of the cell MORE likely to get damaging mutations of the same types seen in cancer cells.
So why is too much of a good thing such a bad thing in this case? The authors hypothesize that both Msh2p and Msh6p act together as a joined pair to go to the spot where the chromosomal DNA is actively being copied (“replicated”). When they are both overexpressed, too many of the Msh2p-Msh6p pairs can go to the replication spot and actually interfere with the copying process.
It’s as if you were a medieval scribe carefully copying an illuminated manuscript of a genome cookbook, and instead of one supervisor occasionally checking your work, there are a bunch of people constantly looking over your shoulder and maybe even bumping into your arm, causing you to make mistakes in your writing. They may even make you drop the book you’re copying, scattering pages so that you might leave some out or put them back in the wrong order, seriously messing up your work!
Here’s hoping our cells don’t overdo it with their MMR proteins, so that they can be careful with their cookbook copying job and do it “write”!
by Barbara Dunn, Ph.D. and Kevin MacPherson, M.S.
Categories: Research Spotlight
May 31, 2018
In the Harry Potter universe, there are two materials that make up a wand: the wood, which comes from trees like cedar and holly, and the core, which is a magical substance such as the feather of a phoenix or a unicorn hair.
Every wand has unique properties that depend mainly on the combination of its wood and core. Different wood-core pairings give different characteristics that can either antagonize or synergize with the wizard using it. When a wand meets up with its ideal owner, it will begin to learn from and teach its human partner. Such auspicious pairings can continuously improve the wizard’s spell-casting, helping the wizard perform better and better under ever more varied circumstances. However, a poor pairing between a wand and a wizard can be devastating, enfeebling the wizard’s magic or even causing it to backfire.
And just like wizards and wands, it turns out that mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA in a cell need to be properly paired to perform the “magic” of running a cell in the most efficient way.
Mitochondria are dynamic structures inside eukaryotic cells that provide much of the energy to keep a cell humming along.
Mitochondria contain their own DNA, encoding genes necessary for the organelle to do its work. Although mitochondrial DNA is physically separate from nuclear DNA, it turns out that the two need to work together if the cell is to make functioning mitochondria.
Like the wand-wizard pairing in Harry Potter’s world, the combination of a specific mitochondrial genome (the wand) with a particular nuclear genome (the wizard) is important for making a healthy mitochondrion. Some mitochondrial-nuclear combinations work well and others not so much, but not a lot is known about where different mitochondrial DNAs come from and how they end up paired with their favored nuclear genomes.
Knowing more about this may help us understand how mitochondrial genomes evolve during interspecific hybridizations, such as in lager beer yeast and certain other fermentation yeasts.
A new study in GENETICS from Wolters et al. shows that when S. cerevisiae yeast cells go through the mating process, there is often mixing of mitochondrial genomes to give new combinations of mitochondrial genes — almost as if lots of new wood-core combinations of wands were being created.
How do these new mitochondrial combinations arise? When two haploid yeast cells mate, they merge to form a single diploid cell that contains mitochondria from both of its parents. Sometimes, these mitochondria exchange pieces of DNA, mixing-and-matching genes in a process known as mitochondrial recombination.
The authors found that a surprising proportion of mated yeast cells (~40%) had recombinant mitochondrial DNA. And in many cases, the recombined mitochondrial genomes work even better with the nuclear genome to make a super healthy cell. Often these optimal pairings allowed the cells to develop new powers, tolerating higher temperatures and more oxygen-stressed conditions than the original parent cells — in other words, the cell has found its optimal “wand”!
But other pairing combinations were inauspicious, giving sickly or dead mitochondria that can harm the cell, especially when it is growing under stressful conditions. For instance, when the authors swapped the mitochondrial-nuclear pairing for two different but very fit cell types, these new pairings gave unhealthy cells, meaning that the original fit cells had already found their perfect “wand”.
So just like when Harry Potter was in Ollivander’s wand shop and finally found his holly-phoenix feather wand and felt unified with its amazing magic, yeast cells can acquire new super powers when their nuclear and mitochondrial genomes are perfectly paired!
by Barbara Dunn, Ph.D. and Kevin MacPherson, M.S.
…and we wish a fond farewell to Barry Starr, Ph.D. who has left the Stanford Department of Genetics for new horizons. We miss you Barry and wish you well!
Categories: Research Spotlight
May 01, 2018
April 17, 2018
1,011. That’s the number of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast strains that were whole-genome sequenced and phenotyped by a team of researchers jointly led by Joseph Schacherer and Gianni Liti, published this week in Nature (Peter et al., 2018; data at: http://bit.ly/1011genomes-DataAtSGD).
Scrupulously gathering isolates of S. cerevisiae from as many diverse geographical locations and ecological niches as possible, the authors and their collaborators plucked yeast cells not only from the familiar wine, beer and bread sources, but also from rotting bananas, sea water, human blood, sewage, termite mounds, and more. The authors then surveyed the evolutionary relationships among the strains to describe the worldwide population distribution of this species and deduce its historical spread.
They found that the greatest amount of genome sequence diversity existed among the S. cerevisiae strains collected from Taiwan, mainland China, and other regions of East Asia. This means that in all likelihood the geographic origin of S. cerevisiae lies somewhere in East Asia. According to the authors, our budding yeast friend began spreading around the globe about 15,000 years ago, undergoing several independent domestication events during its worldwide journey. For example, it turns out that wine yeast and sake yeast were domesticated from different ancestors, thousands of years apart from each other. Whereas genomic markers of domestication appeared about 4,000 years ago in sake yeast, such markers appeared in wine yeast only 1,500 years ago.
Additionally — and similar to the situation where human interspecific hybridization with Neanderthals occurred only after humans migrated out of Africa — it appears that S. cerevisiae has inter-bred very frequently with other Saccharomyces species, especially S. paradoxus, but that most of these interspecific hybridization events occurred after the out-of-China dispersal.
There are many more gems to be found among the treasure trove of information in this paper. Some notable conclusions from the authors include: diploids are the most fit ploidy; copy number variation (CNV) is the most prevalent type of variation; most single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are very rare alleles in the population; extensive loss of heterozygosity is observed among many strains. There are also phenotype results (fitness values) for 971 strains across 36 different growth conditions.
As is often the case for yeast, the ability to sequence and analyze whole genomes at very deep coverage has yielded broad insights on eukaryotic genome evolution. The team’s work highlights this by presenting a comprehensive view of genome evolution on many different levels (e.g., differences in ploidy, aneuploidy, genetic variants, hybridization, and introgressions) that is difficult to obtain at the same scale and accuracy for other eukaryotic organisms.
SGD is happy to announce that in conjunction with the authors and publishers, we are hosting the datasets from the paper at this SGD download site. These datasets include: the actual genome sequences of the 1,011 isolates; the list of 4,940 common “core” ORFs plus 2,856 ORFs that are variable within the population (together these make up the “pangenome”); copy number variation (CNV) data; phenotyping data for 36 conditions; SNPs and indels relative to the S288C genome; and much more. We hope that the easy availability of these large datasets will be useful to many yeast (and non-yeast) researchers, and as the authors say, will help to “guide future population genomics and genotype–phenotype studies in this classic model system.”
April 12, 2018
It was with great sadness that we learned that André Goffeau, renowned yeast researcher and Professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, passed away on April 2, 2018.
Prof. Goffeau worked on yeast transporter genes and multidrug resistance for much of his scientific career, and made many contributions to this field. But he will forever be remembered for his visionary idea to sequence the entire genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, ultimately leading to the coordination of a world-wide collaborative effort during the late 1980s and early 1990s by researchers from 19 countries working in 94 laboratories. The sequencing project, which represented the first completely sequenced eukaryotic genome, culminated in the landmark publication “Life with 6000 Genes” (Goffeau et al. 1996). But of course this was only the beginning of a cascading myriad of discoveries, methods, resources and careers built upon the existence of the yeast genome sequence.
The collaborative nature of the yeast community’s effort was nicely summed up in the 1996 Goffeau et al. paper: “Whether they worked in large centers or small laboratories, most of the 600 or so scientists involved in sequencing the yeast genome share the feeling that the worldwide ties created by this venture are of inestimable value to the future of yeast research” and indeed this has proved true. Prof. Goffeau was recognized with many awards and honors over his career, including the 2002 Beadle Medal of the Genetics Society of America for his work in having “initiated and successfully led the yeast genome sequencing project”. After the completion of the S. cerevisiae genome he continued to sequence whole genomes of other microbes and also worked on novel anti-cancer agents. Prof. Goffeau was a highly praised mentor and published hundreds of scientific papers of which many resulted from large collaborations; he also served on journal editorial boards, organized meetings, and performed many other valuable services to the scientific community over his career. He was an active and treasured part of the yeast community and we will miss him greatly.
April 06, 2018
This Research Spotlight also comes as a video animation. Be sure to check it out!
In the Star Wars movie Attack of the Clones, Padme and Anakin end up fighting Genosians on an automated assembly line. Padme manages to survive because the assembly line is set up in an ordered and predictable way. She knows when to jump, when to pause and so on to survive. If there was more chaos in the line, she might have been killed and then there’d be no Luke or Leia!
If the Genosian assembly line weren’t predictable, Padme might’ve ended up a pancake.
Just like the assembly line on Genosis, the gene is set up in an ordered and predictable way. Nucleosomes (barrel-shaped clusters of proteins) are spaced along the gene’s DNA to help keep it from getting tangled up. But when Pol II comes hustling along, the nucleosomes need to be carefully removed in front and then replaced after it passes.
Similar to the plight of poor Padme getting hurt if the assembly line were not predictable, genes can likewise get damaged if the nucleosome removal/replacement process goes haywire. In Star Wars, the result of a defective assembly line is damaged droids and TIE fighters. In cells, the result is a changed assembly line—the gene can end up longer! This change can be harmful for both the gene and the cell.
In a new study in GENETICS, Koch and coworkers use our favorite beast, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, to show that the ISW1 gene is a key player in making sure that the nucleosomes get back on DNA after being taken off. When yeast lack the ISW1 gene, nucleosomes don’t always return after being removed to make way for Pol II. And for some genes, this spells even more trouble.
The genes that have the most problems are those that have something called triplet repeats. Basically, this means the same 3 bases (e.g. CAG) are repeated many times in a row in the gene.
Using PCR, Koch and coworkers showed that a gene with triplet repeats ended up with more of them if the ISW1 protein (Isw1p) wasn’t there to shepherd the nucleosomes properly. And too many repeats in a gene can be harmful–not just to the yeast, but to us as well.
In fact, Triplet Repeat Expansion Disorders happen when the number of repeats increases from one generation to the next. These diseases are some of the most devastating ones around.
They mostly cause slow but steady degeneration of nerve and brain cells, and the cruel symptoms (loss of body movement control, dementia) often only show up in mid-life. The most well-known is probably Huntington’s disease, which killed folk-singer Woody Guthrie.
So understanding how Isw1p helps keep the Pol II assembly line running smoothly in yeast might help us understand how triplet repeat expansion happens in humans, and may eventually give us ideas how to keep it from happening in the first place. This is especially likely because humans have proteins that are similar to Isw1p and probably do something similar.
To determine how Isw1p regulates nucleosome reassembly, Koch and coworkers used Southern blots to show that yeast that lacked Isw1p couldn’t replace their nucleosomes after Pol II had passed as efficiently as yeast that had the protein. This means that when cells are missing the ISW1 gene, a long stretch of the DNA is left bare after Pol II has passed by.
This stretch of nucleosome-free DNA can end up forming new structures called hairpins that can cause cells to send in DNA repair machinery to deal with it. Unfortunately this machinery isn’t always that great at fixing the DNA. Like the Three Stooges adding more pipe to try to fix a leak, the cell can end up adding more DNA to deal with the hairpin.
Like adding extra DNA, throwing extra pipes at a plumbing leak is a great way to make a bad problem worse.
But for the cell, the results are not as hilarious as they were for Moe, Larry, and Curly. That extra DNA can lead to deadly genetic diseases.
A yeast cell needs Isw1p to keep the cell from bringing in the Three Stooges to mess up its DNA and potentially cause devastating genetic diseases. If it turns out the same is true in people, then once again yeast will have shown us how human genetic diseases might happen. And perhaps provide a target for us to go after to prevent these diseases from happening. #APOYG!
by Barry Starr, Ph.D., Barbara Dunn, Ph.D., and Kevin MacPherson, M.S.
Categories: Research Spotlight
March 16, 2018
For almost 50 years, the legendary Yeast Genetics & Genomics course has been taught each summer at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (OK, the name didn’t include “Genomics” in the beginning…). The list of people who have taken the course reads like a Who’s Who of yeast research, including Nobel laureates and many of today’s leading scientists. The application deadline is April 15th, so don’t miss your chance! Find all the details and application form here. This year’s instructors – Grant Brown, Greg Lang, and Elçin Ünal – have designed a course (July 24 – August 13) that provides a comprehensive education in all things yeast, from classical genetics through up-to-the-minute genomics. Students will perform and interpret experiments, learning about things like:
Scientists who aren’t part of large, well-known yeast labs are especially encouraged to apply – for example, professors and instructors who want to incorporate yeast into their undergraduate genetics classrooms; scientists who want to transition from mathematical, computational, or engineering disciplines into bench science; and researchers from small labs or institutions where it would otherwise be difficult to learn the fundamentals of yeast genetics and genomics. Significant stipends (in the 30-50% range of total fees) are available to individuals expressing a need for financial support and who are selected into the course.
Besides its scientific content, the fun and camaraderie at the course is also legendary. In between all the hard work there are late-night chats at the bar and swimming at the beach. There’s a fierce competition between students at the various CSHL courses in the Plate Race, which is a relay in which teams have to carry stacks of 40 Petri dishes (used, of course). There’s also a sailboat trip, a microscopy contest, and a mysterious “Dr. Evil” lab!
The Yeast Genetics & Genomics Course is loads of fun – don’t miss out!
February 13, 2018
This is, of course, a mistake. The best person by far is Cinderella and she should not be ignored because of her position in life.
The RNA polymerases in a eukaryotic cell are similar except that one is the star and two are the scullery maids. RNA polymerase II (Pol II), the reader of protein encoding genes, gets most of the attention. Pol I and Pol III, the enzymes that make RNAs that aren’t usually translated into proteins, are mostly relegated to supporting roles.
Just as there were hints of Cinderella’s specialness, so too there were hints that perhaps Pol III plays an important role in longevity. That hint goes by the name of TORC1.
Previous work had shown that inhibiting TORC1 can increase the lifespan of beasts ranging from yeast to mice. Given that TORC1 is a strong activator of Pol III, Filer and coworkers set out to determine if inhibiting Pol III could do the same thing.
As any good researcher should, they started out by looking in our favorite model organism, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Pol III is pretty complicated—it is made up of 17 different subunits encoded by 17 different essential genes. These authors went after the largest subunit, C160, encoded by the RPO31 (RPC160) gene.
To control its level of expression, they fused an auxin-inducible degron to the protein. This fusion protein is degraded in the presence of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and E3 ubiquitin ligase from the rice Oryza sativa.
This means that there should be less Pol III in a cell when IAA is around. Western blot analysis confirmed that this was indeed the case.
The authors found that yeast with less Pol III had a longer chronological lifespan. In other words, each yeast cell survived longer. Having less Pol III did not significantly increase replicative lifespan though; they did not bud more often over their lifetime.
These authors did not get as significant a result when they targeted the largest subunit of Pol II, RPO21 (RPB220). The strain appeared to do better in the presence of IAA compared to the control strain, suggesting that targeting Pol II had a small effect on longevity; but it was nothing like was seen with Pol III.
When Filer and coworkers used RNA interference (RNAi) to knock down the amount of the largest subunit of Pol III, rpc-1, in C. elegans, the worm lived longer. And when they generated a strain of Drosophila which had only one working copy of dC53 (CG5147), a gene that encodes a Pol III subunit, these fruit flies lived longer too. Lowering the amount of Pol III is a good thing if you want to live longer!
Previous work had shown that the gut often controls longevity in C. elegans. These authors showed that the same holds true for Pol III reduction. Targeting just the Pol III in the gut was sufficient to give this little worm a longer life.
The same turned out to be true in the fruit fly. Using RNAi against two different Pol III subunits in the Drosophila gut was enough to have extend these flies’ lives. Targeting Pol III in the fat body did not have the same effect, and targeting Pol III in neuronal cells extended life only a little.
So reducing Pol III in the gut is good enough for flies and worms to live longer. In fact, reducing Pol III activity had as much effect on longevity as does inhibiting TORC1. Scientists ignore this hidden gem at their own risk!
Since Pol III is ignored, but dangerous for lifespan, perhaps a better analogy than Cinderella might be Sauron and the hobbits of the Shire from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Sauron ignores the hobbits who hold the key (or the ring) to Sauron’s shortened lifespan.
If Sauron had paid attention, he’d still be lording it over Middle Earth at the end of the third book. Just as we might live longer if we start paying more attention to that hidden danger—excessive Pol III activity, possibly in the gut.
by Barry Starr, Ph.D., Director of Outreach Activities, Stanford Genetics
Categories: Research Spotlight
January 29, 2018
And of course, Wile E. ends up getting caught in the trap!
Like our super-genius coyote friend, Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells need to make sure there is the right amount of tension sometimes, too. One of those times, for example, is tension on their chromosomes at the metaphase stage of cell division.
If the chromosomes aren’t attached to the spindle in just the right way, the cell will not let mitosis move from metaphase to anaphase. The cell won’t put down the birdseed until it “knows” the trap is set properly.
While Wile E. Coyote probes the tension by eyeballing it, yeast does it in a much more thorough way. Two key pieces of the sensing machinery in yeast are the tension sensing motif (TSM) from histone H3, 42KPGT, and the Shugoshin 1 protein, Sgo1p.
The current model is that the TSM of histone H3 acts as an anchoring point or a landing pad for Sgo1p, the protein responsible for sensing that there is the right amount of tension between chromosomes and the spindle/kinetochore. When the TSM is mutated with, for example, a G44S allele, the idea is that Sgo1p can no longer bind causing chromosomes to sometimes segregate incorrectly.
Previous work had shown that mutating Gcn5p can partially rescue the effects of the G44S allele. In a new study in GENETICS, Buehl and coworkers provide evidence that the reason it can has to do with the tail of histone H3. Basically, this tail can act as a secondary anchor if the TSM, the first anchor point, is mutated. But the tail can only work if it is not acetylated by Gcn5p.
It is as if Wile E. Coyote’s bear trap is broken so he has to fashion a new trigger to get it to snap. When the TSM of H3 is gone, yeast can fashion a new sensor by eliminating the acetylation on the tail of the H3 histone.
Buehl and coworkers focused on the tail because it is a known target of Gcn5p acetylation. In particular, there are four lysine residues in the tail—K9, K14, K18, and K23—that are acetylated by Gcn5p to varying degrees. The most acetylated is K14 followed by K23 and K18. K9 is hardly acetylated at all.
When they deleted the histone tail, they found that the effects of the TSM mutation, G44S, were more severe. But when they mutated the four lysines all at once, the effects of G44S weren’t as bad. This is consistent with the unacetylated tail serving as a landing pad for Sgo1p in the absence of the TSM. No tail, no binding, leading to chromosome mis-segregation.
As might be expected if this was linked to Gcn5p, each individual lysine mutant had effects that corresponded to their level of acetylation by Gcn5p. So K14A did the best job of partially rescuing the G44S allele, K18A and K23A did an okay job and K9A had very little effect.
Buehl and coworkers provide three additional sets of experiments to show that G44S causes chromosome mis-segregation and that K14A can partially rescue it. There is only time to discuss one of these, but you can read the paper for the other two.
This strategy uses the idea that diploids cannot mate because of a repression function on each copy of chromosome III (chrIII). If a diploid loses one of its chrIII’s, then it will be able to mate.
As expected, the authors found that both wild type and the K14A mutant had very few diploids that could mate. But it was a different story for the G44S mutant—it had many more diploids able to mate, presumably due to the loss of one chrIII. The double mutant K14A/G44S had more diploids mate than wild type but less that G44S on its own.
This is what we would expect if K14A can only affect tension sensing in a TSM mutant. It would do little on its own but could partially rescue the TSM mutant G44S.
The authors next used chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays to directly show that the K14A mutation in histone H3 allowed Sgo1p to bind when the TSM was mutated. There was one hitch though—Sgo1p bound most everywhere and not just at the pericentromeres where it usually does.
In a final set of experiments, the authors used GST-pulldowns to show a direct interaction between the H3 tail and Sgo1p. To their surprise, they found that acetylating the tail did not affect Sgo1p binding. They suggest that perhaps the acetylated tail interacts with something that blocks Sgo1p from binding.
Yeast has a backup just in case its main way of sensing tension between the spindle/kinetochore and chromosome, the TSM of histone H3, breaks down. In that case, it can use the tail of histone H3, assuming it is not acetylated.
If only Wile E. Coyote included backups like this in his crazy plans! Then he could finally dine on that tasty Road Runner he is always chasing.
by Barry Starr, Ph.D., Director of Outreach Activities, Stanford Genetics
Categories: Research Spotlight