Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | June 22nd 2009 04:57 PM | 17 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

DNA is like your phone line. As Northwestern University biophysicist Johnathan Widom put it in a talk recently, DNA simultaneously encodes multiple overlapping signals, just like your phone line that allows you to call home while you're surfing the net via DSL. Written into your DNA is the code for the amino acid sequences of the proteins produced by your genes, as well as the so-called 'non-coding' regulatory sequences which essentially encode when, where, and how much your genes are expressed.

On top of all of this, there is another code - not so explicitly defined as the genetic code, but an additional layer of information nonetheless. The DNA inside of a eukaryotic cell is tightly packaged, wrapped up around 8-protein cores called histones. This total package, DNA wrapped around a histone octamer, is called a nucleosome. Nucleosomes are sometimes compared to thread wrapped around a spool, but this comparison is way off - DNA isn't nearly as flexible as thread, and that poses a challenge to the cell's genetic regulatory apparatus.

Instead of being like thread, DNA is a little like your typical $1 plastic snake toy - flexible only in certain places (which are determined by the DNA sequence):





Inside the cell, relatively stiff molecules of DNA get wrapped around nucleosomes in an amazing feat of macromolecular origami:




A nucleosome: DNA wrapped around a blue histone core.


This wrapping puts a lot of stress on the DNA. Since some DNA sequences are more flexible than others, nucleosomes tend to occur more frequently at some places in the genome, whereas other stretches of chromosome are nucleosome-poor. Here, then, is another opportunity for a code: the sequence of the DNA influences the placement of nucleosomes.

Nucleosome density matters, because tightly-wrapped DNA is inaccessible to the regulatory proteins that switch on and transcribe genes, and thus tightly-wrapped genes tend to be shut off. The positioning of nucleosomes can clearly have an impact on how genes are expressed, although just how this works isn't clear - which is why nucleosomes have been frequently invoked as a catch-all explanation for anything about gene expression we don't understand.

But just what kind of an impact do nucleosomes have? Has the positioning of nucleosomes been fine-tuned by selection to form an additional, highly specific layer of regulatory code on top of the much better-understood regulatory system of transcription factor proteins that control gene expression? Or are nucleosomes instead obstacles that have to be worked around by regulatory proteins?

This is a familiar type of question in biology: is a particular feature of the living world a highly adaptive, specifically selected function, or is it just a side-effect of something else? Nucleosomes clearly exist for a reason - to package up DNA. But are nucleosomes positioned just so for an adaptive reason as well?

You can think of this question in terms of coding in the DNA. We already know of two highly specific codes: 1) The genetic code, which relates DNA sequence of genes to amino acid sequence in proteins. 2) The gene regulatory code: regulatory proteins bind to very specific stretches of DNA, and switch genes on or off. The expression of a gene is determined, to a large degree, by its surrounding regulatory DNA.

What about nucleosomes? Is this a third layer of code that controls gene expression? This question has provoked some occasionally heated arguments about biologists who study gene regulation.

Yes, there is certainly information in the DNA sequence that encodes the positioning of nucleosomes, information that comes largely from the varying stiffness of DNA. And the positioning of nucleosomes can have an impact on how a gene is expressed. Furthermore, nucleosomes are chemically modified in way that alter the expression of the surrounding genes.

The controversy essentially concerns information flow: Are there DNA sequences that specifically position nucleosomes to carry out certain gene regulatory functions? Or does the information flow from the much more specific transcription factor binding sites, which recruit regulatory proteins that then in turn reposition nucleosomes as needed? The argument has gone back and forth:

A genomic code for nucleosome positioning: "This nucleosome positioning code may facilitate specific chromosome functions including transcription factor binding, transcription initiation, and even remodeling of the nucleosomes themselves."

Nucleosome position signals in genomic DNA: "Our analysis suggests that only a subset of nucleosomes are likely to be positioned by intrinsic sequence signals. This observation is consistent with the available experimental data and is inconsistent with the proposal of a nucleosome positioning code."

...evolution of nucleosome encoded-DNA organization: Our analysis suggests that only a subset of nucleosomes are likely to be positioned by intrinsic sequence signals. This observation is consistent with the available experimental data and is inconsistent with the proposal of a nucleosome positioning code."

Mechanisms that specify Promoter Nucleosome Location and Identity: "Despite the power of these descriptive genome-wide studies as well as work that indicates that these characteristics of promoters play key roles in gene regulation, they leave open the question of how these structures are programmed....The finding in this study and in the previous study that the final resting positions of nucleosomes are strongly influenced by ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling mechanisms argues that that the intrinsic affinity of the octamer for underlying DNA sequences is not determinative for the final positioned state."

One group recently set out to answer this question definitively: they took everything except DNA and histones out of the equation, so that other factors couldn't possibly interfere with the arrangement of histones on the DNA. Taking purified histone proteins from chicken, and genomic DNA from yeast, the researchers reconstituted nucleosomes in a test tube. So where are the nucleosomes now, when they can't be repositioned by remodeling proteins? It turns out that nucleosomes were largely positioned in the same spots they're found inside of a cells. DNA determines nucleosome position - which maybe determines gene regulation.

But... the definitive experiment actually hasn't definitively determined the answer. (I'm exaggerating anyway - the researchers didn't claim that this was the experiment to end all questions.) Aside from some criticism of how this particular experiment was done, the question of information flow is still open: nucleosomes in a test tube were not placed in exactly the same positions in which they're found in the cell; there were small differences. Maybe these small differences in positioning are caused by information flowing from regulatory proteins to the nucleosomes - in fact, we know this happens, because there are large protein machines devoted to shuffling nucleosomes around.


And so the argument goes on. Whatever the answer turns out to be (personally I favor the idea that information flow in gene regulation comes largely from transcription factor binding sites), it's clear that DNA encodes an amazing amount of information (along with plenty of noise). DNA doesn't just code for the amino-acid sequences of the proteins that your cells produce; it also codes for how those genes are regulated under particular environmental conditions. In fact, DNA is so information-rich, that you can take a human chromosome, put it into a mouse, and the information from the human DNA, and not the cellular environment of the mouse, will determine gene regulation on the human chromosome. Tracing information flow in DNA is going to keep researchers busy for years to come.



Comments

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I remember learning about nucleosomes and the controversy over its control of gene expression back in college and thought it was fascinating. You learn the Central Dogma, and then learn that there's another layer, and there might even be more out there? Very cool. P.S. I loved those plastic snake toys as a kid! Haven't thought about them in years.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
It's so complex - all of the parallel processes going on at once; it can be tough to wrap your mind around it all.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Parallel processing requires timing (if they are dependent processes), so is there a "timer unit" that has been discovered with respect to gene operation or are all these processes simply simultaneous?  If parallel, is there a smallest discrete unit of time? and does that say anything about the smallest operation that can be performed by a gene during such a time interval?


adaptivecomplexity's picture
There is no timer analogous to a CPU - biologists (including me) love to use computer metaphors, but this is really a chemical system where everything is essentially happening simultaneously. That's one reason why information processing in biological systems is so hard to model mathematically - thermodynamics ends up being more relevant than computer science.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I understand.  I was trying to ascertain whether you meant that processing was parallel or simultaneous.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Your question was a good one - the distinction you ask about is frequently cited in technical papers as a key point to consider when thinking about biological information processing. How to measure and usefully describe information flow in biological systems is a hot topic - one that's unresolved.

Gerhard Adam's picture
To take off with your computer analogy, parallel processing is often thought of at the task level or unit of work.  However, in modern super-scalar processors, the parallelism can also extend to specific instruction execution where operations can occur in parallel and then simply be "committed" in the order in which they are expected to occur.

As I mentioned previously, if any processing were to occur in parallel, then there must be a timing mechanism capable of synchronizing operations to ensure proper ordering of events.  In addition, such a "time unit" would be helpful in determining what the smallest single operation is.


adaptivecomplexity's picture
then there must be a timing mechanism capable of synchronizing operations to ensure proper ordering of events.

So, I would say then that what's going on in the cell is technically not parallel processing, since there is no dedicated time unit.
The only way that the ordering of events is controlled in transcription networks, as far as I'm aware, is the dependency of the binding of one component on the presence of another.  Like this, basically:  upstream of a gene, there is a transcription factor binding site. That binding site recruits the transcription factor protein. The transcription factor protein recruits, in some cases, nucleosome remodling proteins, which can slide nucleosomes out of the way, making room for RNA polymerase to bind. Once RNA polymerase binds, it is energetically driven to start transcribing the gene.


So ordered binding, without any sort of timer that enforces synchronization, is what makes sure things go right. Molecules are diffusing around in the nucleus at random, and bind to DNA in energetically favored ways. One binding event changes the 'energy landscape' of the surrounding area, so that other binding events can take place.  

Ultimately the timing  of the initial transcription factor binding event is controlled by some external or internal signal - like the hormone estrogen binding to a transcription factor, causing that transcription factor to move to the nucleus and bind DNA with high affinity.

Even in biological oscillators, like the cell cycle and circadian rhythms, where things do have to be precisely timed, you don't have any sort of 'time unit'.  What's going on there is more like a relay race, with hand-offs to ensure proper timing: the completion of one phase causes the induction of the next phase.





Gerhard Adam's picture
Sounds very similar to traditional "batch" processing in computers.  People tend to forget that much of the work done on large computers doesn't actually involve sitting in front of a monitor and typing.  These "batch" processes have similar mechanisms (i.e. Read a file; Sort it; Produce output file; Read output file; Update information; Store results in database; Read sorted output; produce report, etc.).

What's relevant about that is that these are serial processes that use a variety of mechanisms to conditionally perform certain steps and to serialize operations (including abnormal terminations).  It seems like that might be a more appropriate computer analogy.


logicman's picture
How to measure and usefully describe information flow in biological systems is a hot topic - one that's unresolved.

I wonder if the cell uses the parsimonious JIT method to make components and move them to the production line.  JIT = Just In Time.  Components delivered ahead of time take up storage space which can obstruct the workflow.  Consider also product creation sequences abcd and abfc.  If they are used to make abcdabfc then the parallel production of two each of a,b and c may actually slow down the production.  Again, production of components for a stockpile uses resources which may then not be available to produce components which are more urgently needed.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
This is extremely common during the cell division cycle. There are two likely reasons for a JIT method: one is efficient resource utilization, and the other is chemistry. Chemical reactions in the cell are highly concentration-dependent; it's not easy to store high concentrations of biologically active molecules out of the way somewhere without causing unintended side-reactions.
In yeast, about 15% of the genome is transcribed in this JIT way during the cell division cycle.


logicman's picture
Thanks, Michael.  Its good to know that I was on the right track.  I have a question.  In general, is cell division 'programmed' or is it triggered by cell size, age or nutrient availability in the environment?

adaptivecomplexity's picture
 is cell division 'programmed' or is it triggered by cell size, age or nutrient availability in the environment?

The answer is yes.
In fertilized zygotes, it's just set to go, no matter what, for the first few division cycles.  In most other cases there are size controls (there are size control mutants were cells get progressively smaller, because they don't grow enough before dividing), cells age (even yeast cells undergo a limited number of divisions), and there is  a cell cycle "checkpoint" where cells make sure that nutrient availability is OK before they start replicating their DNA.


logicman's picture
Thanks again, Michael.    Considering that for most of my life I have preferred science text books over other things, it's amazing how little I know.  :)

WOW ! What a comparison of DNA with a phone line. That is really great. Thanks for sharing such a good post.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
You work on GPCRs? I used to work in a lab that studied the alpha factor receptor.

Hi Michael:

You are on the right track and yes, you may have found the Third code to Human DNA, as there IS one and something else for you to check out another time, there is also an error in our Human DNA, something that does not belong, something that causes us humans Anger, Hate, Greed and the want to Kill (per say, like a soldier in war). You may be the one that truly finds the answer to a long kept secret! I wish you the best!

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.