Abstract
In viviparous mammals, genomic imprinting regulates parent-of-origin-specific monoallelic expression of paternally and maternally expressed imprinted genes (PEGs and MEGs) in a region-specific manner. It plays an essential role in mammalian development: aberrant imprinting regulation causes a variety of developmental defects, including fetal, neonatal, and postnatal lethality as well as growth abnormalities. Mechanistically, PEGs and MEGs are reciprocally regulated by DNA methylation of germ-line differentially methylated regions (gDMRs), thereby exhibiting eliciting complementary expression from parental genomes. The fact that most gDMR sequences are derived from insertion events provides strong support for the claim that genomic imprinting emerged as a host defense mechanism against the insertion in the genome. Recent studies on the molecular mechanisms concerning how the DNA methylation marks on the gDMRs are established in gametes and maintained in the pre- and postimplantation periods have further revealed the close relationship between genomic imprinting and invading DNA, such as retroviruses and LTR retrotransposons. In the presence of gDMRs, the monoallelic expression of PEGs and MEGs confers an apparent advantage by the functional compensation that takes place between the two parental genomes. Thus, it is likely that genomic imprinting is a consequence of an evolutionary trade-off for improved survival. In addition, novel genes were introduced into the mammalian genome via this same surprising and complex process as imprinted genes, such as the genes acquired from retroviruses as well as those that were duplicated by retropositioning. Importantly, these genes play essential/important roles in the current eutherian developmental system, such as that in the placenta and/or brain. Thus, genomic imprinting has played a critically important role in the evolutionary emergence of mammals, not only by providing a means to escape from the adverse effects of invading DNA with sequences corresponding to the gDMRs, but also by the acquisition of novel functions in development, growth and behavior via the mechanism of complementary monoallelic expression.
Introduction
Genomic imprinting is widely distributed in the viviparous mammals, the therians, comprising marsupials and eutherians (Reik and Walter 2001; Renfree et al., 2009; Barlow and Bartolomei 2014), yet it is an unusual biological mechanism in that it seems to runs counter to two main pillars of modern biology: it is an apparent exception to the rule of Mendelian genetics that presupposes biallelic expression from two parental alleles, and it is inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution at first glance due to the apparent disadvantage (Mann and Lovell-Badge, 1984; McGrath and Solter 1984; Surani et al., 1984; Cattanach and Kirk 1985) of the monoallelic expression of certain essential/important genes in development. The evolutionary advantage it nevertheless confers as the result of a partial, functional haploidy despite such defects has long been debated. Perhaps the most widely accepted account is the conflict/kinship hypothesis (Moore and Haig, 1991; Wilkins and Haig 2003; Haig 2004), which proposes that genomic imprinting arose as a consequence of a conflict of interest between maternally and paternally derived genomes, driven by a need for prenatal resource control: PEGs promote embryonic growth while MEGs repress it. Substantial numbers of imprinted genes fit this hypothetical scenario, so it has become generally accepted and its topic covered by many reviews (Reik and Walter, 2001; Edwards et al., 2019; Hanna and Kelsey 2021). In this review, we first introduce the unique nature of genomic imprinting regulated by gDMRs, then, revisit another host defense hypothesis that proposes that genomic imprinting arose as a consequence of the DNA methylation machinery as a defense against repetitive/foreign elements (Barlow 1993). We do this from the viewpoint of the origin of gDMRs (Suzuki et al., 2011; Renfree et al., 2013; Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2015, 2019) and the current knowledge on the molecular mechanisms underlying the establishment of the gDMRs in germ cells (Chotalia et al., 2009; Veselovska et al., 2015; Hanna and Kelsey 2021) as well as their protection from a global DNA demethylation wave that occurs in preimplantation embryos (Li et al., 2008; Smallwood et al., 2011; Kobayashi et al., 2012; Takahashi et al., 2019). Finally, we reexamine the advantage conferred by complementary monoallelic expression (Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2003, 2006), such as functional compensation (Renfree et al., 2013; Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2015, 2019) and the innovation of genomic function (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino, 2012). Recently, non-canonical genomic imprinting regulated by histone 3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) has been reported in the placenta in a lineage-specific manner (Okae et al., 2014; Inoue et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2018; Hanna et al., 2019; Inoue et al., 2020; Hanna and Kelsey 2021), but we shall mainly focus on the canonical genomic imprinting regulated by gDMRs that is commonly conserved in therian and eutherian mammals.
Uniqueness of Mammalian Genomic Imprinting Among Vertebrates
Pronuclear transplantation experiments demonstrated that both parthenogenetic and androgenetic embryos which exclusively possess maternally and paternally-derived genomes, respectively, cannot develop to term, and exhibit early embryonic lethality: the former exhibited severe placental defects, while the latter had severe embryonic growth retardation (Mann and Lovell-Badge, 1984; McGrath and Solter 1984; Surani et al., 1984). The complete absence of parthenogenesis is a unique feature of viviparous mammals because parthenogenesis is often observed both naturally and experimentally in vertebrates such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish (Ramachandran and McDaniel 2018; Fujita et al., 2020). The differences between the paternally and maternally-derived genome have also been shown by genetic experiments using mice with partial paternal or maternal uniparental disomy (Cattanach and Kirk, 1985; Cattanach and Beechey, 1990; Beechey and Evans, 2004). The offspring exhibit lethality at various stages in pre- and postnatal development as well as growth and behavioral abnormalities, leading to the concept of chromosomal imprinted regions. Such genomic imprinting is well accounted for by the presence of paternally and maternally expressed imprinted genes (PEGs and MEGs). The early embryonic lethality of the parthenogenetic and androgenetic embryos is due to a complete lack of expression of PEGs and MEGs, respectively. The abnormal phenotypes in the partial uniparental disomy mice are due to the irregular expression of certain PEGs and MEGs in the imprinted regions in question. From these results, it is clear that several different PEGs and MEGs play essential/important roles in the current developmental system in the therian mammals, so even their monoallelic expression is advantageous compared with a complete absence of expression, leading to their widespread conservation.
The Intrinsic Nature of Reciprocal Expression by PEGs and MEGs
PEG and MEG cannot be co-expressed in the cis configuration because their expression is under the control of the gDMRs, which are also referred to as imprinting control centers (ICRs), that contain cis-regulatory elements (Figure 1). This is a critical part of the intrinsic character of the imprinted regions. In most of the canonical imprinted regions, such cis-regulatory elements have long-range effects on the expression of neighboring genes, thus regulating a number of PEGs and MEGs. In the insulator model, the insulator sequences are utilized so the cis-regulatory elements are able to inhibit downstream enhancer activity (Bell and Felsenfeld 2000; Hark et al., 2000) (Figure 1). In the antisense models, the promoters of antisense transcripts interfere with the transcription of downstream genes (Stoger et al., 1993; Wutz et al., 1997). In certain cases, two separate regulatory regions are used to control the entire imprinted region. In the bipartite model, two regulatory units are required for the activity of a bipartite imprinting center, one containing the gDMR while the other may act with the former in gametes in the cis configuration, although the precise molecular mechanism remains unknown (Nicholls and Knepper 2001; Wu et al., 2012). In other cases, both the gDMRs and secondary DMRs (sDMRs) that are established in a manner depending on the former after fertilization, play essential roles (Takada et al., 2000, 2002; Lopes et al., 2003; Kagami et al., 2008; Kagami et al., 2015; Takahashi et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2010; Beygo et al., 2015). Regardless of which molecular mechanism model applies, DNA methylation of either one of the parental gDMRs inhibits the activity of the cis-regulatory elements, thereby undoing the off state and leading to the complementary expression of PEG and MEG (Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2003; Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2006).
FIGURE 1
DNA methylation of the gDMRs, referred to as imprinted memories, are established by DNA methyltransferase 3A (DNMT3A) and its catalytically inactive cofactor DNMT3L in either oocytes or spermatogonia (Okano et al., 1999; Bourc’his et al., 2001; Hata et al., 2002; Bourc’his and Bestor 2004; Kaneda et al., 2004), thus leading to the establishment of maternal and paternal gDMRs in the oocytes and sperm (Figure 2A). Such gDMRs are maintained in the somatic cells throughout life (Figure 2, middle), while in germ cells, it is completely erased for individuals in the next generation (Figure 2, bottom). From embryonic day 10.5 (d10.5), the erasure of genomic imprinting memory occurs in primordial germ cells (PGCs) through the passive replication-dependent DNA demethylation mechanism (Hackett et al., 2013; Yamaguchi et al., 2013a, 2013b; Kagiwada et al., 2013) and possibly together with the active mechanism catalyzed by ten-eleven translocation (TET) methylcytosine dioxygenases (Kawasaki et al., 2014). Importantly, clone embryos produced from d12.5 PGCs in the default mode of genomic imprinting (no DNA methylation of parental gDMRs) (Hajkova et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2002; Szabo et al., 2002) also exhibit early embryonic lethality (Lee et al., 2002; Yamazaki et al., 2005) similar to the parthenogenetic and androgenetic embryos. They express only MEGs in the paternally imprinted regions and only PEGs in the maternally imprinted regions, that is, the PEGs in the former and MEGs in the latter are repressed, respectively (Figure 2, middle). These results indicate that DNA methylation on the gDMRs is necessary to induce the repressed genes in the default state, indicating the strict requirement of having both paternal and maternal epigenotypes, leading to the complementary expression of PEGs and MEGs (Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2003; Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2006).
FIGURE 2
Paternal and maternal imprinting memories are then reestablished depending on the individual’s sex by DNA methylation on the paternal and maternal gDMRs in the paternal and maternal imprinted regions, respectively (Davis et al., 1999; Li et al., 2004; Lucifero et al., 2004; Hiura et al., 2006) (Figure 2, arrows from bottom to top), and as a result, the “imprinted” patterns of sperm and oocytes are completed (Figure 2, top). All of these changes in the expression pattern are consistent with the reciprocal regulation of PEGs and MEGs in a manner that depends on the DNA methylation status of the gDMRs (Figure 1). Taken together, DNA methylation at the gDMRs can be considered to serve as a major epigenetic mark in the life cycle of genomic imprinting and has recently been referred to as “canonical imprinting” in contrast to histone modification-dependent imprinting, as described later.
The Origin of gDMRs
Genomic imprinting is observed in eutherian and marsupial mammals, but the number of imprinted genes in eutherians is much larger than in marsupials (Cattanach and Beechey 1990; Killian et al., 2000; O’Neill et al., 2000; Beechey and Evans, 2004; Suzuki et al., 2005; Suzuki et al., 2007). In addition, there exist several lineage- and species-specific imprinted genes (Hayashizaki et al., 1994; Plass et al., 1996; Hagiwara et al., 1997; Smith et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2007; Das et al., 2012). In her host defense hypothesis, Denise Barlow implied that the origin of genomic imprinting lies in an existing biochemical system, such as DNA methylation, that serves to neutralize foreign invading DNA, such as retroviruses, direct repeats, and retrotransposons (Barlow et al., 1991; Neumann and Barlow. 1995). We had a similar idea and independently sought imprinted genes of exogenous origin by comprehensive screening of PEGs and MEGs (Kaneko-Ishino et al., 1995; Kuroiwa et al., 1996; Miyoshi et al., 1998; Miyoshi et al., 2000; Ono et al., 2001). Identification of paternally expressed 10 (PEG10), a gene acquired from a retrovirus (Ono et al., 2001; Ono et al., 2006), led to the finding that the PEG10-gDMR in its promoter region emerged with PEG10 itself in a common ancestor of therian mammals (Suzuki et al., 2007). Subsequent comprehensive comparative genome analysis has revealed that the DNA sequences corresponding to the gDMR in the canonical imprinted regions are derived from inserted DNA sequences (Suzuki et al., 2011; Renfree et al., 2013; Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2019). In most cases, such insertion events correlate well with the time when their imprinting regulation activity started as paternally and maternally imprinted regions (Figure 3, blue and red, respectively), providing strong support for the host defense hypothesis. From this perspective, the gDMRs, and most especially the cis-functional elements within them, should be recognized as the targets of the genomic imprinting mechanism rather than retroviruses, direct repeats and retrotransposons, as originally proposed (Barlow 1993; Neumann and Barlow 1995).
FIGURE 3
For example, the PEG10-and H19-gDMR sequences emerged next to the sarcoglycan epsilon (SGCE) promotor and downstream of the Insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2) gene in both the marsupial and eutherian genomes, respectively (Suzuki et al., 2007; Smits et al., 2008; Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2010). Thus, it is certain that their insertion occurred in a common therian ancestor. They were associated with the insertion of the retrovirus-derived PEG10 and non-coding H19, respectively (Table 1). In addition, imprinted paternal expression of PEG10 (Ono et al., 2001; Suzuki et al., 2007) and reciprocal maternal/paternal expression of H19/IGF2 (DeChiara et al., 1990, 1991; Bartolomei et al., 1991; O’Neill et al., 2000; Killian et al., 2001; Weidman et al., 2004; Edwards et al., 2008) have been confirmed in both groups. Interestingly, only the PEG10 promoter is differentially methylated in marsupials. In contrast, the PEG10-gDMR extends to the SGCE promoter and controls a large imprinted region, including several MEGs, in eutherians (Ono et al., 2003; Suzuki et al., 2007).
TABLE 1
| Orthologs and paralogs | Imprinted gene | Conservation | Origin | Phenotypes in mutant mice: Human diseases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEG10 | therians | Retroviral GAG and POL | Placenta formation, maintenance of fetal capillary network: Llung, liver, panreus cancers, Angelman syndrome? | |
| RTL1/PEG11 | eutherians | Retroviral GAG and POL | Placenta, muscle and CNS defects in mice: Kagami-Ogata and Temple syndromes | |
| Acquired genes from retrovirus and genes of unknown origin | AntiRTL1/AntiPEG11 | eutherians | Unknown | Placenta, muscle and CNS defects in mice by RTL1/PEG11 mRNA regulationl via RNAi: Kagami-Ogata syndrome |
| PEG3 | eutherians | C2H2-type zinc finger protein fused by retrovial GAG | Fetal growth, materal behavior, sex-biased birth rate, thermoregulation: Glioma | |
| NNAT/PEG5 | eutherians | Unknown lipoprotein | Cerebellar folding, postnatal growth restriction and adult obesity: Lafora disease, diabetes and cancer | |
| NDN | eutherians | One of MAGE family members | Fetal growth defect and partial neonetal lethality: Prader-Willi syndrome | |
| Duplicated genes by retropositioning | MAGEL2 | eutherians | One of MAGE family members | Postnatal growth defect and obsity: Prader-Willi syndrome, Schaaf-Yang syndrome |
| MKRN3 | eutherians | MKRN1 or MKRN2 | Precosious puberty: Precosious puberty |
Newly acquired genes in the imprinted regions. The essential/important imprinted genes that have emerged in therian- and eutherian-specific imprinted regions are summarized.
The PEG10 and H19/IGF2 imprinted regions are the first two imprinted regions in mammalian history, while most of the gDMRs emerged in the eutherian genome and constitute eutherian-specific imprinted regions. Subsequently, some lineage-specific imprinted regions appeared, indicating that genomic imprinting arose at many different time points during mammalian evolution and is still continuing to evolve (Suzuki et al., 2011; Das et al., 2012; Renfree et al., 2013). The large miRNA cluster, C19MC, in the human genome is an example of a lineage-specific imprinted region that has emerged in primates (Noguer-Dance et al., 2010; Malnou et al., 2018), implying the existence of other primate- and/or human-specific imprinted regions in the human genome.
Interestingly, the IGF2 receptor (IGF2R) is imprinted in both eutherians and marsupials (Killian et al., 2000; Szabo et al., 2000), however, it is regulated by different gDMRs. It is located on intron 2 in the former and intron 12 in the latter (Stöger et al., 1993; Suzuki et al., 2018). Both gDMRs function as promoters of antisense non-coding RNAs, a long Antisense of IGF2R non-protein coding RNA (AIRN) in the former (Stoger et al., 1993) and a short non-coding RNA, Antisense LncRNA in the IGF2R gDMR (ALID), in the latter. It is thus likely that they emerged independently and are regulated by different mechanisms. Marsupial-specific expansion of intron 12, which has occurred as the results of accumulation of a number of transposons, may have contributed to the establishment of the ALID/IGF2R-gDMR (Suzuki et al., 2018).
Two apparent exceptions are the DNA sequence corresponding to the Small nuclear ribonucleoprotein polypeptide N (SNRPN)- and the Solute carrier family 38, member 4 (SLC38A4)-gDMRs (Figure 3, pink) because their insertion did not coincide with the onset of maternal imprinted regulation. The former regulates the Prader-Willi/Angelman (PWS/AS) region as the PWS-shortest region of deletion overlap (SRO) together with the AS-SRO located 880 bp at a site 35 kb upstream of the SNRPN upstream open reading frame (SNURF)-SNRPN (Nicholls et al., 1998). The DNA sequence corresponding to the SNRPN-DMR is conserved in both marsupials and eutherians, although, in marsupials, the SNRPN, and Ubiquitin Protein Ligase E3A (UBE3A) regions exist on separate chromosomes. The PWS/AS region arose by chromosome rearrangement in eutherians, and the SNRPN-DMR located in SNURF was established in the newly reconstructed DNA sequence (Rapkins et al., 2006). Similarly, the corresponding sequence to the SLC38A4-gDMR already existed in monotremes (Suzuki et al., 2011), but it became differentially methylated only in the rodent lineage in association with the rodent-specific insertion of MT2A retrovirus (Bogutz et al., 2019; Hanna et al., 2019) (see next section). Slc38a4 has also been recognized as a member of non-canonical imprinted genes in mice, implying that an evolutionary route to the SLC38A4 imprinted region may be complicated (Okae et al., 2014; Inoue et al., 2017a).
Molecular Mechanisms Underlying the Establishment of Differential DNA Methylation Patterns in the Female and Male Gametes
So what, then, is the actual biochemical system that serves to neutralize foreign DNA that had been hypothesized by Barlow? Recent work has shown that the gDMRs are established as a consequence of differential responses to the invading DNAs in the oocytes and prospermatogonia as well as to afford subsequent protection from DNA demethylation in preimplantation development (see the next section).
Discovery of the oocyte-specific transcripts spanning the gDMRs has provided an important clue to the mechanism of the establishing of the maternal gDMRs (Chotalia et al., 2009; Veselovska et al., 2015; Smallwood et al., 2011; Hanna and Kelsey 2021). In oocytes, DNA methylation is exclusively on active gene body regions, including the maternally imprinted gDMRs (Kobayashi et al., 2012). Initially, histone lysine methylase SETD2 deposits H3K36me3 (Figure 4A), and subsequently this epigenetic mark guides DNA methylation because it promotes the binding of DNMT3A in the oocyte (Chotalia et al., 2009; Veselovska et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2019; Shirane et al., 2020) (Figure 4B). Interestingly, long terminal repeats (LTRs) of some endogenous viruses (ERVs) are used as the promoters of the oocyte-specific alternative upstream transcripts in the species-specific canonical imprinting (Brind’Amour et al., 2018; Bogutz et al., 2019). These data indicate that the oocyte-specific transcripts from the upstream promoters, such as integrated LTRs, play a critical and fundamental role in the mechanism underlying the establishment of the maternal gDMRs.
FIGURE 4
On the other hand, in the male germline (prospermatogonia), the lysine methyltransferase NSD1 deposits H3K36me2 in the euchromatic regions included on the paternally imprinted gDMRs, and subsequently this epigenetic mark guides DNA methylation (Shirane et al., 2020). Thus, there is a sexually dimorphic pattern of DNA methylation in mature mouse gametes via the deposition of distinct H3K36 methylation marks (Xu et al., 2019; Shirane et al., 2020). Among the three paternal gDMRs, Ras protein specific guanine nucleotide releasing factor 1 (Rasgrf1)-gDMR is known to use an LTR from the RMER4 retrotransposon as an upstream promoter to generate small RNAs that recruit the PIWI-piRNA mechanism to establish de novo DNA methylation in spermatogenesis (Watanabe et al., 2011), although the molecular mechanism remains elusive in the other two gDMRs, the H19- and DLK1-MEG3 intergenic (IG)-gDMRs. These data demonstrate that integrated retroviruses (ERVs) and LTR retrotransposons are ingeniously integrated in the DNA methylation of gDMRs that occurs in germ cells.
Molecular Mechanisms Underlying gDMR Maintenance in pre- and Postimplantation Development
Another important fact is that there are more than 1,600 differentially methylated CpG islands in oocytes and sperm, including the imprinting loci (Kobayashi et al., 2012) (Figure 4B). Most of these differences disappear during preimplantation period, while the gDMRs of the canonical imprinted regions are protected from such a global DNA demethylation wave (Figure 4C) (Kobayashi et al., 2012; Smallwood et al., 2011) and maintained in the postimplantation period (Figure 4D), indicating that the canonical genomic imprinted regions have been selected and conserved in mammals because of their evolutionary advantages. Interestingly, certain members of the Krüppel-associated box (KRAB)-containing zinc finger proteins (ZFPs), such as ZFP57 and ZNF445, play a key role in this process (Li et al., 2008; Takahashi et al., 2019). ZFP57 and ZNF445 bind a CpG-containing hexanucleotide motif present in multiple copies in most ICRs (Quenneville et al., 2011; Strogantsev et al., 2015; Anvar et al., 2016), and each forms a large complex that represses transcription by recruiting KRAB-associated protein1 [KAP1, aca tripartite motif containing 28 (TRIM28)], SET domain bifurcated histone lysine methyltransferase 1 (SETDB1), heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) and DNMT1, and then maintain DNA methylation on the gDMRs of the newly replicated DNA by symmetric CpG methylation (Sharif et al., 2007; Quenneville et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013; Mochizuki et al., 2021) (Figure 4C). The KRAB-ZFPs are evolutionarily diverse proteins that protect against the insertion of retroviruses (Macfarlan et al., 2012; Rowe et al., 2013), demonstrating that another host defense mechanism against retroviruses also exists and is functional in the maintenance of genomic imprinting memories (Edwards et al., 2019; Ondičova et al., 2020; Hanna and Kelsey, 2021). Thus, accumulating evidence indicates a close relationship between genomic imprinting and the insertion of retroviruses and LTR retrotransposons, as originally proposed in the host defense hypothesis. Importantly, newly invading DNAs are not completely repressed in both of the parental alleles because of the differential recognition mechanisms in the paternal and maternal germ cells, thereby leading to the complementary monoallelic expression of PEGs and MEGs (Figure 4D).
Evolutionary Advantages of Genomic Imprinting
What is the evolutionary advantage of genomic imprinting? In other words, why have the canonical genomic imprinted regions been selected and widely conserved in therian mammals? We would like to address this issue based on the complementary monoallelic expression mechanism. First, this arrangement allows for the expression of all of the genes in the imprinted regions as PEGs and MEGs by controlling for the cis-elements in the gDMRs (Figure 1). As mentioned earlier, the cis-elements involved in the newly inserted gDMR sequences (Figure 3) exert a long-range effect on nearby genes, and thus repress a substantial number of resident genes. However, DNA methylation of the cis-elements in one of the alleles allows for recovery of the expression of such resident genes, so DNA methylation is required for the expression of certain imprinted genes (Figures 1, 2). As several of the PEGs and MEGs play an essential role in the current mammalian developmental system, their monoallelic expression would be expected to be disadvantageous in a general sense. However, under a special constraint, such as described for the cis-elements, monoallelic expression affords an advantage, because even a limited monoallelic expression is preferable to the complete loss of expression (Figures 1, 2). This indicates that genomic imprinting arose as a consequence of an evolutionary trade-off for survival (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2015, 2019). This may also account for why the canonical imprinted regions have been so widely conserved in the therian mammals.
As mentioned in the introduction, it is likely that the conflict over maternal resources exerts pressure on PEGs promoting and MEGs repressing embryonic growth. In most cases, at least one imprinted gene in each canonical imprinted region seems to fit the conflict/kinship hypothesis (Moore and Haig, 1991; Wilkins and Haig 2003; Haig 2004) although most imprinted genes appear to be bystanders, that is, they are simply involved in this process as bystander genes (Barlow and Bartolomei 2014). In addition, it is also likely that gene dosage regulation of the evolutionarily conserved resident imprinted genes is another important factor in selection, because it must have contributed to the formation of the current mammalian developmental system by increasing pre-and postnatal fitness (Charalambous et al., 2012; Ball et al., 2013; Wolf et al., 2014).
Other hypotheses have been proposed that suggest genomic imprinting arose for the prohibition of parthenogenetic development or protection against the development of malignant placental tissue in such parthenogenetic embryos (Solter 1988; Varmuza and Mann 1994). Although it is difficult to prove these hypotheses by experiment, these features are surely advantageous for viviparous mammals and seem to have been acquired from the beginning via genomic imprinting, because the first two imprinted regions established in a common therian ancestor were the PEG10 and H19/IGF2 regions (Figure 3), that exert potent effects on placental formation and growth, respectively. This also supports the placenta hypothesis (Hall 1990; Kaneko-Ishino et al., 2003), which proposes that genomic imprinting is deeply related to the emergence of the placenta in the course of evolution, because a considerable number of imprinted genes play important roles in the placenta. In addition, H3K27me3 based non-canonical imprinting is unique to the placenta, and contributes to placental development and growth in a species-specific manner, such as Xist, Gab1 and Sfmbt2 in mice (Itoh et al., 2000; Okae et al., 2014; Inoue et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2018; Hanna et al., 2019; Inoue et al., 2020; Hanna and Kelsey 2021).
Finally, we would like to address another benefit of the complementary monoallelic mechanism. It provides a means of expression for both newly inserted genes as well as the conserved, already resident genes, therefore, allows for the acquisition of new genes in the canonical imprinted regions, and genes like PEG10 and H19 (Figure 5). Therefore, genomic imprinting may have made a contribution to the innovation of the emergent mammalian functions. Such newcomer genes may be separated into two groups: 1) newly acquired genes from retroviruses or of unknown origin, and 2) genes duplicated by retroposition. Among these genes, several play essential/important roles in development, growth and behavior, as discussed in the following two sections.
FIGURE 5
Novel Functions Provided by Newly Acquired Imprinted Genes in Mammals
In addition to PEG10 and H19, there are several imprinted regions that are accompanied by novel acquired genes. In the Delta like non-canonical Notch ligand 1 (DLK1)-Iodothyronine deiodinase 3 (DI O 3) region, a large insertion comprising MEG3, Retrotransposon GAG-like 1 (RTL1)/PEG11, antiRTL1/antiPEG11, and MEG8/RNA imprinted and accumulated in nucleus (RIAN) and MEG9/microRNA-containing gene (MIRG) occurred in association with the emergence of an intergenic (IG)-DMR between DLK1 and MEG3 in eutherians (Kobayashi et al., 2000; Miyoshi et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 2000; Wylie et al., 2000; Charlier et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2008). Thus, they are eutherian-specific genes: RTL1/PEG11 is a protein coding gene while the other maternally expressed non-coding RNAs include a cluster of siRNA and/or snoRNAs (Charlier et al., 2001; Cavaillé et al., 2002). In the PEG3 region, the PEG3-DMR localizes on the PEG3 promoter and regulates PEG3 itself and neighboring paternally expressed Ubiquitin specific peptidase 29 (USP29), as well as maternally expressed Zinc finger imprinted 1 (ZIM1) and ZIM3 (Kim et al., 2001, 2007). PEG3 is also a eutherian-specific acquired gene. PEG3 has quite unique zinc finger motif in terms of its amino acid sequence and its intervals, and no homologous C2H2-type of zinc finger protein is present in marsupials, monotremes or other vertebrates (Kuroiwa et al., 1996). The construction of the PEG3 imprinted region is polymorphic among eutherian species, that is, there are certain differences that occur in a species-specific manner (Kim et al., 2007). NEURONATIN (NNAT, aka PEG5) (Kagitani et al., 1997; Kikyo et al., 1997) is inserted within an intron of the non-imprinted Bladder cancer associated protein (BCAP) and its promoter became the NNAT/PEG5-DMR (John et al., 2001). NNAT/PEG5 is another eutherian-specific gene encoding a proteolipid of unknown origin, and there is a single imprinted gene in this locus (Evans et al., 2005) (Table 1).
Interestingly, PEG10 and RTL1/PEG11 are derived from retrovirus GAG and POL (Charlier et al., 2001; Ono et al., 2001). They exhibit a certain similarity to the sushi-ichi LTR retrotransposon, thus have come to be referred to as retrotransposon-GAG like genes. In any event, it is likely that the “gypsy” type of LTR retrotransposon to which the suchi-ichi retrotoransposon belong is derived from a retrovirus (Kim et al., 1994; Song et al., 1994). PEG3 was probably generated by fusion of the same retroviral GAG and a C2H2-type of zinc finger protein generated by gene duplication (Campillos et al., 2006). PEG10 is essential for the induction of placenta-specific cells, i.e., the trophoblast cells in the spongiotrophoblast and labyrinth layers, so its deficiency causes early embryonic lethality (Ono et al., 2006). It also plays an essential role in the maintenance of the fetal capillary network in the labyrinth layer: mutant mice with defective PEG10 protease exhibit perinatal lethality due to severe damage of the entire fetal capillary network (Shiura et al., 2021). PEG10 is also associated with progression of various cancers, such as lung, breast, liver, and pancreatic cancer (Okabe et al., 2003; Li et al., 2006). Recently, accumulation of the PEG10 protein was reported in neurons differentiated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSs) from Angelman syndrome (AS) patients, suggesting an important role in the brain (Pandya et al., 2021).
RTL1/PEG11 plays essential roles in the placenta, muscle and brain and is the major gene responsible for the Kagami-Ogata and Temple syndromes, two genomic imprinting diseases. It is located on human chromosome 14 (Kagami et al., 2008; Sekita et al., 2008, Kitazawa et al., 2017, 2020, 2021). Both overexpression and deficiency lead to abnormalities in the placenta as well as a variety of neuromuscular and/or psychiatric symptoms (Kitazawa et al., 2020, 2021). In the placenta, severe defects of the fetal capillaries can lead to late embryonic lethality or growth retardation (Sekita et al., 2008; Kitazawa et al., 2017). It is likely that damage to neonatal respiration-related tissues such as the intercostal, abdominal and diaphragm muscles lead to neonatal lethality (Kitazawa et al., 2020), presumably associated with abnormality of motor neurons in the descending corticonuclear tract that innervates the cranial nerves regulating the respiration-related muscles. RTL1/PEG11 is also expressed in neurons in the corpus callosum, hippocampal and anterior cerebral commissures as well as limbic system, such as in the hippocampus and amygdala, suggesting that their malfunction is related to the psychiatric symptoms that manifest in these diseases (Kitazawa et al., 2021).
PEG3 is also essential for placental functions as well as in the fetal and adult brain. Its defect causes fetal growth retardation, a problem in suckling milk in the pups, and abnormal maternal-care behaviors due to defects in the milk release process in females (Li et al., 1999) and thermoregulation (Broad et al., 2009), while biallelic expression of Peg3 leads to subtle impacts in male and female mice (Bretz and Kim 2017). Certain mouse Peg3 mutations also cause sex-biased outcomes (Kim et al., 2013; He et al., 2016). PEG3 functions as a tumor suppressor in glioma in the brain (Kohda et al., 2001; Maegawa et al., 2004; Jiang et al., 2010). The loss of NNAT/PEG5 is associated with decreased cerebellar folding in mice (Kikyo et al., 1997) and leads to postnatal growth restriction and adult obesity (Millership et al., 2018). It is reported that aggregates of the NNAT/PEG5 protein cause neuronal loss in Lafora disease, diabetes, and cancer (Joseph, 2014).
New Functions Provided by Imprinted Genes Duplicated by Retropositioning
NECDIN (NDN), MAGE Family Member L2 (MAGEL2) and Makorin Ring Finger Protein 3 (MKRN3) are located in the PWS/AS imprinted region and are retroposed genes generated from the cDNAs of their paralogs (Rapkins et al., 2006) (Table 1). The retropositioning events are sometimes associated with the generation of newly imprinted regions (Wood et al., 2007), such as the nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 5 (NAP1L5) and Inositol Polyphosphate-5-Phosphatase F (INPP5F_V2) regions in eutherians, and also the Malignant T-cell-amplified sequence 2 (MCTS2) and U2 small nuclear RNA auxiliary factor 1-related sequence 1 (U2AF1-RS1) regions in a lineage- and species-specific manner. Their own promoter regions became DMRs and interestingly, their original genes were localized in the X-chromosome (Wood et al., 2007). These genes were introduced into the eutherian genome as imprinted genes, presumably via surprising and complex processes that exploited the complementary monoallelic expression mechanism of genomic imprinting (Figure 5).
Among these genes, NDN, MAGEL2, and MKRN3 play essential roles in the brain. The former two genes are responsible for certain symptoms of PWS including neonatal lethality, prenatal growth retardation and postnatal growth abnormalities, such as, obesity (Lee et al., 2005; Bischof et al., 2007), and the latter gene is responsible for precocious puberty (Abreu et al., 2013; Li et al., 2021). MKRN3-mediated ubiquitin signaling controls expression of Gonadotropin releasing hormone 1 (GNRH1) at both transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels (Li et al., 2021). MAGEL2 mutations causes Schaaf-Yang syndrome, a rare neurodevelopmental disorder that shares multiple clinical features with the genetically related PWS (Schaaf et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Accumulating evidence has painted a picture of a close relationship between genomic imprinting and invading DNA: 1) the insertion of DNA sequences corresponding to the gDMRs (Figure 3), 2) retroviral LTRs are used as promoters of oocyte-specific transcripts for DNA methylation on the gDMRs (Figure 4B), 3) the antiviral KRAB-ZFP system protects the gDMRs from global DNA demethylation (Figure 4C), providing strong support for the host defense hypothesis. Taken together, it is likely that each genomic imprinted region arose by chance as a consequence of an evolutionary trade-off for survival (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2019) using the existing DNA methylation machinery against foreign DNA. Each region has been selected and conserved in therian/eutherian mammals for the advantage(s) it confers. We have also discussed another evolutionary advantage that is exerted by the complementary monoallelic expression mechanism which is that it affords a kind of genome innovation machinery that enables the introduction of novel genes via acquisition from retroviruses and also gene duplication by retroposition (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino 2012; Edwards et al., 2019). As discussed in this review, in addition to the “Conflict” and “Complementation” activities, there are a variety factors acting in concert that make up the biological significance of genomic imprinting which remains a fascinating and critically important theme in mammalian biology.
Statements
Author contributions
TK-I and FI write this review.
Funding
This work was supported by funding program for Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (21K06127) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) to TK-I, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (19H00978) from JSPS to FI, Nanken Kyoten Program, Medical Research Institute, Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) to TK-I and FI. The funders had no role in preparation of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We thank S. Suzuki for his information, genome structure reanalysis and advice on the manuscript. Pacific Edit reviewed the manuscript prior to submission.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbreuA. P.DauberA.MacedoD. B.NoelS. D.BritoV. N.GillJ. C.et al (2013). Central Precocious Puberty Caused by Mutations in the Imprinted Gene MKRN3. N. Engl. J. Med.368, 2467–2475. 10.1056/NEJMoa1302160
2
AnvarZ.CammisaM.RisoV.BaglivoI.KukrejaH.SparagoA.et al (2016). ZFP57 Recognizes Multiple And Closely Spaced Sequence Motif Variants To Maintain Repressive Epigenetic Marks In Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Nucl. Acids Res.. 10.1093/nar/gkv1059
3
BallS. T.KellyM. L.RobsonJ. E.TurnerM. D.HarrisonJ.JonesL.et al (2013). Gene Dosage Effects at the Imprinted Gnas Cluster. PLoS ONE8, e65639. 10.1371/journal.pone.0065639
4
BarlowD. P.BartolomeiM. S. (2014). Genomic Imprinting in Mammals. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Biol.6, a018382. 10.1101/cshperspect.a018382
5
BarlowD. P. P. (1993). Methylation and Imprinting: from Host Defense to Gene Regulation?Science260, 309–310. 10.1126/science.8469984
6
BarlowD. P.StögerR.HerrmannB. G.SaitoK.SchweiferN. (1991). The Mouse Insulin-like Growth Factor Type-2 Receptor Is Imprinted and Closely Linked to the Tme Locus. Nature349, 84–87. 10.1038/349084a0
7
BartolomeiM. S.ZemelS.TilghmanS. M. (1991). Parental Imprinting of the Mouse H19 Gene. Nature351, 153–155. 10.1038/351153a0
8
BeecheyC. V.EvansE. P. (2004). MRC Harwell, Harwell, Oxfordshire. Standard Ideogram/Anomaly Breakpoints of the Mouse. Available at: https://www.har.mrc.ac.uk/about-harwell/history/imprinting-resource/.
9
BellA. C.FelsenfeldG. (2000). Methylation of a CTCF-dependent Boundary Controls Imprinted Expression of the Igf2 Gene. Nature405, 482–485. 10.1038/35013100
10
BeygoJ.ElbrachtM.de GrootK.BegemannM.KanberS.PlatzerK.et al (2015). Novel Deletions Affecting the MEG3-DMR Provide Further Evidence For A Hierarchical Regulation Of Imprinting in 14q32. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.23, 180–188.
11
BischofJ. M.StewartC. L.WevrickR. (2007). Inactivation of the Mouse Magel2 Gene Results in Growth Abnormalities Similar to Prader-Willi Syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet.16, 2713–2719. 10.1093/hmg/ddm225
12
BogutzA. B.Brind’AmourJ.KobayashiH.JensenK. N.NakabayashiK.ImaiH.et al (2019). Evolution of Imprinting via Lineage-specific Insertion of Retroviral Promoters. Nat. Commun.10, 5674. 10.1038/s41467-019-13662-9
13
Bourc'hisD.XuG. L.LinC. S.BollmanB.BestorT. H. (2001). Dnmt3L and the Establishment of Maternal Genomic Imprints. Science294, 2536–2539. 10.1126/science.1065848
14
Bourc’hisD.BestorT. H. (2004). Meiotic Catastrophe and Retrotransposon Reactivation in Male Germ Cells Lacking Dnmt3L. Nature431, 96–99.
15
BretzC. L.KimJ. (2017). Transcription-driven DNA Methylation Setting on the Mouse Peg3 Locus. Epigenetics12, 945–952. 10.1080/15592294.2017.1377869
16
Brind’AmourJ.KobayashiH.AlbertJ. R.ShiraneK.SakashitaA.KamioA.et al (2018). LTR Retrotransposons Transcribed In Oocytes Drive Species-Specific And Heritable Changes in DNA Methylation. Nat. Commun.9, 3331. 10.1038/s41467-018-05841-x
17
BroadK. D.CurleyJ. P.KeverneE. B. (2009). Increased Apoptosis during Neonatal Brain Development Underlies the Adult Behavioral Deficits Seen in Mice Lacking a Functionalpaternally Expressed Gene 3(Peg3). Devel Neurobio69, 314–325. 10.1002/dneu.20702
18
CampillosM.DoerksT.ShahP.BorkP. (2006). Computational Characterization of Multiple Gag-like Human Proteins. Trends Genet.22, 585–589. 10.1016/j.tig.2006.09.006
19
CattanachB. M.BeecheyC. V. (1990). Autosomal and X-Chromosome Imprinting. DevelopmentSuppl108, 63–72. 10.1242/dev.108.supplement.63
20
CattanachB. M.KirkM. (1985). Differential Activity of Maternally and Paternally Derived Chromosome Regions in Mice. Nature315, 496–498. 10.1038/315496a0
21
CavailléJ.SeitzH.PaulsenM.Ferguson-SmithA. C.BachellerieJ.-P. (2002). Identification of Tandemly-Repeated C/D snoRNA Genes at the Imprinted Human 14q32 Domain Reminiscent of Those at the Prader-Willi/Angelman Syndrome Region. Hum. Mol. Genet.11, 1527–1538. 10.1093/hmg/11.13.1527
22
CharalambousM.FerronS. R.da RochaS. T.MurrayA. J.RowlandT.ItoM.et al (2012). Imprinted Gene Dosage Is Critical for the Transition to Independent Life. Cel Metab.15, 209–221. 10.1016/j.cmet.2012.01.006
23
CharlierC.SegersK.WagenaarD.KarimL.BerghmansS.JaillonO.et al (2001). Human-Ovine Comparative Sequencing of a 250-kb Imprinted Domain Encompassing the Callipyge (Clpg) Locus and Identification of Six Imprinted Transcripts: DLK1, DAT, GTL2, PEG11, antiPEG11, and MEG8. Genome Res.11, 850–862. 10.1101/gr.172701
24
ChotaliaM.SmallwoodS. A.RufN.DawsonC.LuciferoD.FronteraM.et al (2009). Transcription Is Required For Establishment Of Germline Methylation Marks At Imprinted Genes. Genes Dev.23, 105–117.
25
DasR.AndersonN.KoranM. I.WeidmanJ. R.MikkelsenT. S.KamalM.et al (2012). Convergent and Divergent Evolution of Genomic Imprinting in the Marsupial Monodelphis Domestica. BMC Genomics13, 394. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-394
26
DavisT. L.TraslerJ. M.MossS. B.YangG. J.BartolomeiM. S. (1999). Acquisition of theH19Methylation Imprint Occurs Differentially on the Parental Alleles during Spermatogenesis. Genomics58, 18–28. 10.1006/geno.1999.5813
27
DeChiaraT. M.EfstratiadisA.RobertsenE. J. (1990). A Growth-Deficiency Phenotype in Heterozygous Mice Carrying an Insulin-like Growth Factor II Gene Disrupted by Targeting. Nature345, 78–80. 10.1038/345078a0
28
DeChiaraT. M.RobertsonE. J.EfstratiadisA. (1991). Parental Imprinting of the Mouse Insulin-like Growth Factor II Gene. Cell64, 849–859. 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90513-x
29
EdwardsC. A.MungallA. J.MatthewsL.RyderE.GrayD. J.PaskA. J.et al (2008). The Evolution of the DLK1-DIO3 Imprinted Domain in Mammals. Plos Biol.6:e135.
30
EdwardsC. A.TakahashiN.CorishJ. A.Ferguson-SmithA. C. (2019). The Origins of Genomic Imprinting in Mammals. Reprod. Fertil. Dev.31, 1203–1218. 10.1071/rd18176
31
EvansH. K.WeidmanJ. R.CowleyD. O.JirtleR. L. (2005). Comparative Phylogenetic Analysis of Blcap/nnat Reveals Eutherian-specific Imprinted Gene. Mol. Biol. Evol.22, 1740–1748. 10.1093/molbev/msi165
32
FujitaM. K.SinghalS.BrunesMaldonadoT. O. J. A.MaldonadoJ. A. (2020). Evolutionary Dynamics and Consequences of Parthenogenesis in Vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.51, 191–214. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-011720-114900
33
HackettJ. A.SenguptaR.ZyliczJ. J.MurakamiK.LeeC.DownT. A.et al (2013). Germline DNA Demethylation Dynamics and Imprint Erasure through 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. Science339, 448–452. 10.1126/science.1229277
34
HagiwaraY.HiraiM.NishiyamaK.KanazawaI.UedaT.SakakiY.et al (1997). Screening for Imprinted Genes by Allelic Message Display: Identification of a Paternally Expressed Gene Impact on Mouse Chromosome 18. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.94, 9249–9254. 10.1073/pnas.94.17.9249
35
HaigD. (2004). Genomic Imprinting and Kinship: How Good Is the Evidence?Annu. Rev. Genet.38, 553–585. 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.142741
36
HajkovaP.ErhardtS.LaneN.HaafT.El-MaarriO.ReikW.et al (2002). Epigenetic Reprogramming in Mouse Primordial Germ Cells. Mech. Development117, 15–23. 10.1016/s0925-4773(02)00181-8
37
HallJ. G. (1990). Genomic Imprinting: Review and Relevance to Human Diseases. Am. J. Hum. Genet.46, 857–873.
38
HannaC. W.KelseyG. (2021). Features and Mechanisms of Canonical and Noncanonical Genomic Imprinting. Genes Dev.35, 821–834. 10.1101/gad.348422.121
39
HannaC. W.Pérez-PalaciosR.GahurovaL.SchubertM.KruegerF.BigginsL.et al (2019). Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Drive Non-canonical Imprinting in Extra-embryonic Tissues. Genome Biol.20, 225. 10.1186/s13059-019-1833-x
40
HarkA. T.SchoenherrC. J.KatzD. J.IngramR. S.LevorseJ. M.TilghmanS. M. (2000). CTCF Mediates Methylation-Sensitive Enhancer-Blocking Activity at the H19/Igf2 Locus. Nature405, 486–489. 10.1038/35013106
41
HataK.OkanoM.LeiH.LiE. (2002). Dnmt3L Cooperates with the Dnmt3 Family of De Novo DNA Methyltransferases to Establish Maternal Imprints in Mice. Development129, 1983–1993. 10.1242/dev.129.8.1983
42
HayashizakiY.ShibataH.HirotsuneS.SuginoH.OkazakiY.SasakiN.et al (1994). Identification of an Imprinted U2af Binding Protein Related Sequence on Mouse Chromosome 11 Using the RLGS Method. Nat. Genet.6, 33–40. 10.1038/ng0194-33
43
HeH.PereraB. P. U.YeA.KimJ. (2016). Parental and Sexual Conflicts over the Peg3 Imprinted Domain. Sci. Rep.6, 38136. 10.1038/srep38136
44
HiuraH.ObataY.KomiyamaJ.ShiraiM.KonoT. (2006). Oocyte Growth-dependent Progression of Maternal Imprinting in Mice. Genes Cells11, 353–361. 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2006.00943.x
45
InoueA.ChenZ.YinQ.ZhangY. (2018). Maternal Eed Knockout Causes Loss of H3K27me3 Imprinting and Random X Inactivation in the Extraembryonic Cells. Genes Dev.32, 1525–1536. 10.1101/gad.318675.118
46
InoueA.JiangL.LuF.SuzukiT.ZhangY. (2017a). Maternal H3K27me3 Controls DNA Methylation-independent Imprinting. Nature547, 419–424. 10.1038/nature23262
47
InoueA.JiangL.LuF.ZhangY. (2017b). Genomic Imprinting of Xist by Maternal H3K27me3. Genes Dev.31, 1927–1932. 10.1101/gad.304113.117
48
InoueK.OgonukiN.KamimuraS.InoueH.MatobaS.HiroseM.et al (2020). Loss of H3K27me3 Imprinting in the Sfmbt2 miRNA Cluster Causes Enlargement of Cloned Mouse Placentas. Nat. Commun.11, 2150. 10.1038/s41467-020-16044-8
49
ItohM.YoshidaY.NishidaK.NarimatsuM.HibiM.HiranoT. (2000). Role of Gab1 in Heart, Placenta, and Skin Development and Growth Factor- and Cytokine-Induced Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Activation. Mol. Cel Biol20, 3695–3704. 10.1128/mcb.20.10.3695-3704.2000
50
JiangX.YuY.YangH. W.AgarN. Y. R.FradoL.JohnsonM. D. (2010). The Imprinted Gene PEG3 Inhibits Wnt Signaling and Regulates Glioma Growth. J. Biol. Chem.285, 8472–8480. 10.1074/jbc.m109.069450
51
JohnR. M.AparicioS. A. J. R.AinscoughJ. F.-X.ArneyK. L.KhoslaS.HawkerK.et al (2001). Imprinted Expression of Neuronatin from Modified BAC Transgenes Reveals Regulation by Distinct and Distant Enhancers. Developmental Biol.236, 387–399. 10.1006/dbio.2001.0327
52
JosephR. M. (2014). Neuronatin Gene: Imprinted and Misfolded. Genomics103, 183–188. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2013.12.001
53
KagamiM.SekitaY.NishimuraG.IrieM.KatoF.OkadaM.et al (2008). Deletions and Epimutations Affecting the Human 14q32.2 Imprinted Region in Individuals with Paternal and Maternal Upd(14)-like Phenotypes. Nat. Genet.40, 237–242. 10.1038/ng.2007.56
54
KagamiM.KurosawaK.MiyazakiO.IshinoF.MatsuokaK.OgataT. (2015). Comprehensive Clinical Studies In 34 Patients With Molecularly Defined UPD(14)Pat And Related Conditions (Kagami-Ogata Syndrome). Eur. J. Hum. Genet.23, 1488–1498.
55
KagitaniF.KuroiwaY.WakanaS.ShiroishiT.KobayashiS.KohdaT.et al (1997). Peg5/Neuronatin Is an Imprinted Gene Located on Sub-distal Chromosome 2 in the Mouse. Nucl. Acids Res.25, 3428–3432. 10.1093/nar/25.17.3428
56
KagiwadaS.KurimotoK.HirotaT.YamajiM.SaitouM. (2013). Replication-coupled Passive DNA Demethylation for the Erasure of Genome Imprints in Mice. EMBO J.32, 340–353. 10.1038/emboj.2012.331
57
KanedaM.OkanoM.HataK.SadoT.TsujimotoN.LiE.et al (2004). Essential Role for De Novo DNA Methyltransferase Dnmt3a in Paternal and Maternal Imprinting. Nature429, 900–903. 10.1038/nature02633
58
Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2019). Evolution of Viviparity in Mammals: what Genomic Imprinting Tells Us about Mammalian Placental Evolution. Reprod. Fertil. Dev.31, 1219–1227. 10.1071/rd18127
59
Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2015). Mammalian-specific Genomic Functions: Newly Acquired Traits Generated by Genomic Imprinting and LTR Retrotransposon-Derived Genes in Mammals. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B: Phys. Biol. Sci.91, 511–538. 10.2183/pjab.91.511
60
Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2010). Retrotransposon Silencing by DNA Methylation Contributed to the Evolution of Placentation and Genomic Imprinting in Mammals. Dev. Growth Differ.52, 533–543. 10.1111/j.1440-169x.2010.01194.x
61
Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2012). The Role of Genes Domesticated from LTR Retrotransposons and Retroviruses in Mammals. Front. Microbio.3, 262. 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00262
62
Kaneko-IshinoT.KohdaT.IshinoF. (2003). The Regulation and Biological Significance of Genomic Imprinting in Mammals. J. Biochem.133, 699–711. 10.1093/jb/mvg090
63
Kaneko-IshinoT.KohdaT.OnoR.IshinoF. (2006). Complementation Hypothesis: the Necessity of a Monoallelic Gene Expression Mechanism in Mammalian Development. Cytogenet. Genome Res.113, 24–30. 10.1159/000090811
64
Kaneko-IshinoT.KuroiwaY.MiyoshiN.KohdaT.SuzukiR.YokoyamaM.et al (1995). Peg1/Mest Imprinted Gene on Chromosome 6 Identified by cDNA Subtraction Hybridization. Nat. Genet.11, 52–59. 10.1038/ng0995-52
65
KawasakiY.LeeJ.MatsuzawaA.KohdaT.Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2014). Active DNA Demethylation Is Required for Complete Imprint Erasure in Primordial Germ Cells. Sci. Rep.4, 3658. 10.1038/srep03658
66
KikyoN.WilliamsonC. M.JohnR. M.BartonS. C.BeecheyC. V.BallS. T.et al (1997). Genetic and Functional Analysis of Neuronatin in Mice with Maternal or Paternal Duplication of Distal Chr 2. Developmental Biol.190, 66–77. 10.1006/dbio.1997.8681
67
KillianJ. K.ByrdJ. C.JirtleJ. V.MundayB. L.StoskopfM. K.MacDonaldR. G.et al (2000). M6P/IGF2R Imprinting Evolution in Mammals. Mol. Cel5, 707–716. 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80249-x
68
KillianJ. K.NolanC. M.StewartN.MundayB. L.AndersenN. A.NicolS.et al (2001). MonotremeIGF2 Expression and Ancestral Origin of Genomic Imprinting. J. Exp. Zool.291, 205–212. 10.1002/jez.1070
69
KimA.TerzianC.SantamariaP.PélissonA.Purd'hommeN.BuchetonA. (1994). Retroviruses in Invertebrates: The Gypsy Retrotransposon Is Apparently an Infectious Retrovirus of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.91, 1285–1289. 10.1073/pnas.91.4.1285
70
KimJ.BergmannA.ChooJ. H.StubbsL. (2007). Genomic Organization and Imprinting of the Peg3 Domain in Bovine. Genomics90, 85–92. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2007.03.012
71
KimJ.BergmannA.WehriE.LuX.StubbsL. (2001). Imprinting and Evolution of Two Kruppel-type Zinc-finger Genes, ZIM3 and ZNF264, Located in the PEG3/USP29 Imprinted Domain. Genomics77, 91–98. 10.1006/geno.2001.6621
72
KimJ.FreyW. D.HeH.KimH.EkramM. B.BakshiA.et al (2013). Peg3 Mutational Effects on Reproduction and Placenta-specific Gene Families. PLoS ONE8, e83359. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083359
73
KitazawaM.HayashiS.ImamuraM.TakedaS.OishiY.Kaneko-IshinoT.et al (2020). Deficiency and Overexpression of Rtl1 in the Mouse Cause Distinct Muscle Abnormalities Related to Temple and Kagami-Ogata Syndromes. Development147, dev185918. 10.1242/dev.185918
74
KitazawaM.SutaniA.Kaneko‐IshinoT.IshinoF. (2021). The Role of Eutherian‐specific RTL1 in the Nervous System and its Implications for the Kagami‐Ogata and Temple Syndromes. Genes Cells26, 165–179. 10.1111/gtc.12830
75
KitazawaM.TamuraM.Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2017). Severe Damage to the Placental Fetal Capillary Network Causes Mid- to Late Fetal Lethality and Reduction in Placental Size inPeg11/Rtl1KO Mice. Genes Cells22, 174–188. 10.1111/gtc.12465
76
KobayashiH.SakuraiT.ImaiM.TakahashiN.FukudaA.YayoiO.et al (2012). Contribution of Intragenic DNA Methylation in Mouse Gametic DNA Methylomes to Establish Oocyte-specific Heritable marks. Plos Genet.8, e1002440. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002440
77
KobayashiS.WagatsumaH.OnoR.IchikawaH.YamazakiM.TashiroH.et al (2000). MousePeg9/Dlk1and humanPEG9/DLK1are Paternally Expressed Imprinted Genes Closely Located to the Maternally Expressed Imprinted Genes: mouseMeg3/Gtl2and humanMEG3. Genes Cells5, 1029–1037. 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2000.00390.x
78
KohdaT.AsaiA.KuroiwaY.KobayashiS.AisakaK.NagashimaG.et al (2001). Tumour Suppressor Activity of Human Imprinted Gene PEG3 in a Glioma Cell Line. Genes Cells6, 237–247. 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2001.00412.x
79
KuroiwaY.Kaneko-IshinoT.KagitaniF.KohdaT.LiL.-L.TadaM.et al (1996). Peg3 Imprinted Gene on Proximal Chromosome 7 Encodes for a Zinc finger Protein. Nat. Genet.12, 186–190. 10.1038/ng0296-186
80
LeeJ.InoueK.OnoR.OgonukiN.KohdaT.Kaneko-IshinoT.et al (2002). Erasing Genomic Imprinting Memory in Mouse Clone Embryos Produced from Day 11.5 Primordial Germ Cells. Development129, 1807–1817. 10.1242/dev.129.8.1807
81
LeeS.WalkerC. L.KartenB.KunyS. L.TenneseA. A.O'NeillM. A.et al (2005). Essential Role for the Prader-Willi Syndrome Protein Necdin in Axonal Outgrowth. Hum. Mol. Genet.14, 627–637. 10.1093/hmg/ddi059
82
LiC.HanT.LiQ.ZhangM.GuoR.YangY.et al (2021). Hu. MKRN3-Mediated Ubiquitination of Poly(A)-binding Proteins Modulates the Stability and Translation of GNRH1 mRNA in Mammalian Puberty. Nucl. Acids Res.49, 2396–2813. 10.1093/nar/gkab155
83
LiC.-M.MargolinA. A.SalasM.MemeoL.MansukhaniM.HibshooshH.et al (2006). PEG10 Is a C-MYC Target Gene in Cancer Cells. Cancer Res.66, 665–672. 10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-1553
84
LiJ.-Y.Lees-MurdockD. J.XuG.-L.WalshC. P. (2004). Timing of Establishment of Paternal Methylation Imprints in the Mouse. Genomics84, 952–960. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2004.08.012
85
LiL.-L.KeverneE. B.AparicioS. A.IshinoF.BartonS. C.SuraniM. A. (1999). Regulation of Maternal Behavior and Offspring Growth by Paternally Expressed Peg3. Science284, 330–334. 10.1126/science.284.5412.330
86
LiX.ItoM.ZhouF.YoungsonN.ZuoX.LederP.et al (2008). A Maternal-Zygotic Effect Gene, Zfp57, Maintains Both Maternal and Paternal Imprints. Developmental Cel15, 547–557. 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.08.014
87
LiuX.GaoQ.LiP.ZhaoQ.ZhangJ.LiJ.et al (2013). UHRF1 Targets DNMT1 for DNA Methylation Through Cooperative Binding Of Hemi-Methylated DNA And Methylated H3K9. Nat. Commun.4, 1563. 10.1038/ncomms2562
88
LopesS.LewisA.HajkovaP.DeanW.OswaldJ.ForneT.et al (2003). Epigenetic Modifications in an Imprinting Cluster Are Controlled by a Hierarchy of DMRs Suggesting Long-Range Chromatin Interactions. Hum. Mol. Genet.12, 295–305. 10.1093/hmg/ddg022
89
LuciferoD.MannM. R. W.BartolomeiM. S.TraslerJ. M. (2004). Gene-specific Timing and Epigenetic Memory in Oocyte Imprinting. Hum. Mol. Genet.13, 839–849. 10.1093/hmg/ddh104
90
MacfarlanT. S.GiffordW. D.DriscollS.LettieriK.RoweH. M.BonanomiD.et al (2012). Embryonic Stem Cell Potency Fluctuates with Endogenous Retrovirus Activity. Nature487, 57–63. 10.1038/nature11244
91
MaegawaS.ItabaN.OtsukaS.KamitaniH.WatanabeT.TahimicC. G.et al (2004). Coordinate Downregulation of a Novel Imprinted Transcript ITUP1 with PEG3 in Glioma Cell Lines. DNA Res.11, 37–49. 10.1093/dnares/11.1.37
92
MalnouE. C.UmlaufD.MouyssetM.CavailléJ. (2018). Imprinted microRNA Gene Clusters in the Evolution, Development, and Functions of Mammalian Placenta. Front. Genet.9, 706. 10.3389/fgene.2018.00706
93
MannJ. R.Lovell-BadgeR. H. (1984). Inviability of Parthenogenones Is Determined by Pronuclei, Not Egg Cytoplasm. Nature310, 66–67. 10.1038/310066a0
94
McGrathJ.SolterD. (1984). Completion of Mouse Embryogenesis Requires Both the Maternal and Paternal Genomes. Cell37, 179–183. 10.1016/0092-8674(84)90313-1
95
MikiH.InoueK.KohdaT.HondaA.OgonukiN.YuzurihaM.et al (2005). Birth of Mice Produced by Germ Cell Nuclear Transfer. Genesis41, 81–86. 10.1002/gene.20100
96
MillershipS. J.TunsterS. J.Van de PetteM.ChoudhuryA. I.IrvineE. E.ChristianM.et al (2018). Neuronatin Deletion Causes Postnatal Growth Restriction and Adult Obesity in 129S2/Sv Mice. Mol. Metab.18, 97–106. 10.1016/j.molmet.2018.09.001
97
MiyoshiN.KuroiwaY.KohdaT.ShitaraH.YonekawaH.KawabeT.et al (1998). Identification of the Meg1/Grb10 Imprinted Gene on Mouse Proximal Chromosome 11, a Candidate for the Silver-Russell Syndrome Gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.95, 1102–1107. 10.1073/pnas.95.3.1102
98
MiyoshiN.WagatsumaH.WakanaS.ShiroishiT.NomuraM.AisakaK.et al (2000). Identification of an Imprinted Gene, Meg3/Gtl2 and its Human Homologue MEG3 , First Mapped on Mouse Distal Chromosome 12 and Human Chromosome 14q. Genes to Cells5, 211–220. 10.1046/j.1365-2443.2000.00320.x
99
MochizukiK.ShiraneUranishiK. K.JanssenSuzukiS. M. A.KosekiLorinczH. M. C.BogutzA. B.JanssenS. M.et al (2021). “Repression of Germline Genes by PRC1.6 and SETDB1 in the Early Embryo Precedes DNA Methylation-Mediated Silencing,”. Nat. Commun.12, 7020. 10.1038/s41467-021-27345-x
100
MooreT.HaigD. (1991). Genomic Imprinting in Mammalian Development: a Parental Tug-Of-War. Trends Genet.7, 45–49. 10.1016/0168-9525(91)90040-w
101
NeumannB.KubickaP.BarlowD. P. (1995). Characteristics of Imprinted Genes. Nat. Genet.9, 12–13. 10.1038/ng0195-12
102
NichollsR. D.KnepperJ. L. (2001). Genome Organization, Function, and Imprinting in Prader-Willi and Angelman Syndromes. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet.2, 153–175. 10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.153
103
NichollsR. D.SaitohS.HorsthemkeB. (1998). Imprinting in Prader-Willi and Angelman Syndromes. Trends Genet.14, 194–200. 10.1016/s0168-9525(98)01432-2
104
Noguer-DanceM.Abu-AmeroS.Al-KhtibM.LefèvreA.CoullinP.MooreG. E.et al (2010). The Primate-specific microRNA Gene Cluster (C19MC) Is Imprinted in the Placenta. Hum. Mol. Genet.19, 3566–3582. 10.1093/hmg/ddq272
105
O'NeillM. J.IngramR. S.VranaP. B.TilghmanS. M. (2000). Allelic Expression of IGF2 in Marsupials and Birds. Dev. Genes Evol.210, 18–20. 10.1007/pl00008182
106
OkabeH.SatohS.FurukawaY.KatoT.HasegawaS.NakajimaY.et al (2003). Involvement of PEG10 in Human Hepatocellular Carcinogenesis through Interaction with SIAH1. Cancer Res.63, 3043–3048.
107
OkaeH.ChibaH.HiuraH.HamadaH.SatoA.UtsunomiyaT.et al (2014). Genome-Wide Analysis of DNA Methylation Dynamics during Early Human Development. Plos Genet.10, e1004868. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004868
108
OkanoM.BellD. W.HaberD. A.LiE. (1999). DNA Methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b Are Essential for De Novo Methylation and Mammalian Development. Cell99, 247–257. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81656-6
109
OndičováM.OakeyR. J.WalshC. P. (2020). Is Imprinting the Result of “Friendly Fire” by the Host Defense System?Plos Genet.16, e1008599. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008599
110
OnoR.KobayashiS.WagatsumaH.AisakaK.KohdaT.Kaneko-IshinoT.et al (2001). A Retrotransposon-Derived Gene, PEG10, Is a Novel Imprinted Gene Located on Human Chromosome 7q21. Genomics73, 232–237. 10.1006/geno.2001.6494
111
OnoR.NakamuraK.InoueK.NaruseM.UsamiT.Wakisaka-SaitoN.et al (2006). Deletion of Peg10, an Imprinted Gene Acquired from a Retrotransposon, Causes Early Embryonic Lethality. Nat. Genet.38, 101–106. 10.1038/ng1699
112
OnoR.ShiuraH.AburataniH.KohdaT.Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2003). Identification of a Large Novel Imprinted Gene Cluster on Mouse Proximal Chromosome 6. Genome Res.13, 1696–1705. 10.1101/gr.906803
113
PandyaN. J.CostaLopattaV. P.ZampetaPuntF. I. A. M.GrossenDistlerP. T.MartíBanfaiY. B.RasmussenHoenerS. M.et al (2021). “Secreted Retrovirus-like GAG-Domain-Containing Protein PEG10 Is Regulated by UBE3A and Is Involved in Angelman Syndrome Pathophysiology,”. Cel Rep. Med.2, 100360. 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100360
114
PlassC.ShibataH.KalchevaI.MullinsL.KotelevtsevaN.MullinsJ.et al (1996). Identification of Grf1 on Mouse Chromosome 9 as an Imprinted Gene by RLGS-M. Nat. Genet.14, 106–109. 10.1038/ng0996-106
115
QuennevilleS.VerdeG.CorsinottiA.KapopoulouA.JakobssonJ.OffnerS.et al (2011). In Embryonic Stem Cells, ZNP57/KAP1 Recognize A Methylated Hexanucleotide To Affect Chromatin And DNA Methylation Of Imprinting Control Regions. Mol. Cell44, 361–372. 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.032
116
RamachandranR.McDanielC. D. (2018). Parthenogenesis in Birds: a Review. Reproduction155, R245–R257. 10.1530/rep-17-0728
117
RapkinsR. W.HoreT.SmithwickM.AgerE.PaskA. J.RenfreeM. B.et al (2006). Recent Assembly of an Imprinted Domain from Non-imprinted Components. Plos Genet.2, e182. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020182
118
ReikW.WalterJ. (2001). Genomic Imprinting: Parental Influence on the Genome. Nat. Rev. Genet.2, 21–32. 10.1038/35047554
119
RenfreeM. B.HoreT. A.ShawG.Marshall GravesJ. A.PaskA. J. (2009). Evolution of Genomic Imprinting: Insights from Marsupials and Monotremes. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet.10, 241–262. 10.1146/annurev-genom-082908-150026
120
RenfreeM. B.SuzukiS.Kaneko-IshinoT. (2013). The Origin and Evolution of Genomic Imprinting and Viviparity in Mammals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B368, 20120151. 10.1098/rstb.2012.0151
121
RoweH. M.FriedliM.OffnerS.VerpS.MesnardD.MarquisJ.et al (2013). De Novo DNA Methylation of Endogenous Retroviruses Is Shaped by KRAB-ZFPs/KAP1 and ESET. Development140, 519–529. 10.1242/dev.087585
122
SchaafC. P.Gonzalez-GarayM. L.XiaF.PotockiL.GrippK. W.ZhangB.et al (2013). Truncating Mutations of MAGEL2 Cause Prader-Willi Phenotypes and Autismcause Prader-Willi Phenotypes and Autism. Nat. Genet.45, 1405–1408. 10.1038/ng.2776
123
SchmidtJ. V.MattesonP. G.JonesB. K.GuanX.-J.TilghmanS. M. (2000). The Dlk1 and Gtl2 Genes Are Linked and Reciprocally Imprinted. Genes Dev.14, 1997–2002. 10.1101/gad.14.16.1997
124
SekitaY.WagatsumaH.NakamuraK.OnoR.KagamiM.WakisakaN.et al (2008). Role of Retrotransposon-Derived Imprinted Gene, Rtl1, in the Feto-Maternal Interface of Mouse Placenta. Nat. Genet.40, 243–248. 10.1038/ng.2007.51
125
SharifJ.MutoM.TakebayashiS.SuetakeI.IwamatsuA.EndoT. A.et al (2007). The SRA Protein Np95 Mediates Epigenetic Inheritance By Recruiting Dnmt1 to Methylated DNA. Nature450, 908–912.
126
ShiraneK.MiuraF.ItoT.LorinczM. C. (2020). NSD1-deposited H3k36me2 Directs De Novo Methylation in the Mouse Male Germline and Counteracts Polycomb-Associated Silencing. Nat. Genet.52, 1088–1098. 10.1038/s41588-020-0689-z
127
ShiuraH.OnoR.TachibanaS.KohdaT.Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF. (2021). PEG10 Viral Aspartic Protease Domain Is Essential for the Maintenance of Fetal Capillary Structure in the Mouse Placenta. Development148, dev199564. 10.1242/dev.199564
128
SmallwoodS. A.TomizawaS.-i.KruegerF.RufN.CarliN.Segonds-PichonA.et al (2011). Dynamic CpG Island Methylation Landscape in Oocytes and Preimplantation Embryos. Nat. Genet.43, 811–814. 10.1038/ng.864
129
SmithR. J.DeanW.KonfortovaG.KelseyG. (2003). Identification of Novel Imprinted Genes in a Genome-wide Screen for Maternal Methylation. Genome Res.13, 558–569. 10.1101/gr.781503
130
SmitsG.MungallA. J.MungallA. J.Griffiths-JonesS.SmithP.BeuryD.et al (2008). Conservation of the H19 Noncoding RNA and H19-IGF2 Imprinting Mechanism in Therians. Nat. Genet.40, 971–976. 10.1038/ng.168
131
StrogantsevR.KruegerF.YamazawaK.ShiH.GouldP.Goldman-RobertsM.et al (2015). Allele-Specific Binding Of ZFP57 in the Epigenetic Regulation Of Imprinted And Non-Imprinted Monoallelic Expression. Genome Biol.16, 112. 10.1186/s13059-015-0672-7
132
SolterD. (1988). Differential Imprinting and Expression of Maternal and Paternal Genomes. Annu. Rev. Genet.22, 127–146. 10.1146/annurev.ge.22.120188.001015
133
SongS. U.GerasimovaT.KurkulosM.BoekeJ. D.CorcesV. G. (1994). An Env-like Protein Encoded by a Drosophila Retroelement: Evidence that Gypsy Is an Infectious Retrovirus. Genes Dev.8, 2046–2057. 10.1101/gad.8.17.2046
134
StögerR.KubickaP.LiuC. G.KafriT.RazinA.CedarH.et al (1993). Maternal-specific Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Igf2r Locus Identifies the Expressed Locus as Carrying the Imprinting Signal. Cell73, 61–71. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90160-r
135
SuraniM. A. H.BartonS. C.NorrisM. L. (1984). Development of Reconstituted Mouse Eggs Suggests Imprinting of the Genome during Gametogenesis. Nature308, 548–550. 10.1038/308548a0
136
SuzukiS.OnoR.NaritaT.PaskA. J.ShawG.WangC.et al (2007). Retrotransposon Silencing by DNA Methylation Can Drive Mammalian Genomic Imprinting. Plos Genet.3, e55. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030055
137
SuzukiS.RenfreeM. B.PaskA. J.ShawG.KobayashiS.KohdaT.et al (2005). Genomic Imprinting of IGF2, p57KIP2 and PEG1/MEST in a Marsupial, the Tammar Wallaby. Mech. Development122, 213–222. 10.1016/j.mod.2004.10.003
138
SuzukiS.ShawG.Kaneko-IshinoT.IshinoF.RenfreeM. B. (2011). The Evolution of Mammalian Genomic Imprinting Was Accompanied by the Acquisition of Novel CpG Islands. Genome Biol. Evol.3, 1276–1283. 10.1093/gbe/evr104
139
SuzukiS.ShawG.RenfreeM. B. (2018). Identification of a Novel Antisense Noncoding RNA, ALID, Transcribed from the Putative Imprinting Control Region of Marsupial IGF2R. Epigenetics & Chromatin11, 55. 10.1186/s13072-018-0227-8
140
SzabóP. E.HübnerK.SchölerH.MannJ. R. (2002). Allele-specific Expression of Imprinted Genes in Mouse Migratory Primordial Germ Cells. Mech. Development115, 157–160. 10.1016/s0925-4773(02)00087-4
141
SzabóP. E.TangS.-H. E.RentsendorjA.PfeiferG. P.MannJ. R. (2000). Maternal-specific Footprints at Putative CTCF Sites in the H19 Imprinting Control Region Give Evidence for Insulator Function. Curr. Biol.10, 607–610. 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00489-9
142
TakadaS.PaulsenM.TevendaleM.TsaiC. E.KelseyG.CattanachB. M.et al (2002). Epigenetic Analysis of the Dlk1-Gtl2 Imprinted Domain on Mouse Chromosome 12: Implications for Imprinting Control from Comparison with Igf2-H19. Hum. Mol. Genet.11, 77–86. 10.1093/hmg/11.1.77
143
TakadaS.TevendaleM.BakerJ.GeorgiadesP.CampbellE.FreemanT.et al (2000). Delta-like and Gtl2 Are Reciprocally Expressed, Differentially Methylated Linked Imprinted Genes on Mouse Chromosome 12. Curr. Biol.10, 1135–1138. 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00704-1
144
TakahashiN.ColuccioA.ThorballC. W.PlanetE.ShiH.OffnerS.et al (2019). ZNF445 Is a Primary Regulator of Genomic Imprinting. Genes Dev.33, 49–54. 10.1101/gad.320069.118
145
TakahashiN.OkamotoA.KobayashiR.ShiraiM.ObataY.OgawaH.et al (2009). Deletion of Gtl2 , Imprinted Non-coding RNA, with its Differentially Methylated Region Induces Lethal Parent-origin-dependent Defects in Mice. Hum. Mol. Genet.18, 1879–1888. 10.1093/hmg/ddp108
146
VeselovskaL.SmallwoodS. A.SaadehH.StewartK. R.KruegerF.Maupetit-Me9;houasS.et al (2015). Deep Sequencing And De Novo Assembly Of The Mouse Oocyte Transcriptome Define Thecontribution Of Transcription To The DNA Methylation Landscape. Genome Biol.16, 209. 10.1186/s13059-015-0769-z
147
VarmuzaS.MannM. (1994). Genomic Imprinting - Defusing the Ovarian Time Bomb. Trends Genet.10, 118–123. 10.1016/0168-9525(94)90212-7
148
WatanabeT.TomizawaS.-i.MitsuyaK.TotokiY.YamamotoY.Kuramochi-MiyagawaS.et al (2011). Role for piRNAs and Noncoding RNA in De Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1 Locus. Science332, 848–852. 10.1126/science.1203919
149
WeidmanJ. R.MurphyS. K.NolanC. M.DietrichF. S.JirtleR. L. (2004). Phylogenetic Footprint Analysis of IGF2 in Extant Mammals. Genome Res.14, 1726–1732. 10.1101/gr.2774804
150
WilkinsJ. F.HaigD. (2003). What Good Is Genomic Imprinting: The Function of Parent-specific Gene Expression. Nat. Rev. Genet.4, 359–368. 10.1038/nrg1062
151
WolfJ. B.OakeyR. J.FeilR. (2014). Imprinted Gene Expression in Hybrids: Perturbed Mechanisms and Evolutionary Implications. Heredity113, 167–175. 10.1038/hdy.2014.11
152
WoodA. J.RobertsR. G.MonkD.MooreG. E.SchulzR.OakeyR. J. (2007). A Screen for Retrotransposed Imprinted Genes Reveals an Association between X Chromosome Homology and Maternal Germ-Line Methylation. Plos Genet.3, e20. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030020
153
WuM.-Y.JiangM.ZhaiX.WuA. L.auR.-C. (2012). An Unexpected Function of the Prader-Willi Syndrome Imprinting center in Maternal Imprinting in Mice. PLoS ONE7, e34348. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034348
154
WutzA.SmrzkaO. W.SchweiferN.SchellanderK.WagnerE. F.BarlowD. P. (1997). Imprinted Expression of the Igf2r Gene Depends on an Intronic CpG Island. Nature389, 745–749. 10.1038/39631
155
WylieA. A.MurphyS. K.OrtonT. C.JirtleR. L. (2000). Novel Imprinted DLK1/GTL2 Domain on Human Chromosome 14 Contains Motifs that Mimic Those Implicated in IGF2/H19 Regulation. Genome Res.10, 1711–1718. 10.1101/gr.161600
156
XuQ.XiangY.WangQ.WangL.Brind’AmourJ.BogutzA. B.et al (2019). SETD2 Regulates the Maternal Epigenome, Genomic Imprinting and Embryonic Development. Nat. Genet.51, 844–856. 10.1038/s41588-019-0398-7
157
YamaguchiS.HongK.LiuR.InoueA.ShenL.ZhangK.et al (2013a). Dynamics of 5-methylcytosine and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine during Germ Cell Reprogramming. Cell Res23, 329–339. 10.1038/cr.2013.22
158
YamaguchiS.ShenL.LiuY.SendlerD.ZhangY. (2013b). Role of Tet1 in Erasure of Genomic Imprinting. Nature504, 460–464. 10.1038/nature12805
159
YamazakiY.LowE. W.MarikawaY.IwahashiK.BartolomeiM. S.McCarreyJ. R.et al (2005). Adult Mice Cloned from Migrating Primordial Germ Cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.102, 11361–11366. 10.1073/pnas.0504943102
160
ZhouY.CheunsuchonP.NakayamaY.LawlorM. W.ZhongY.RiceK. A.et al (2010). Activation of Paternally Expressed Genes and Perinatal Death Caused by Deletion of the Gtl2 Gene. Development137, 2643–2652. 10.1242/dev.045724
Summary
Keywords
complementation, genome innovation, evolutionary trade-off, insertion of exogenous DNA, host defense hypothesis
Citation
Kaneko-Ishino T and Ishino F (2022) The Evolutionary Advantage in Mammals of the Complementary Monoallelic Expression Mechanism of Genomic Imprinting and Its Emergence From a Defense Against the Insertion Into the Host Genome. Front. Genet. 13:832983. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.832983
Received
10 December 2021
Accepted
11 February 2022
Published
03 March 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited by
Julie Demars, Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), France
Reviewed by
Hisato Kobayashi, Nara Medical University, Japan
Philippe Arnaud, GRED CNRS-Université Clermont Auvergne-INSERM, France
Rebecca J. Oakey, King’s College London, United Kingdom
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tomoko Kaneko-Ishino, tkanekoi@is.icc.u-tokai.ac.jp; Fumitoshi Ishino, fishino.epgn@mri.tmd.ac.jp
This article was submitted to Livestock Genomics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.