4.2 Article

Cerebellum-specific and age-dependent expression of an endogenous retrovirus with intact coding potential

期刊

RETROVIROLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4690-8-82

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Shriners of North America [86800, 84302]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM071360]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), including murine leukemia virus (MuLV) type-ERVs (MuLV-ERVs), are presumed to occupy similar to 10% of the mouse genome. In this study, following the identification of a full-length MuLV-ERV by in silico survey of the C57BL/6J mouse genome, its distribution in different mouse strains and expression characteristics were investigated. Results: Application of a set of ERV mining protocols identified a MuLV-ERV locus with full coding potential on chromosome 8 (named ERVmch8). It appears that ERVmch8 shares the same genomic locus with a replication-incompetent MuLV-ERV, called Emv2; however, it was not confirmed due to a lack of relevant annotation and Emv2 sequence information. The ERVmch8 sequence was more prevalent in laboratory strains compared to wild-derived strains. Among 16 different tissues of similar to 12 week-old female C57BL/6J mice, brain homogenate was the only tissue with evident expression of ERVmch8. Further ERVmch8 expression analysis in six different brain compartments and four peripheral neuronal tissues of C57BL/6J mice revealed no significant expression except for the cerebellum in which the ERVmch8 locus' low methylation status was unique compared to the other brain compartments. The ERVmch8 locus was found to be surrounded by genes associated with neuronal development and/or inflammation. Interestingly, cerebellum-specific ERVmch8 expression was age-dependent with almost no expression at 2 weeks and a plateau at 6 weeks. Conclusions: The ecotropic ERVmch8 locus on the C57BL/6J mouse genome was relatively undermethylated in the cerebellum, and its expression was cerebellum-specific and age-dependent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据