search

menu

  • Research Research
    • Where science meets inspired minds

    • Back
    • Research
    • Our Science
    • Research Groups
    • Facilities & Platforms
    • Clinical research
    • Find a researcher
    • Publications
    • Knowledge Transfer
  • Careers & study Careers & study
    • Become a leader in cancer research

    • Back
    • Careers & study
    • Vacancies
    • Faculty
    • Scientific staff
    • Scientific support staff
    • Postdoctoral fellows
    • PhD Students
    • Operational staff
    • Clinical fellows
    • Life in Amsterdam
    • Student internships
  • News & Events News & Events
    • Check out our stories and events

    • Back
    • News & Events
    • News
    • Media & Press
    • Calendar
  • About us About us
    • Maximum impact for cancer patients

    • Back
    • About us
    • Our vision
    • Organization
    • Collaborations
    • Responsible Research
    • Support us
    • Visit us
    • Contact us
  • Support us
Support us
  • Home
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Article

Chromatin landscapes of retroviral and transposon integration profiles.

Johann de Jong ,
Waseem Akhtar ,
Jitendra Badhai ,
Alistair G Rust ,
Roland Rad ,
John Hilkens ,
Anton Berns ,
Maarten van Lohuizen ,
Lodewyk F A Wessels ,
Jeroen de Ridder

Abstract

The ability of retroviruses and transposons to insert their genetic material into host DNA makes them widely used tools in molecular biology, cancer research and gene therapy. However, these systems have biases that may strongly affect research outcomes. To address this issue, we generated very large datasets consisting of ~ 120,000 to ~ 180,000 unselected integrations in the mouse genome for the Sleeping Beauty (SB) and piggyBac (PB) transposons, and the Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (MMTV). We analyzed ~ 80 (epi)genomic features to generate bias maps at both local and genome-wide scales. MMTV showed a remarkably uniform distribution of integrations across the genome. More distinct preferences were observed for the two transposons, with PB showing remarkable resemblance to bias profiles of the Murine Leukemia Virus. Furthermore, we present a model where target site selection is directed at multiple scales. At a large scale, target site selection is similar across systems, and defined by domain-oriented features, namely expression of proximal genes, proximity to CpG islands and to genic features, chromatin compaction and replication timing. Notable differences between the systems are mainly observed at smaller scales, and are directed by a diverse range of features. To study the effect of these biases on integration sites occupied under selective pressure, we turned to insertional mutagenesis (IM) screens. In IM screens, putative cancer genes are identified by finding frequently targeted genomic regions, or Common Integration Sites (CISs). Within three recently completed IM screens, we identified 7%-33% putative false positive CISs, which are likely not the result of the oncogenic selection process. Moreover, results indicate that PB, compared to SB, is more suited to tag oncogenes.

More about this publication

PLoS genetics

Volume 10
Issue nr. 4
Pages e1004250
Publication date 01-04-2014

Full text links

Publisher website (DOI) 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004250
Europe PubMed Central 24721906
Pubmed 24721906

Where science meets inspired minds

Contact

Plesmanlaan 121
1066CX Amsterdam

020 512 9111 communicatie@nki.nl

Quick links

  • Vacancies
  • News
  • Contact us
  • Media & Press

Follow us on

Disclaimer
Privacy statement
Cookies
Change cookie settings

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.