Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jun;26(6):768-77.
doi: 10.1101/gr.197897.115. Epub 2016 Apr 21.

Impact of the X Chromosome and sex on regulatory variation

Kimberly R Kukurba  1 , Princy Parsana  2 , Brunilda Balliu  3 , Kevin S Smith  3 , Zachary Zappala  1 , David A Knowles  2 , Marie-Julie Favé  4 , Joe R Davis  1 , Xin Li  3 , Xiaowei Zhu  5 , James B Potash  6 , Myrna M Weissman  7 , Jianxin Shi  8 , Anshul Kundaje  9 , Douglas F Levinson  5 , Philip Awadalla  4 , Sara Mostafavi  10 , Alexis Battle  11 , Stephen B Montgomery  12
Affiliations

Impact of the X Chromosome and sex on regulatory variation

Kimberly R Kukurba et al. Genome Res. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

The X Chromosome, with its unique mode of inheritance, contributes to differences between the sexes at a molecular level, including sex-specific gene expression and sex-specific impact of genetic variation. Improving our understanding of these differences offers to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying sex-specific traits and diseases. However, to date, most studies have either ignored the X Chromosome or had insufficient power to test for the sex-specific impact of genetic variation. By analyzing whole blood transcriptomes of 922 individuals, we have conducted the first large-scale, genome-wide analysis of the impact of both sex and genetic variation on patterns of gene expression, including comparison between the X Chromosome and autosomes. We identified a depletion of expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) on the X Chromosome, especially among genes under high selective constraint. In contrast, we discovered an enrichment of sex-specific regulatory variants on the X Chromosome. To resolve the molecular mechanisms underlying such effects, we generated chromatin accessibility data through ATAC-sequencing to connect sex-specific chromatin accessibility to sex-specific patterns of expression and regulatory variation. As sex-specific regulatory variants discovered in our study can inform sex differences in heritable disease prevalence, we integrated our data with genome-wide association study data for multiple immune traits identifying several traits with significant sex biases in genetic susceptibilities. Together, our study provides genome-wide insight into how genetic variation, the X Chromosome, and sex shape human gene regulation and disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Differential expression variance within the sexes. (A) Comparison of genes with significant sex-specific expression variance (FDR 5%) and sex-specific expression (FDR 5%) on the autosomes and the X Chromosome in the DGN. To test for differences in mean expression and variance, the number of males and females were matched (n = 274). One-sided Fisher's exact test P-values above bars indicate significance of higher expression or variance on the X Chromosome relative to autosomes. (B) Proportion of variance explained (PVE) by genotype on the X Chromosome in males and females. To test for the PVE, the number of males and females were matched (n = 274). We tested all genes on the X Chromosome and genes with a cis-eQTL (Bonferroni adjusted P-value < 0.05).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Characterization of eQTLs on the X Chromosome. (A) Proportion of genes with an eQTL at different FDR thresholds discovered in the joint (n = 922), (B) female (n = 648), and (C) male (n = 274) populations. (**) P-value < 1 × 10−15, (*) P-value < 0.05, Bonferroni adjusted χ2 test. (D) Comparison of eQTL effect size between autosomes and the X Chromosome for common variants (MAF ≥ 0.05) and low-frequency variants (0.01 < MAF < 0.05). The difference in effect size is statistically significant for both common ([*] P-value = 0.0382, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and low-frequency variants ([**] P-value = 1.21 × 10−7).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Discovery of sex-interacting eQTLs. (A) Quantile-quantile (QQ) plot describing the sex-interacting eQTL association P-values for SNPs tested within 1 Mb of genes on the X Chromosome (orange) and the autosomes (green) with 95% confidence interval (gray). (B) Sex-interacting eQTL (q-value = 0.0198) for DNAH1 (dynein, axonemal, heavy chain 1), a protein-coding gene involved in microtubule motor activity, ATPase activity, and sperm motility.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Discovery of sex-specific chromatin accessibility regions. (A) QQ plot for tests of differential chromatin accessibility between the sexes. 95% genome-wide confidence interval in gray. (B) Enrichment of genes with differential expression between the sexes (FDR 5%) with differential chromatin accessibility (varying thresholds) 40 kb upstream. (**) P-value < 10−5, (*) P-value < 10−3, Fisher's exact test. (C) Proportion of sex-interacting eQTL genes (P-value < 0.05) in differential chromatin accessibility regions (varying thresholds). (*) P-value < 5.0 × 10−2, Fisher's exact test. (D) Chromatin accessibility peak located at Chr 7: 95,063,722–95,064,222 and 5000 bp upstream and downstream. This region has differential chromatin accessibility between males and females (nominal P-value = 4.1 × 10−4, Q-value = 7.5 × 10−2). (E) Sex-interacting eQTL for PON2 and rs35903871 located at Chr 7: 95,063,972 (nominal P-value = 8.0 × 10−3).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Disease associated variants with sex-biased eQTLs. Proportion of independent (LD-pruned) variants with higher eQTL effect sizes in females for GWAS variants of traits in ImmunoBase. Each trait variant tested had to be a significant eQTL variant (nominal P-value < 0.001). Red data points indicate traits with eQTL effect sizes that are significantly different between sexes (Bonferroni adjusted P-value < 0.05). (ATD) Autoimmune thyroid disease, (CEL) celiac disease, (JIA) juvenile idiopathic arthritis, (MS) multiple sclerosis, (PBC) primary biliary cirrhosis, (PSO) psoriasis, (RA) rheumatoid arthritis, (RND) random eQTL variants, (T1D) type 1 diabetes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Anders S, Huber W. 2010. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol 11: R106. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Andolfatto P. 2001. Contrasting patterns of X-linked and autosomal nucleotide variation in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Mol Biol Evol 18: 279–290. - PubMed
    1. Awadalla P, Boileau C, Payette Y, Idaghdour Y, Goulet JP, Knoppers B, Hamet P, Laberge C; CARTaGENE Project. 2013. Cohort profile of the CARTaGENE study: Quebec's population-based biobank for public health and personalized genomics. Int J Epidemiol 42: 1285–1299. - PubMed
    1. Battle A, Mostafavi S, Zhu X, Potash JB, Weissman MM, McCormick C, Haudenschild CD, Beckman KB, Shi J, Mei R, et al. 2014. Characterizing the genetic basis of transcriptome diversity through RNA-sequencing of 922 individuals. Genome Res 24: 14–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B Methodol 57: 289–300.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

-