Coping with genetic diversity: the contribution of pathogen and human genomics to modern vaccinology

Vaccine development faces major difficulties partly because of genetic variation in both infectious organisms and humans. This causes antigenic variation in infectious agents and a high interindividual variability in the human response to the vaccine. The exponential growth of genome sequence information has induced a shift from conventional culture-based to genome-based vaccinology, and allows the tackling of challenges in vaccine development due to pathogen genetic variability. Additionally, recent advances in immunogenetics and genomics should help in the understanding of the influence of genetic factors on the interindividual and interpopulation variations in immune responses to vaccines, and could be useful for developing new vaccine strategies. Accumulating results provide evidence for the existence of a number of genes involved in protective immune responses that are induced either by natural infections or vaccines. Variation in immune responses could be viewed as the result of a perturbation of gene networks; this should help in understanding how a particular polymorphism or a combination thereof could affect protective immune responses. Here we will present: i) the first genome-based vaccines that served as proof of concept, and that provided new critical insights into vaccine development strategies; ii) an overview of genetic predisposition in infectious diseases and genetic control in responses to vaccines; iii) population genetic differences that are a rationale behind group-targeted vaccines; iv) an outlook for genetic control in infectious diseases, with special emphasis on the concept of molecular networks that will provide a structure to the huge amount of genomic data.

Comparative gene finding in chicken indicates that we are closing in on the set of multi-exonic widely expressed human genes.

The recent availability of the chicken genome sequence poses the question of whether there are human protein-coding genes conserved in chicken that are currently not included in the human gene catalog. Here, we show, using comparative gene finding followed by experimental verification of exon pairs by RT-PCR, that the addition to the multi-exonic subset of this catalog could be as little as 0.2%, suggesting that we may be closing in on the human gene set. Our protocol, however, has two shortcomings: (i) the bioinformatic screening of the predicted genes, applied to filter out false positives, cannot handle intronless genes; and (ii) the experimental verification could fail to identify expression at a specific developmental time. This highlights the importance of developing methods that could provide a reliable estimate of the number of these two types of genes.

EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project.

BACKGROUND: We present the results of EGASP, a community experiment to assess the state-of-the-art in genome annotation within the ENCODE regions, which span 1% of the human genome sequence. The experiment had two major goals: the assessment of the accuracy of computational methods to predict protein coding genes; and the overall assessment of the completeness of the current human genome annotations as represented in the ENCODE regions. For the computational prediction assessment, eighteen groups contributed gene predictions. We evaluated these submissions against each other based on a 'reference set' of annotations generated as part of the GENCODE project. These annotations were not available to the prediction groups prior to the submission deadline, so that their predictions were blind and an external advisory committee could perform a fair assessment. RESULTS: The best methods had at least one gene transcript correctly predicted for close to 70% of the annotated genes. Nevertheless, the multiple transcript accuracy, taking into account alternative splicing, reached only approximately 40% to 50% accuracy. At the coding nucleotide level, the best programs reached an accuracy of 90% in both sensitivity and specificity. Programs relying on mRNA and protein sequences were the most accurate in reproducing the manually curated annotations. Experimental validation shows that only a very small percentage (3.2%) of the selected 221 computationally predicted exons outside of the existing annotation could be verified. CONCLUSION: This is the first such experiment in human DNA, and we have followed the standards established in a similar experiment, GASP1, in Drosophila melanogaster. We believe the results presented here contribute to the value of ongoing large-scale annotation projects and should guide further experimental methods when being scaled up to the entire human genome sequence.

The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project.

The ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Project aims to identify all functional elements in the human genome sequence. The pilot phase of the Project is focused on a specified 30 megabases (approximately 1%) of the human genome sequence and is organized as an international consortium of computational and laboratory-based scientists working to develop and apply high-throughput approaches for detecting all sequence elements that confer biological function. The results of this pilot phase will guide future efforts to analyze the entire human genome.

Genome-wide analysis of cancer/testis gene expression.

Cancer/Testis (CT) genes, normally expressed in germ line cells but also activated in a wide range of cancer types, often encode antigens that are immunogenic in cancer patients, and present potential for use as biomarkers and targets for immunotherapy. Using multiple in silico gene expression analysis technologies, including twice the number of expressed sequence tags used in previous studies, we have performed a comprehensive genome-wide survey of expression for a set of 153 previously described CT genes in normal and cancer expression libraries. We find that although they are generally highly expressed in testis, these genes exhibit heterogeneous gene expression profiles, allowing their classification into testis-restricted (39), testis/brain-restricted (14), and a testis-selective (85) group of genes that show additional expression in somatic tissues. The chromosomal distribution of these genes confirmed the previously observed dominance of X chromosome location, with CT-X genes being significantly more testis-restricted than non-X CT. Applying this core classification in a genome-wide survey we identified >30 CT candidate genes; 3 of them, PEPP-2, OTOA, and AKAP4, were confirmed as testis-restricted or testis-selective using RT-PCR, with variable expression frequencies observed in a panel of cancer cell lines. Our classification provides an objective ranking for potential CT genes, which is useful in guiding further identification and characterization of these potentially important diagnostic and therapeutic targets.

Genetic association tests: a method for the joint analysis of family and case-control data.

With the trend in molecular epidemiology towards both genome-wide association studies and complex modelling, the need for large sample sizes to detect small effects and to allow for the estimation of many parameters within a model continues to increase. Unfortunately, most methods of association analysis have been restricted to either a family-based or a case-control design, resulting in the lack of synthesis of data from multiple studies. Transmission disequilibrium-type methods for detecting linkage disequilibrium from family data were developed as an effective way of preventing the detection of association due to population stratification. Because these methods condition on parental genotype, however, they have precluded the joint analysis of family and case-control data, although methods for case-control data may not protect against population stratification and do not allow for familial correlations. We present here an extension of a family-based association analysis method for continuous traits that will simultaneously test for, and if necessary control for, population stratification. We further extend this method to analyse binary traits (and therefore family and case-control data together) and accurately to estimate genetic effects in the population, even when using an ascertained family sample. Finally, we present the power of this binary extension for both family-only and joint family and case-control data, and demonstrate the accuracy of the association parameter and variance components in an ascertained family sample.

GENCODE: producing a reference annotation for ENCODE.

BACKGROUND: The GENCODE consortium was formed to identify and map all protein-coding genes within the ENCODE regions. This was achieved by a combination of initial manual annotation by the HAVANA team, experimental validation by the GENCODE consortium and a refinement of the annotation based on these experimental results. RESULTS: The GENCODE gene features are divided into eight different categories of which only the first two (known and novel coding sequence) are confidently predicted to be protein-coding genes. 5' rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE) and RT-PCR were used to experimentally verify the initial annotation. Of the 420 coding loci tested, 229 RACE products have been sequenced. They supported 5' extensions of 30 loci and new splice variants in 50 loci. In addition, 46 loci without evidence for a coding sequence were validated, consisting of 31 novel and 15 putative transcripts. We assessed the comprehensiveness of the GENCODE annotation by attempting to validate all the predicted exon boundaries outside the GENCODE annotation. Out of 1,215 tested in a subset of the ENCODE regions, 14 novel exon pairs were validated, only two of them in intergenic regions. CONCLUSION: In total, 487 loci, of which 434 are coding, have been annotated as part of the GENCODE reference set available from the UCSC browser. Comparison of GENCODE annotation with RefSeq and ENSEMBL show only 40% of GENCODE exons are contained within the two sets, which is a reflection of the high number of alternative splice forms with unique exons annotated. Over 50% of coding loci have been experimentally verified by 5' RACE for EGASP and the GENCODE collaboration is continuing to refine its annotation of 1% human genome with the aid of experimental validation.

Les macrophages d’ascendance européenne et africaine répondent différemment aux infections bactériennes

Des études antérieures démontrent que les descendants de peuples européens et africains présentent des différences de susceptibilité à certaines maladies infectieuses. Ces différences suggèrent des variations interpopulationnelles de la réponse immunitaire qui résultent probablement de l’adaptation de ces individus aux pathogènes de leur environnement. Nous avons caractérisé la réponse immunitaire chez des descendants de peuples européens et africains à des infections bactériennes. Nous avons infecté des macrophages dérivés de monocytes de 30 Américains d’origine africaine (Africains) et de 31 Américains d’origine européenne (Européens) avec les pathogènes intracellulaires Listeria monocytogenes et Salmonella typhimurium pendant 4 heures, puis nous avons mesuré le niveau d’expression pangénomique des cellules infectées et non infectées par séquençage de l’ARNm. Nous avons estimé le niveau de contrôle de l’infection par les macrophages à 2, 4 et 24 heures post-infection en évaluant le taux de survie des bactéries. Nous avons observé que les Africains présentent significativement moins de bactéries intracellulaires après 4 et 24 heures que les Européens, suggérant que les Africains contrôlent mieux les infections bactériennes. Nous avons identifié des différences interpopulationnelles dans le niveau de sécrétion des cytokines et dans le niveau d’expression de certains gènes, ce qui suggère que les Africains modulent une réponse inflammatoire plus forte que les Européens. Nous avons démontré que plusieurs de ces gènes ont subi des évènements de sélection positive récents seulement chez les Européens. Notre étude a identifié plusieurs gènes candidats susceptibles d’influencer le cours des infections bactériennes chez les humains. Nos résultats indiquent que les différences dans la progression des maladies infectieuses entre les populations européennes et africaines seraient le résultat de la sélection naturelle.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.