Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Review article: Biomedical intelligence

Vol. 141 No. 5152 (2011)

Post genomic decade – the epigenome and exposome challenges

  • A Paoloni-Giacobino
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2011.13321
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13321
Published
19.12.2011

Summary

Sequencing the human genome was the big challenge of the last decade. Ten years later, the large amount of DNA sequences accumulated in our databases allows us to look at genome variations between humans. The level of complexity of these variations is much higher than previously expected. It goes from changes in the nucleotidic sequence, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or copy number variations (CNVs), to modifications in DNA transcription or methylation. Indeed, epigenetics, with chromatin modifications and underlying crosstalk between DNA methylation, histone tails acetylation and non coding RNAs, as microRNAs, all participate to this non-encoded gene expression regulation. Understanding the extent of genomic diversity between humans and linking it to phenotypes and diseases, unravelling the environmental exposures that may be detrimental for our health is the next challenge of the geneticists. The decrypting of the epigenome and the exposome is now on its way.

References

  1. Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, Li PW, Mural RJ, Sutton GG, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 2001;291(5507):1304–51.
  2. Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001;409(6822):860–921.
  3. Sudmant PH, Kitzman JO, Antonacci F, Alkan C, Malig M, Tsalenko A, et al. Diversity of human copy number variation and multicopy genes. Science. 2010;330(6004):641–6.
  4. Altshuler D, Durbin RM, Abecasis GR, Bentley DR, Chakravarti A, Clark AG, et al. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature. 2010;467(7319):1061–73.
  5. Lander ES. Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome. Nature. 2011;470(7333):187–97.
  6. MacArthur DG, Tyler-Smith C. Loss-of-function variants in the genomes of healthy humans. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19(R2):R125–R130.
  7. Cavalli-Sforza LL. The Human Genome Diversity Project: past, present and future. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(4):333–40.
  8. Forrest AR, Carninci P. Whole genome transcriptome analysis. RNA Biol. 2009;6(2):107–12.
  9. Ju YS, Kim JI, Kim S, Hong D, Park, Shin JY, et al. Extensive genomic and transcriptional diversity identified through massively parallel DNA and RNA sequencing of eighteen Korean individuals. Nat Genet. 2011;43(8):745–52.
  10. Salmena L, Poliseno L, Tay Y, Kats L, Pandolfi PP. A ceRNA hypothesis: the Rosetta Stone of a hidden RNA language? Cell. 2011;146(3):353–8.
  11. Li M, Wang IX, Li Y, Bruzel A, Richards AL, Toung JM, et al. Widespread RNA and DNA sequence differences in the human transcriptome. Science. 2011;333(6038):53–8.
  12. Ernst J, Kellis M. Discovery and characterization of chromatin states for systematic annotation of the human genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;8:817–25.
  13. Milosavljevic A. Emerging patterns of epigenomic variation. Trends Genet. 2011;6:242–50.
  14. Ndlovu MN, Denis H, Fuks F. Exposing the DNA methylome iceberg. Trends Biochem Sci. 2011;36(7):381–7.
  15. Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH, Hawkins RD, Hon G, Tonti-Filippini J, et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature. 2009;462(7271):315–22.
  16. Laurent L, Wong E, Li G, Huynh T, Tsirigos A, Ong CT, et al. Dynamic changes in the human methylome during differentiation. Genome Res. 2010;20(3):320–31.
  17. Weber M, Hellmann I, Stadler MB, Ramos L, Pääbo S, Rebhan M, et al. Distribution, silencing potential and evolutionary impact of promoter DNA methylation in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2007;39(4):457–66.
  18. Barker DJ, Eriksson JG, Forsén T, Osmond C. Fetal origins of adult disease: strength of effects and biological basis. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(6):1235–9.
  19. Fraga MF, Ballestar E, Paz MF, Ropero S, Setien, F, Ballestar ML, et al. Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(30):10604–9.
  20. Faulk C, Dolinoy DC. Timing is everything: the when and how of environmentally induced changes in the epigenome of animals. Epigenetics. 2011;6(7):791–7.
  21. Rappaport SM. Implications of the exposome for exposure science. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011;21(1):5–9.
  22. Rodgers A, Ezzati M, Vander Hoorn S, Lopez, AD, Lin RB, Murray CJ, et al. Distribution of major health risks: findings from the Global Burden of Disease study. PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e27.
  23. Saracci R, Vineis P. Disease proportions attributable to environment. Environ Health. 2007;6:38.
  24. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, Iliadou A, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer – analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(2):78–85.
  25. Wild CP. Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(8):1847–50.
  26. Lioy PJ and Rappaport SM. Exposure science and the exposome: an opportunity for coherence in the environmental health sciences. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(11):a466-.
  27. Pleil JD, Stiegel MA, Sobus JR. Breath biomarkers in environmental health science: exploring patterns in the human exposome. J Breath Res. 2011;5(4):046005.
  28. Bonneterre V, Faisandier L, Bicout D, Bernardet C, Piollat J, Ameille J, et al. Programmed health surveillance and detection of emerging diseases in occupational health: contribution of the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (RNV3P). Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(3):178–86.