Although the precise mechanisms by which imprinting occurs are unknown, the conserved localization of the imprinted genes on distal chromosome 7 in mice and humans suggests that clustering may be important for mechanistic or functional reasons. Our results show that the linkage of eight genes is conserved between mice and humans, consistent with the integrity of the region being important for proper imprinting of the genes contained therein (
28,
41,
42). The synteny among imprinted genes in this region probably extends beyond the region. Recently, another maternally expressed imprinted gene,
IPL/Ipl, has been characterized in humans and mice (
41). In humans, this gene has been physically mapped centromeric to
p57Kip2, and in mice, its genetic linkage places it in an analogous position. We have identified one major difference between the organization of this region in humans and mice in the positions of
Th and
CD81 relative to
Mash2 and
Ins2. In humans,
TH is within 12 kb of
INS (
34), whereas in mice, the gene is just 25 kb centromeric of
Mash2. In addition, a human P1 clone of the syntenic region of chromosome 11p15.5 (GenBank accession no.
AC002536) places
CD81 106 kb away from
HASH2 (the human homolog of
Mash2), whereas we detected
CD81 sequences within 24 kb of
Mash2. Another difference is the orientation of the cluster relative to the centromere. In humans,
H19 is the most telomeric gene at 11p15.5, whereas our genetic analysis in mice places
p57Kip2 closest to the telomere.
For the most part, the imprinting of the genes in this cluster is conserved between humans and mice. One difference we uncovered is in the maintenance of imprinting of
Kvlqt1 during embryogenesis. In humans, the gene is imprinted in all fetal tissues except the heart (
28), whereas in mice, the imprint is lost in all neonatal tissues examined. Species-specific differences in imprinting have been detected for the
Igf2r gene as well, but in that case imprinting is relaxed in humans (
47,
59).
Gene linkage has clearly been shown to be important for the imprinting of
Igf2,
H19, and
Ins2. The mechanism is probably a transcriptional one, in which the genes require a common set of enhancers (
31). DNA methylation on the paternal chromosome, the only epigenetic mark that has been identified, silences the
H19 gene and thereby permits
Igf2 and
Ins2 expression (
5,
13,
32). On the maternal chromosome, it is the position of the
H19 gene, relative to the enhancers, that determines the preference for
H19 transcription (
54). This mechanism, however, does not extend to the telomeric genes in the cluster, since mutations that affect
Igf2,
H19 and
Ins2 have no effect on these genes. Therefore, if a single element regulates distal chromosome 7 imprinting, that element does not appear to be the
H19 gene.
The most compelling evidence in favor of a mechanistic link between the imprinting of genes throughout this cluster comes from observations in human patients with BWS. Approximately 80% of BWS patients exhibit biallelic
IGF2 expression, and overexpression of
IGF2 is thought to be responsible for most of the BWS phenotype, particularly the somatic overgrowth (
43). Two recent mouse models of BWS, in which overexpression of
Igf2 is achieved through transgenesis or genetic manipulation, lend strong support to this conclusion (
12,
48). Some BWS patients have chromosomal abnormalities including balanced translocations whose breakpoints map to two regions of chromosome 11p15.5 (
20). The first cluster of breakpoints lies in the 3′ end of the
KvLQT1 gene, and one patient with such a translocation was shown to exhibit biallelic
IGF2 expression (
7). If this finding holds up with other BWS translocation patients, it strongly suggests that
IGF2 imprinting requires linkage not just to
H19 but also to sequences downstream of
KvLQT1. The other cluster of translocation breakpoints is at least 4 Mb centromeric to
p57Kip2, but the allelic expression of
IGF2 has not been examined in any of these patients.
One reason for caution in interpreting the human translocations as implying a mechanistic linkage between the two domains of the cluster is that a small percentage of BWS patients have point mutations in the
p57Kip2 gene itself (
27,
38). It is unknown whether these rare patients display biallelic
IGF2. If they do not, it is possible that the translocations are disrupting only
p57Kip2 expression. As we have shown in this report, a loss-of-function mutation of
p57Kip2 in mice does not result in biallelic
Igf2 expression. The mice do exhibit some BWS-like symptoms, such as omphalocele, renal dysplasia, and adrenal cytomegaly, but they lack other features (
60,
62). Thus, BWS is very likely to be a genetically complex disorder. Finally, there is indirect evidence for linkage between the genes in the cluster from studies of patients with Wilms’ tumor, where a general correlation between the expression of
H19 and
p57Kip2 has been observed (
9).
Since
H19 does not appear to be the global regulator of imprinting of the telomeric genes, we considered the possibility that these genes are regulated by a common mechanism involving DNA methylation. By analogy to the paternally expressed genes in the Prader-Willi complex, which are coordinately expressed on the unmethylated paternal chromosome and silenced on the methylated maternal chromosome (for reviews, see references
15 and
26), we expected
Mash2,
Kvlqt1, and
p57Kip2 to respond in the same way to the absence of DNA methylation. Instead, each gene responded differently.
The imprinting of
p57Kip2 in all tissues, coupled with the activation of its paternal allele in
Dnmt−/− embryos, makes it a good candidate for a direct target of DNA methylation silencing. Indeed, Hatada and Mukai (
19) had identified paternally specific methylation of a single
HhaI site within the
p57Kip2 gene itself. That site cannot be required for
p57Kip2 imprinting, however, because it is deleted in
p57Kip2 mutant mice, where the Neo
r gene retains imprinted expression (
9a). Nevertheless, by analogy to other genes like
H19 and
Snrpn, our findings predict that there should be an imprint control region very close to the
p57Kip2 gene. They also predict that the imprinting of
p57Kip2 may not require the other genes in the cluster.
Kvlqt1, on the other hand, exhibits characteristics of a gene that is an indirect target of methylation. Like Igf2 and Igf2r, the expression of the active allele is extinguished in Dnmt−/− embryos. By analogy to those genes, we would expect that there is a yet-to-be-identified paternally expressed transcript in the locus that competes with Kvlqt1 for expression in the placenta. It would be that gene whose expression is directly silenced by DNA methylation. This is the first suggestion that maternally specific methylation might exist at this cluster.
An indirect mechanism for
Kvlqt1 imprinting is also consistent with its tissue-specific imprinting. Tissue-specific imprinting can best be explained by considering the case of the
Ins2 gene, which is imprinted in extraembryonic tissues but not in the pancreas (
14). It has been proposed that the tissue specificity is a consequence of the position of transcriptional enhancers relative to the epigenetic mark at the
H19 gene (
4,
54). In extraembryonic tissues,
Ins2 expression requires the same 3′ distal transcriptional enhancers that govern
Igf2 and
H19 expression, and thus its expression depends on the transcriptional status of the
H19 gene. In the pancreas, an enhancer that lies 5′ of the gene is activated, and by virtue of its position, it escapes the influence of imprinting (
11). For
Kvlqt1, the target of the competition would be a placenta-specific enhancer.
The gene whose imprinting does not fit into one of these two categories of imprinted genes is
Mash2, which is imprinted and expressed only in the placenta but appears to be unaffected by a loss in DNA methylation. It could be that
Mash2 needs only a small amount of methylation to be imprinted. Li et al. (
32) had noted that the
Igf2r gene was more resistant than
H19 to demethylation in mice carrying a hypomorphic allele of
Dnmt; however, the gene was affected in animals carrying a null allele. Furthermore, even in mice with a null allele of
Dnmt, such as the animals we used in this study, there is residual genomic DNA methylation at a level approximately 5 to 10% of that in wild-type embryos (
33). Thus, it is formally possible that another DNA methylase provides the signal for
Mash2 imprinting. No differentially methylated sites associated with
Mash2 have been detected to date, however (
8a). Moreover, we have observed that a 105-kb P1 clone encompassing the
Mash2 locus displays biallelic expression in transgenic mice, arguing against local controls governing its imprinting (
8a). If methylation is not involved in
Mash2 imprinting, we must invoke an entirely novel imprinting control mechanism, such as heritable changes in chromatin structure.
In conclusion, our results with mice did not uncover long-range effects among the genes on distal chromosomes by known imprinting mechanisms as would be expected if the evolutionary conservation of the entire region is being maintained for regulatory reasons. Furthermore, a single mechanism whereby methylation spreads along the chromosome from a nucleating center can be argued against, since methylation is predicted to be on the paternal chromosome at p57Kip2, as it is for Igf2 and H19, but is expected to be on the maternal chromosome to affect Kvlqt1. The question that remains is whether there is any mechanistic link between p57Kip2, Kvlqt1, and Mash2 imprinting. Their common imprinting in the placenta is consistent with such a connection; however, the distinct ways in which they respond to the loss of DNA methylation cannot be readily reconciled. Thus, it is possible that distal chromosome 7 does not contain a single cluster of imprinted genes but, rather, contains multiple clusters, regulated by individual mechanisms.