The epigenetic events that occur during the development of the mammalian embryo are essential for correct gene expression and cell-lineage determination. Imprinted genes are expressed from only one parental allele due to differential epigenetic marks that are established during gametogenesis. Several theories have been proposed to explain the role that genomic imprinting has played over the course of mammalian evolution, but at present it is not clear if a single hypothesis can fully account for the diversity of roles that imprinted genes play. In this review, we discuss efforts to define the extent of imprinting in the mouse genome, and suggest that different imprinted loci may have been wrought by distinct evolutionary forces. We focus on a group of small imprinted domains, which consist of paternally expressed genes embedded within introns of multiexonic transcripts, to discuss the evolution of imprinting at these loci.

Genomic imprinting is a form of gene dosage regulation in which a gene is expressed from only one of the alleles, in a manner dependent on the parent of origin. The mechanisms governing imprinted gene expression have been investigated in detail and have greatly contributed to our understanding of genome regulation in general. Both DNA sequence features, such as CpG islands, and epigenetic features, such as DNA methylation and non-coding RNAs, play important roles in achieving imprinted expression. However, the relative importance of these factors varies depending on the locus in question. Defining the minimal features that are absolutely required for imprinting would help us to understand how imprinting has evolved mechanistically. Imprinted retrogenes are a subset of imprinted loci that are relatively simple in their genomic organisation, being distinct from large imprinting clusters, and have the potential to be used as tools to address this question. Here, we compare the repeat element content of imprinted retrogene loci with non-imprinted controls that have a similar locus organisation. We observe no significant differences that are conserved between mouse and human, suggesting that the paucity of SINEs and relative abundance of LINEs at imprinted loci reported by others is not a sequence feature universally required for imprinting.

Imprinted retrotransposed genes share a common genomic organization including a promoter-associated differentially methylated region (DMR) and a position within the intron of a multi-exonic 'host' gene. In the mouse, at least one transcript of the host gene is also subject to genomic imprinting. Human retrogene orthologues are imprinted and we reveal that human host genes are not imprinted. This coincides with genomic rearrangements that occurred during primate evolution, which increase the separation between the retrogene DMRs and the host genes. To address the mechanisms governing imprinted retrogene expression, histone modifications were assayed at the DMRs. For the mouse retrogenes, the active mark H3K4me2 was associated with the unmethylated paternal allele, while the methylated maternal allele was enriched in repressive marks including H3K9me3 and H4K20me3. Two human retrogenes showed monoallelic enrichment of active, but not of repressive marks suggesting a partial uncoupling of the relationship between DNA methylation and repressive histone methylation, possibly due to the smaller size and lower CpG density of these DMRs. Finally, we show that the genes immediately flanking the host genes in mouse and human are biallelically expressed in a range of tissues, suggesting that these loci are distinct from large imprinted clusters.

DNA binding factors are essential for regulating gene expression. CTCF and cohesin are DNA binding factors with central roles in chromatin organization and gene expression. We determined the sites of CTCF and cohesin binding to DNA in mouse brain, genome wide and in an allele-specific manner with high read-depth ChIP-seq. By comparing our results with existing data for mouse liver and embryonic stem (ES) cells, we investigated the tissue specificity of CTCF binding sites. ES cells have fewer unique CTCF binding sites occupied than liver and brain, consistent with a ground-state pattern of CTCF binding that is elaborated during differentiation. CTCF binding sites without the canonical consensus motif were highly tissue specific. In brain, a third of CTCF and cohesin binding sites coincide, consistent with the potential for many interactions between cohesin and CTCF but also many instances of independent action. In the context of genomic imprinting, CTCF and/or cohesin bind to a majority but not all differentially methylated regions, with preferential binding to the unmethylated parental allele. Whether the parental allele-specific methylation was established in the parental germlines or post-fertilization in the embryo is not a determinant in CTCF or cohesin binding. These findings link CTCF and cohesin with the control regions of a subset of imprinted genes, supporting the notion that imprinting control is mechanistically diverse.

Imprinted genes undergo epigenetic modifications during gametogenesis, which lead to transcriptional silencing of either the maternally or the paternally derived allele in the subsequent generation. Previous work has suggested an association between imprinting and the products of retrotransposition, but the nature of this link is not well defined. In the mouse, three imprinted genes have been described that originated by retrotransposition and overlap CpG islands which undergo methylation during oogenesis. Nap1l5, U2af1-rs1, and Inpp5f_v2 are likely to encode proteins and share two additional genetic properties: they are located within introns of host transcripts and are derived from parental genes on the X chromosome. Using these sequence features alone, we identified Mcts2, a novel candidate imprinted retrogene on mouse Chromosome 2. Mcts2 has been validated as imprinted by demonstrating that it is paternally expressed and undergoes promoter methylation during oogenesis. The orthologous human retrogenes NAP1L5, INPP5F_V2, and MCTS2 are also shown to be paternally expressed, thus delineating novel imprinted loci on human Chromosomes 4, 10, and 20. The striking correlation between imprinting and X chromosome provenance suggests that retrotransposed elements with homology to the X chromosome can be selectively targeted for methylation during mammalian oogenesis.

Alternative polyadenylation increases transcriptome diversity by generating multiple transcript isoforms from a single gene. It is thought that this process can be subject to epigenetic regulation, but few specific examples of this have been reported. We previously showed that the Mcts2/H13 locus is subject to genomic imprinting and that alternative polyadenylation of H13 transcripts occurs in an allele-specific manner, regulated by epigenetic mechanisms. Here, we demonstrate that allele-specific polyadenylation occurs at another imprinted locus with similar features. Nap1l5 is a retrogene expressed from the paternally inherited allele, is situated within an intron of a 'host' gene Herc3, and overlaps a CpG island that is differentially methylated between the parental alleles. In mouse brain, internal Herc3 polyadenylation sites upstream of Nap1l5 are used on the paternally derived chromosome, from which Nap1l5 is expressed, whereas a downstream site is used more frequently on the maternally derived chromosome. Ablating DNA methylation on the maternal allele at the Nap1l5 promoter increases the use of an internal Herc3 polyadenylation site and alters exon splicing. These changes demonstrate the influence of epigenetic mechanisms in regulating Herc3 alternative mRNA processing. Internal Herc3 polyadenylation correlates with expression levels of Nap1l5, suggesting a possible role for transcriptional interference. Similar mechanisms may regulate alternative polyadenylation elsewhere in the genome.

A screen for imprinted genes on mouse Chromosome 7 recently identified Inpp5f_v2, a paternally expressed retrogene lying within an intron of Inpp5f. Here, we identify a novel paternally expressed variant of the Inpp5f gene (Inpp5f_v3) that shows a number of unusual features. Inpp5f_v3 initiates from a CpG-rich repeat region adjoining two B1 elements, despite previous reports that SINEs are generally excluded from imprinted promoters. Accordingly, we find that the Inpp5f_v3 promoter acquires methylation around the time of implantation, when many repeat families undergo de novo epigenetic silencing. Methylation is then lost specifically on the paternally derived allele during the latter stages of embryonic development, resulting in imprinted transcriptional activation on the demethylated allele. Methylation analyses in embryos lacking maternal methylation imprints suggest that the primary imprinting mark resides within an intronic CpG island approximately 1 kb downstream of the Inpp5f_v3 transcriptional start site. These data support the hypothesis that SINEs can influence gene expression by attracting de novo methylation during development, a property likely to explain their exclusion from other imprinted promoters.

Retroposition is a widespread phenomenon resulting in the generation of new genes that are initially related to a parent gene via very high coding sequence similarity. We examine the evolutionary fate of four retrogenes generated by such an event; mouse Inpp5f_v2, Mcts2, Nap1l5, and U2af1-rs1. These genes are all subject to the epigenetic phenomenon of parental imprinting. We first provide new data on the age of these retrogene insertions. Using codon-based models of sequence evolution, we show these retrogenes have diverse evolutionary trajectories, including divergence from the parent coding sequence under positive selection pressure, purifying selection pressure maintaining parent-retrogene similarity, and neutral evolution. Examination of the expression pattern of retrogenes shows an atypical, broad pattern across multiple tissues. Protein 3D structure modeling reveals that a positively selected residue in U2af1-rs1, not shared by its parent, may influence protein conformation. Our case-by-case analysis of the evolution of four imprinted retrogenes reveals that this interesting class of imprinted genes, while similar in regulation and sequence characteristics, follow very varied evolutionary paths.