Neurogenomics is the study of how the genome of an organism influences the development and function of its nervous system. This field intends to unite functional genomics and neurobiology in order to understand the nervous system as a whole from a genomic perspective.
The nervous system in vertebrates is made up of two major types of cells – neuroglial cells and neurons. Hundreds of different types of neurons exist in humans, with varying functions – some of them process external stimuli; others generate a response to stimuli; others organize in centralized structures (brain, spinal ganglia) that are responsible for cognition, perception, and regulation of motor functions. Neurons in these centralized locations tend to organize in giant networks and communicate extensively with each other. Prior to the availability of expression arrays and DNA sequencing methodologies, researchers sought to understand the cellular behaviour of neurons (including synapse formation and neuronal development and regionalization in the human nervous system) in terms of the underlying molecular biology and biochemistry, without any understanding of the influence of a neuron's genome on its development and behaviour. As our understanding of the genome has expanded, the role of networks of gene interactions in the maintenance of neuronal function and behaviour has garnered interest in the neuroscience research community. Neurogenomics allows scientists to study the nervous system of organisms in the context of these underlying regulatory and transcriptional networks. This approach is distinct from neurogenetics, which emphasizes the role of single genes without a network-interaction context when studying the nervous system.

Approaches
Advent of high-throughput biology
In 1999, Cirelli & Tononi first reported the association of genome-wide brain gene expression profiling (using microarrays) with a behavioural phenotype in mice. Since then, global brain gene expression data, derived from microarrays, has been aligned to various behavioural quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and reported in several publications. However, microarray based approaches have their own problems that confound analysis – probe saturation can result in very small measurable variance of gene expression between genetically unique individuals, and the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can result in hybridization artifacts. Furthermore, due to their probe-based nature, microarrays can miss out on many types of transcripts (ncRNAs, miRNAs, and mRNA isoforms). Probes can also have species-specific binding affinities that can confound comparative analysis.
Notably, the association between behavioural patterns and high penetrance single gene loci falls under the purview of neurogenetics research, wherein the focus is to identify a simple causative relationship between a single, high penetrance gene and an observed function/behaviour.  However, it has been shown that several neurological diseases tend to be polygenic, being influenced by multiple different genes and regulatory regions instead of one gene alone. There has hence been a shift from single gene approaches to network approaches for studying neurological development and diseases, a shift that has been greatly propelled by the advent of next generation sequencing methodologies.

Next-generation sequencing approaches
Twin studies have revealed that schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are highly heritable, genetically complex psychiatric disorders. However, linkage studies have largely failed at identifying causative variants for psychiatric disorders such as these, primarily because of their complex genetic architecture. Multiple low penetrance risk variants can be aggregated in affected individuals and families, and sets of causative variants could vary across families. Studies along these lines have determined a polygenic basis for several psychiatric disorders. Several independently occurring de novo mutations in patients Alzheimer's disease have been found to disrupt a shared set of functional pathways involved with neuronal signalling, for example. The quest to understand the causative biology of psychiatric disorders is hence greatly assisted by the ability to analyse entire genomes of affected and unaffected individuals in an unbiased manner.With the availability of massively parallel next generation sequencing methodologies, scientists have been able to look beyond the probe based captures of expressed genes. RNA-seq, for example, identifies 25-60% more expressed genes than microarrays do. In the upcoming field of neurogenomics, it is hoped that by understanding the genomic profiles of different parts of the brain, we might be able to improve our understanding of how the interactions between genes and pathways influence cellular function and development. This approach is expected to be able to identify the secondary gene networks that are disrupted in neurological disorders, subsequently assisting drug development stratagems for brain diseases. The BRAIN initiative launched in 2013, for example, seeks to "inform the development of future treatments for brain disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury"  .
Rare variant association studies (RVAS) have highlighted the role of de novo mutations in several congenital and early-childhood-onset disorders like autism. Several of these protein disrupting mutations have been able to be identified only with the aid of whole genome sequencing efforts, and validated with RNA-Seq. Additionally, these mutations are not statistically enriched in individual genes, but rather, exhibit patterns of statistical enrichment in groups of genes associated with networks regulating neurological development and maintenance. Such a discovery would have been impossible with prior gene-centric approaches (neurogenetics, behavioural neuroscience). Neurogenomics allows for a high-throughput system-based approach for understanding the polygenic basis of neuropsychiatric disorders.

Imaging studies and optical mapping
When autism was identified as a distinct biological disorder in the 1980s, researchers found that autistic individuals showed a brain growth abnormality in the cerebellum in their early developmental years. Subsequent research has indicated that 90% of autistic children have a larger brain volume than their peers by 2 to 4 years of age, and show an expansion in the white and gray matter content in the cerebrum. The white and gray matter in the cerebrum is associated with learning and cognition respectively, and the formation of amyloid plaques in the white matter has been associated with Alzheimer's disease. These findings highlighted the influence of structural variance in the brain on psychiatric disorders, and have motivated the use of imaging technologies to map regions of divergence between healthy and diseased brains. Furthermore, while it may not always be possible to retrieve biological specimens from different areas live human brains, neuroimaging techniques offer a noninvasive means to understanding the biological basis of neurological disorders. It is hoped that an understanding of localization patterns of different psychiatric diseases could in turn inform network analysis studies in neurogenomics.

MRI
Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can be used to identify the structural composition of the brain. Particularly in the context of neurogenomics, MRI has played an extensive role in the study of Alzheimer's disease over the past four decades. It was initially used to rule out other causes of dementia, but recent studies indicated the presence of characteristic changes in patients with Alzheimer's disease. As a result, MRI scans are currently being used as a neuroimaging tool to help identify the temporal and spatial pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, such as specific cerebral alterations and amyloid imaging.The ease and non-invasive nature of MRI scans has motivated research projects that trace the development and onset of psychiatric diseases in the brain. Alzheimer disease has become a key candidate in this topographical approach to psychiatric diseases. For example, MRI scans are currently being used to track the resting and task-dependent functional profiles of brains in children with autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease. These studies have found indications of early onset brain alterations in at-risk individuals for Alzheimer's disease. The Autism Center of Excellence at University of California, San Diego, is also conducting MRI studies with children between 12 and 42 months, in the hopes of characterizing brain development abnormalities in children who present behavioural symptoms of autism.Additional research has indicated that there are specifics patterns of atrophy in the cerebrum (as a repercussion of neurodegeneration) in different neurological disorders and diseases. These disease-specific patterns of progression of atrophy can be identified with MRI scans, and provide a clinical phenotype context to neurogenomic research. The temporal information about disease progression provided by this approach can also potentially inform the interpretation of gene network-level perturbations in psychiatric diseases.

Optical mapping
One prohibitive feature of 2nd generation sequencing methodologies is the upper limit on the genomic range accessible by mate-pairing. Optical mapping is an emerging methodology used to span large-scale variants that cannot usually be detected using paired end reads. This approach has been successfully applied to detect structural variants in oligodendroglioma, a type of brain cancer. Recent work has also highlighted the versatility of optical maps in improving existing genome assemblies. Chromosomal rearrangements, microdeletions, and large-scale translocations have been associated with impaired neurological and cognitive function, for example in hereditary neuropathy and neurofibromatosis. Optical mapping can significantly improve variant detection and inform gene interaction network models for the diseased state in neurological disorders.

Studying other brain diseases
Apart from neurological disorders, there are additional diseases that manifest in the brain and have formed exemplar use-case scenarios for the application of brain imaging in network analysis. In a classic example of imaging-genomic analyses, a research study in 2012 compared MRI scans and gene expression profiles of 104 glioma patients in order to distinguish treatment outcomes and identify novel targetable genomic pathways in Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM). Researchers found two distinct groups of patients with significantly different organization of white matter (invasive vs non-invasive). Subsequent pathway analysis of the gene expression data indicated mitochondrial dysfunction as the top canonical pathway in an aggressive, low-mortality GBM phenotype.Expansion of brain imaging approaches to other diseases can be used to rule out other medical illnesses while diagnosing psychiatric disorders, but cannot be used to inform the presence or absence of a psychiatric disorder.

Research developmental models
In humans
The current approaches in collecting gene expression data in human brains are to use either microarrays or RNA-seq. Currently, it is rare to gather "live" brain tissue – only when treatments involve brain surgery is there a chance that brain tissue is collected during the procedure. This is the case with epilepsy.
Currently, gene expression data is usually collected on post mortem brains and this is often a barrier to neurogenomics research in humans. After death, the amount of time between death and when the data from the post mortem brain is collected is known as the post mortem interval (PMI). Since RNA degrades after death, a fresh brain is optimal – but not always available. This in turn can influence a variety of downstream analyses. Consideration should be taken of the following factors when working with 'omics data collected from post-mortem brains:

Ideally, human brains should be controlled for PMIs for a given study.
The cause of death is also an important variable to consider in the collection of human brain samples for the purposes of neurogenomics research. For example, brain samples of individuals with clinical depression are often collected after suicide. Certain conditions of death, such as drug overdose or self-inflicted gunshot, will alter the expression of the brain.
Another issue with studying gene expression in brains is the cellular heterogeneity of brain tissue samples. Bulk brain samples may vary in proportions of specific cell populations from case to case. This can impact the gene expression signatures and may significantly change differential expression analysis.
One approach to address this issue is to use single cell RNA-seq. This would control for a specific cell type. However, this solution is only applicable where studies are not cell-type specific.Differential diagnosis also remains a critical pre-analytical confounder of cohort-wide studies of spectrum neurological disorders. Specifically, this has been noted to be a problem for Alzheimer's disease and autism spectrum disorder studies. Furthermore, as our understanding of the diverse symptoms and genomic underpinnings of various neurogenomic disorders improves, the diagnostic criteria itself undergoes rearrangements and review.

Animal models
Ongoing genomics research in neurological disorders tends to use animal models (and corresponding gene homologs) to understand the network interactions underlying a particular disorder due to ethical issues surrounding the retrieval of biological specimens from live human brains. This, too, is not without its roadblocks.
Neurogenomic research with a model organism is contingent on the availability of a fully sequenced and annotated reference genome. Additionally, the RNA profiles (miRNA, ncRNA, mRNA) of the model organism need to be well catalogued, and any inferences applied from them to humans must have a basis in functional/sequence homology.

Zebrafish
Zebrafish development relies on gene networks that are highly conserved among all vertebrates. Additionally, with an extremely well annotated set of 12,000 genes and 1,000 early development mutants that are actually visible in the optically clear zebrafish embryos and larvae, zebrafish offer a sophisticated system for mutagenesis and real-time imaging of developing pathologies. This early development model has been employed to study the nervous system at cellular resolution. The zebrafish model system has already been used to study neuroregeneration and severe polygenic human diseases like cancer and heart disease. Several zebrafish mutants with behavioural variations in response to cocaine and alcohol dosage have been isolated and can also form a basis for studying the pathogenesis of behavioural disorders.

Rodent
Rodent models have been preeminent in studying human disorders. These models have been extensively annotated with gene homologs of several monogenic disorders in humans. Knockout studies of these homologs have led to expansion of our understanding of network interactions of genes in human tissues. For example, the FMR1 gene has been implicated with autism from a number of network studies. Using a knockout of FMR1 in mice creates the model for Fragile X Syndrome, one of the disorders in the Autism spectrum.Mice xenografts are particularly useful for drug discovery, and were extremely important in the discovery of early anti-psychotic drugs. The development of animal models for complex psychiatric diseases has also improved over the last few years. Rodent models have demonstrated behavioural phenotype changes resembling a positive schizophrenia state, either after genetic manipulation or after treatment with drugs that target the areas of the brain suspected to influence hyperactivity or neurodevelopment. Interest has been generated in identifying the network disruptions mediated by these laboratory manipulations, and collection of genomic data from rodent studies has contributed significantly to a better understanding of the genomics of psychiatric diseases.
The first mouse brain transcriptome was generated in 2008. Since then, extensive work has been done with building social-stress mice models to study the pathway level expression signatures of various psychiatric diseases. A recent paper simulated features of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in mice, and profiled the entire transcriptome of these mice. The authors found differential regulation in many biological pathways, some of which were implicated in anxiety disorders (hyperactivity, fear response), mood disorders, and impaired cognition. These findings are backed by extensive transcriptomic analyses of anxiety disorders, and expression level changes in biological pathways involved with fear learning and memory are thought to contribute to the behavioural manifestations of these disorders. It is thought that functional enrichment of genes involved in long term synaptic potentiation, depression, and plasticity has an important role to play in the acquisition, consolidation, and maintenance of traumatic memories underlying anxiety disorders.

Experimental mice models for psychiatric disorders
A common approach to using a mouse model is to apply an experimental treatment to a pregnant mouse in order to affect a whole litter. However, a key issue in the field is the treatment of litters in a statistical analysis. Most studies consider the total number of offspring produced as that may lead to an increase in statistical power. However, the correct way is to count by the number of litters and to normalize based on litter size. It was found that several autism studies incorrectly performed their statistical analyses based on total number of offspring instead of number of litters.Several anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) involve heterogeneous changes in several different brain regions, such as the hippocampus, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens. The cellular encoding of traumatic events and the behavioral responses triggered by such events has been shown to lie primarily in changes in signaling molecules associated with synaptic transmission.
Global gene expression profiling of the various gene regions implicated in fear and anxiety processing, using mice models, has led to the identification of temporally and spatially distinct sets of differentially expressed genes. Pathway analysis of these genes has indicated possible roles in neurogenesis and anxiety-related behavioural responses, alongside other functional and phenotypic observations.Mice models for brain research have contributed significantly to drug development and increased our understanding of the genomic underpinnings of several neurological diseases in the last generation. Chlorpromazine, the first antipsychotic drug (discovered in 1951), was identified as a viable treatment option after it was shown to suppress response to aversive stimuli in rats in a behavioural screen.

Challenges
The modelling and assessment of latent symptoms (thoughts, verbal learning, social interactions, cognitive behaviour) remains a challenge when using model organisms to study psychiatric disorders with a complex genetic pathology. For example, a given genotype+phenotype in a mouse model must imitate the genomic underpinnings of a phenotype observed in a human.
This is a particularly crucial item of consideration in spectrum disorders such as autism. Autism is a disorder whose symptoms can be divided into two categories: (i) deficits of social interactions and (ii) repetitive behaviours and restricted interests. Since mice tend to be more social creatures amongst all members of the order Rodentia currently being used as model organisms, mice are generally used to model human psychiatric disorders as closely as possible. Particularly for autism, the following work-arounds are currently in place to emulate human behavioural symptoms:

For the first diagnostic category of impaired social behaviour, mice are subject to a social assay intended to represent typical autistic social deficits. Normal social behaviour for mice includes sniffing, following, physical contact and allogrooming. Vocal communication could be used as well.
There are a number of ways the second diagnostic category can be observed in mice. Examples of repetitive behaviours can include excessive circling, self-grooming and excessive digging. Usually these behaviours would be performed consistently within a long measurement of time (i.e. self-grooming for 10 minutes).While repetitive behaviours are easily observable, it is difficult to characterize actual restricted interests of mice. One aspect of restricted interests of autistic individuals is the "insistence of sameness"—the concept that autistic individuals require their environment to remain consistent. If that environment should change, the individual would experience stress and anxiety. There has been reported success in confirming a mouse model of autism by changing the mouse's environment.In any of these experiments, the ‘autistic’ mice have a ‘normal’ socializing partner and the scientists observing the mice are unaware ("blind") to the genotypes of the mice.

Gene expression in the brain
The gene expression profile of the central nervous system (CNS) is unique. Eighty percent of all human genes are expressed in the brain; 5,000 of these genes are solely expressed in the CNS. The human brain has the highest amount of gene expression of all studied mammalian brains. In comparison, tissues outside of the brain will have more similar expression levels in comparison to their mammalian counterparts. One source of the increased expression levels in the human brain is from the non-protein coding region of the genome. Numerous studies have indicated that the human brain have a higher level of expression in regulatory regions in comparison to other mammalian brains. There is also notable enrichment for more alternative splicing events in the human brain.

Spatial differences
Gene expression profiles also vary within specific regions of the brain. A microarray study showed that the transcriptome profile of the CNS clusters together based on region. A different study characterized the regulation of gene expression across 10 different regions based on their eQTL signals. The cause of the varying expression profiles relates to function, neuron migration and cellular heterogeneity of the region. Even the three layers of the cerebral cortex have distinct expression profiles.A study completed at Harvard Medical School in 2014 was able to identify developmental lineages stemming from single base neuronal mutations. The researchers sequenced 36 neurons from the cerebral cortex of three normal individuals, and found that highly expressed genes, and neural associated genes, were significantly enriched for single-neuron SNVs. These SNVs, in turn, were found to be correlated with chromatin markers of transcription from fetal brain.

Development patterns in humans
Gene expression of the brain changes throughout the different phases of life. The most significant levels of expression are found during early development, with the rate of gene expression being highest during fetal development. This results from the rapid growth of neurons in the embryo. Neurons at this stage are undergoing neuronal differentiation, cell proliferation, migration events and dendritic and synaptic development. Gene expression patterns shift closer towards specialized functional profiles during embryonic development, however, certain developmental steps are still ongoing at parturition. Consequently, gene expression profiles of the two brain hemispheres appear asymmetrical at birth. At birth, gene expression profiles appear asymmetrical between brain hemispheres. As development continues, the gene expression profiles become similar between the hemispheres.  Given a healthy adult, expression profiles stay relatively consistent from the late twenties into the late forties. From the fifties onwards, there is significant decrease in the expression of genes important for regular function. Despite this, there is an increase in the diversity of genes being expressed across the brain. This age related change in expression may be correlated with GC content. At later stages of life, there is an increase in the induction of low GC-content pivotal genes as well as an increase in the repression of high GC-content pivotal genes. Another cause of the shift in gene diversity is the accumulation of mutations and DNA damage. Gene expression studies show that genes that accrue these age-related mutations are consistent between individuals in the aging population. Genes that are highly expressed at development decrease significantly at late stages in life, whereas genes that are highly repressed at development increase significantly at the late stages.

Evolution of the mammalian brain
The evolution of Homo sapiens since the divergence from the primate common ancestor has shown a marked expansion in the size and complexity of the brain, especially in the cerebral cortex. In comparison to primates, the human cerebral cortex has a larger surface area but differs only slightly in thickness. Many large scale studies in understanding the differences of the human brain from other species have indicated expansion of gene families and changes in alternative splicing to be responsible for the corollary increase in cognitive capabilities and cooperative behaviour in humans. However, we are yet to determine the exact phenotypic consequences of all these changes. One difficulty is that only primates have developed subdivisions in their cerebral cortex, making the modeling of human specific neurological problems difficult to mimic in rodents.Sequence data is used to understand the evolutionary genetic changes which led to the development of the human CNS. We can then understand how the neurological phenotypes differ between species. Comparative genomics entails comparison of sequence data across a phylogeny to pinpoint the genotypic changes that occur within specific lineages, and understand how these changes might have arisen. The increase in high quality mammalian reference sequences generally makes comparative analysis better as it increases statistical power. However, the increase in number of species in a phylogeny does risk adding unnecessary noise as the alignments of the orthologous sequences usually decrease in quality. Furthermore, different classes of species will have significant differences in their phenotypes.Despite this, comparative genomics has allowed us to connect the genetic changes found in a phylogeny to specific pathways. In order to determine this, lineages are tested for the functional changes that accrue over time. This is often measured as a ratio of nonsynonymous substitutions to synonymous substitutions or the dN/dS ratio (sometimes, further abbreviated to ω). When the dN/dS ratio is greater than 1, this indicates positive selection. A dN/dS ratio equal to 1 is evidence of no selective pressures. A dN/dS ratio less than 1 indicates negative selection. For example, the conserved regions of the genome will generally have a dN/dS ratio of less than 1 since any changes to those positions will likely be detrimental. Of the genes expressed in the human brain, it is estimated that 342 of them have a dN/dS ratio greater than 1 in the human lineage in comparison to other primate lineages. This indicates positive selection on the human lineage for brain phenotypes. Understanding the significance of the positive selection is generally the next step. For example, ASPM, CDK5RAP2 and NIN are genes that are positively selected for on the human lineage and have been directly correlated with brain size. This finding may help elucidate why human brains are larger than other mammalian brains.

Network level expression differences between species
It is thought that gene expression changes, being the ultimate response for any genetic changes, are a good proxy for understanding phenotypic differences within biological samples. Comparative studies have revealed a range of differences in the transcriptional controls between primates and rodents. For example, the gene CNTNAP2 is specifically enriched for in the prefrontal cortex. The mouse homolog of CNTNAP2 is not expressed in the mouse brain. CNTNAP2 has been implicated in cognitive functions of language as well as neurodevelopmental disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder. This suggests that the control of expression plays a significant role in the development in unique human cognitive function.  As a consequence, a number of studies have investigated the brain specific enhancers. Transcription factors such as SOX5 have been found to be positively selected for on the human lineage. Gene expression studies in humans, chimpanzees and rhesus macaques, have identified human specific co-expression networks, and an elevation in gene expression in the human cortex in comparison to primates.

Disorders
Neurogenomic disorders manifest themselves as neurological disorders with a complex genetic architecture and a non-Mendelian-like pattern of inheritance. Some examples of these disorders include Bipolar disorder and Schizophrenia. Several genes may be involved in the manifestation of the disorder, and mutations in such disorders are generally rare and de novo. Hence it becomes extremely unlikely to observe the same (potentially causative) variant in two unrelated individuals affected with the same neurogenomic disorder. Ongoing research has implicated several de novo exonic variations and structural variations in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), for example. The allelic spectrum of the rare and common variants in neurogenomic disorders therefore necessitates a need for large cohort studies in order to effectively exclude low effect variants and identify the overarching pathways frequently mutated in the different disorders, rather than specific genes and specific high penetrance mutations.
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) has been used in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) to characterize genetic variants associated with neurogenomic disorders. However, the impact of these variants cannot always be verified because of the non-Mendelian inheritance patterns observed in several of these disorders. Another prohibitive feature in network analysis is the lack of large-scale datasets for many psychiatric (neurogenomic) diseases. Since several diseases with neurogenomic underpinnings tend to have a polygenic basis, several nonspecific, rare, and partially penetrant de novo mutations in different patients can contribute to the same observed range of phenotypes, as is the case with Autism Spectrum Disorder and schizophrenia. Extensive research in alcohol dependence has also highlighted the need for high-quality genomic profiling of large sample sets when studying polygenic, spectrum disorders.
The 1000 Genomes Project was a successful demonstration of how a concerted effort to acquire representative genomic data from the broad spectrum of humans can result in identification of actionable biological insights for different diseases. However, a large-scale initiative like this is still lacking in the field of neurogenomic disorders specifically.

Modelling psychiatric disorders in neurogenomics research – issues
One major GWAS study identified 13 new risk loci for schizophrenia. Studying the impact of these candidates would ideally demonstrate a schizophrenia phenotype in animal models, which is usually difficult to observe due to its manifestation as a latent personality. This approach is able to determine the molecular impact the candidate gene. Ideally the candidate genes would have a neurological impact, which in turn would suggest that it plays a role in the neurological disorder. For example, in the aforementioned schizophrenia GWAS study, Ripke and colleagues determined that these candidate genes were all involved in calcium signalling. Alternatively, one can study these variants in model organisms in the context of affected neurological function. It is important to note that the high penetrance variants of these disorders tend to be de novo mutations.
A further complication to studying neurogenomic disorders is the heterogeneous nature of the disorder. In many of these disorders, the mutations observed from case to case do not stay consistent. In autism, an affected individual may experience a large amount of deleterious mutations in gene X. A different affected individual may not have any significant mutations on gene X but have a large amount of mutations in gene Y. The alternative is to determine if gene X and gene Y impact the same biochemical pathway—one that influences a neurological function. A bioinformatics network analysis is one approach to this problem. Network analyses methodologies provide a generalized, systems overview of a molecular pathway.
One final complication to consider is the comorbidity of neurogenomic genes. Several disorders, especially at the more severe ends of the spectrum tend to be comorbid with each other. For example, more severe cases of ASD tend to be associated with intellectual disability (ID). This raises the question of whether or not there are true, unique ASD genes and unique ID genes or if there are just genes just associated with neurological function that can be mutated into an abnormal phenotype. One confounding factor may be the actual diagnostic category and methods of the spectrum disorders as symptoms between severe disorders may be similar. One study investigated the comorbid symptoms between groups of ID and ASD, and found no significant difference between the symptoms of ID children, ASD children with ID and ASD children without ID. Future research may help establish a more stringent genetic basis for the diagnoses of these disorders.

Network analysis
The main goal of network analysis in neurogenomics is to identify statistically significant nonrandom associations between genes that contain risk variants. While several algorithm implementations of this approach already exist, the general steps for network analysis remain the same.

The analytical process starts out with the identification of a biological network based on experimental validation. This can be a gene co-expression network, or a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network. The nodes of the network will be clustered.
Subsequently, a specific list of genes with known associations to a particular phenotype of interest is generated. This list could be determined by experimental data, agnostic of genetic studies in psychiatric disorders. This is referred to as a 'hit list'.
Genes that belong to the hit list as well as the biological network selected in the first step are marked as such.
This is followed by a guilt-by-association (GBA) step. This means that clusters within the biological network that have a significant amount of genes from the hit list are investigated further using functional enrichment tools and database querying for the pathways in which these high scoring cluster genes participate
Thus the biological associations of the high-scoring, experimentally implicated cluster members are investigated, expanding the search area from beyond the initial hit list to include gene members of additional pathways that may have significant association with the initial biological network under consideration. This results in a set of candidate genes.The underlying principle of this approach is that the genes that cluster together, will also jointly affect the same molecular pathway. Again, they would ideally be part of a neurological function. The candidate genes can then be used to prioritize variants for wet lab validation.

Neuropharmacology
Historically, due to the behavioural stimulation manifested as a symptom in several the neurogenomic disorders, the therapies would rely mostly on anti-psychotics or antidepressants. These classes of medications would suppress common symptoms of the disorders, but with questionable efficacy. The biggest barrier to neruopharmacogenomic research was the cohort sizes. Given newly available large-cohort sequencing data, there has been a recent push to expand therapeutic options. The heterogenous nature of neurological diseases is the key motivation for personalized medicine approaches to their therapies. It is rare to find single high penetrance causative genes in neurological diseases. The genomic profiles understandably vary between cases, and logically, the therapies would need to vary between cases. Further complicating the issue is that many of these disorders are spectrum disorders. Their genetic etiology will vary within this spectrum. For example, severe ASD is associated with high penetrance de novo mutations. Milder forms of ASD is usually associated with a mixture of common variants.
The key issue then is the translation of these newly identified genetic variants (from Copy Number Variant studies, candidate gene sequencing and high throughput sequencing technologies) into an intervention for patients with neurogenomic disorders. One aspect will be if the neurological disorder are medically actionable (i.e. is there a simple metabolic pathway that a therapy can target). For example, specific cases of ASD have been associated with microdeletions on TMLHE gene. This gene codes for the enzyme of carnitine biosynthesis. Supplements to elevate carnitine levels appeared to alleviate certain ASD symptoms but the study was confounded by many influencing factors. As mentioned earlier, using a gene network approach will help identify relevant pathways of interest. Many neuropharmacogenomic approaches have focused on targeting the downstream products of these pathways.

Blood brain barrier
Studies in animal models for several brain diseases has shown that the blood brain barrier (BBB) undergoes modification at many levels; for example, the surface glycoprotein composition can influence the types of HIV-1 strains transported by the BBB. The BBB has been found to be key in the onset of Alzheimer's disease. It is extremely difficult, however, to be able to study this in humans due to obvious restrictions with accessing the brain and retrieving biological specimens for sequencing or morphological analysis. Mice models of the BBB and models of disease states have served well in conceptualizing the BBB as a regulatory interface between disease and good health in the brain.

Personalized neurobiology
The heterogenous nature of neurological diseases is the key motivation for personalized medicine approaches to their therapies. Genomic samples of individual patients could be used to identify predictive factors, or to better understand the specific prognosis of a neurogenomic disease, and use this information to guide treatment options. While there is a clear clinical utility to this approach, the adaptation of this approach is still nonexistent.
There are various issues prohibiting the application of personalized genomics to the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Firstly, the causative network biology of several spectrum disorders with neurogenomic underpinnings is not fully understood yet, in spite of extensive studies conducted with disorders like Autism Spectrum and schizophrenia. Thus, the analytical validity of standing hypotheses concerning the etiology of neurogenomic disorders has still not been fully established and is subject to debate and controversy.
The clinical validity of genetic variants that have shown to be highly correlated with specific neurogenomic disorders is often a major cause of concern. The interpretation of these test results, and subsequent decision making, are a complicated undertaking given the polygenic nature of many of these disorders. Complicating things further, it has been shown that pre-emptive intervention in major psychiatric disorders does not always reduce the risk for the disorder. Such intervention might not even be available for at-risk offspring of affected adults, thereby limiting the 'medical actionability' of the data.
Ethical concerns have also been raised regarding the safeguarding of personal genomic information, and how best to approach the burden of incidental findings and family risk assessment.
Consanguinity and in-breeding can lead to selective enrichment of rare, otherwise low penetrance genetic mutations attributed to various symptoms of neurogenomic disorders. Thus, the interpretation of family-specific genetic mutations and/or network-level disruptions in the onset of a rare psychiatric disorder requires careful consideration of the motivations of participants included in the study.
That said, these issues can be addressed by effective education and counseling, and collection of genomic data from patients with psychiatric disorders should not be disqualified solely on this basis. The data itself serves as a dynamic health resource and can significantly further our understanding of the genomic basis of several psychiatric disorders.

See also
Neuroinformatics
1000 Genomes Project
Genome-wide association study

== References ==


Nondisjunction is the failure of homologous chromosomes or sister chromatids to separate properly during cell division (mitosis/meiosis). There are three forms of nondisjunction: failure of a pair of homologous chromosomes to separate in meiosis I, failure of sister chromatids to separate during meiosis II, and failure of sister chromatids to separate during mitosis. Nondisjunction results in daughter cells with abnormal chromosome numbers (aneuploidy).
Calvin Bridges and Thomas Hunt Morgan are credited with discovering nondisjunction in Drosophila melanogaster sex chromosomes in the spring of 1910, while working in the Zoological Laboratory of Columbia University.

Types
In general, nondisjunction can occur in any form of cell division that involves ordered distribution of chromosomal material. Higher animals have three distinct forms of such cell divisions: Meiosis I and  meiosis II are specialized forms of cell division occurring during generation of gametes (eggs and sperm) for sexual reproduction,  mitosis is the form of cell division used by all other cells of the body.

Meiosis II
Ovulated eggs become arrested in metaphase II until fertilization triggers the second meiotic division. Similar to the segregation events of mitosis, the pairs of sister chromatids resulting from the separation of bivalents in meiosis I are further separated in anaphase of meiosis II. In oocytes, one sister chromatid is segregated into the second polar body, while the other stays inside the egg. During spermatogenesis, each meiotic division is symmetric such that each primary spermatocyte gives rise to 2 secondary spermatocytes after meiosis I, and eventually 4 spermatids after meiosis II. Meiosis II-nondisjunction may also result in aneuploidy syndromes, but only to a much smaller extent than do segregation failures in meiosis I.

Mitosis
Division of somatic cells through mitosis is preceded by replication of the genetic material in S phase. As a result, each chromosome consists of two sister chromatids held together at the centromere. In the anaphase of mitosis, sister chromatids separate and migrate to opposite cell poles before the cell divides. Nondisjunction during mitosis leads to one daughter receiving both sister chromatids of the affected chromosome while the other gets none. This is known as a chromatin bridge or an anaphase bridge. Mitotic nondisjunction results in somatic mosaicism, since only daughter cells originating from the cell where the nondisjunction event has occurred will have an abnormal number of chromosomes. Nondisjunction during mitosis can contribute to the development of some forms of cancer, e.g., retinoblastoma (see below). Chromosome nondisjunction in mitosis can be attributed to the inactivation of topoisomerase II, condensin, or separase. Meiotic nondisjunction has been well studied in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This yeast undergoes mitosis similarly to other eukaryotes. Chromosome bridges occur when sister chromatids are held together post replication by DNA-DNA topological entanglement and the cohesion complex. During anaphase, cohesin is cleaved by separase. Topoisomerase II and condensin are responsible for removing catenations.

Molecular mechanisms
Central role of the spindle assembly checkpoint
The spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) is a molecular safe-guarding mechanism that governs proper chromosome segregation in eukaryotic cells. SAC inhibits progression into anaphase until all homologous chromosomes (bivalents, or tetrads) are properly aligned to the spindle apparatus. Only then, SAC releases its inhibition of the anaphase promoting complex (APC), which in turn irreversibly triggers progression through anaphase.

Sex-specific differences in meiosis
Surveys of cases of human aneuploidy syndromes have shown that most of them are maternally derived. This raises the question: Why is female meiosis more error prone? The most obvious difference between female oogenesis and male spermatogenesis is the prolonged arrest of oocytes in late stages of prophase I for many years up to several decades. Male gametes on the other hand quickly go through all stages of meiosis I and II. Another important difference between male and female meiosis concerns the frequency of recombination between homologous chromosomes: In the male, almost all chromosome pairs are joined by at least one crossover, while more than 10% of human oocytes contain at least one bivalent without any crossover event. Failures of recombination or inappropriately located crossovers have been well documented as contributors to the occurrence of nondisjunction in humans.

Age-related loss of cohesin ties
Due to the prolonged arrest of human oocytes, weakening of cohesive ties holding together chromosomes and reduced activity of the SAC may contribute to maternal age-related errors in segregation control. The cohesin complex is responsible for keeping together sister chromatids and provides binding sites for spindle attachment. Cohesin is loaded onto newly replicated chromosomes in oogonia during fetal development. Mature oocytes have only limited capacity for reloading cohesin after completion of S phase. The prolonged arrest of human oocytes prior to completion of meiosis I may therefore result in considerable loss of cohesin over time. Loss of cohesin is assumed to contribute to incorrect microtubule-kinetochore attachment and chromosome segregation errors during meiotic divisions.

Consequences
The result of this error is a cell with an imbalance of chromosomes. Such a cell is said to be aneuploid. Loss of a single chromosome (2n-1), in which the daughter cell(s) with the defect will have one chromosome missing from one of its pairs, is referred to as a monosomy. Gaining a single chromosome, in which the daughter cell(s) with the defect will have one chromosome in addition to its pairs is referred to as a trisomy. In the event that an aneuploidic gamete is fertilized, a number of syndromes might result.

Monosomy
The only known survivable monosomy in humans is Turner syndrome, where the affected individual is monosomic for the X chromosome (see below). Other monosomies are usually lethal during early fetal development, and survival is only possible if not all the cells of the body are affected in case of a mosaicism (see below), or if the normal number  of chromosomes is restored via duplication of the single monosomic chromosome ("chromosome rescue").

Turner syndrome (X monosomy) (45, X0)
Complete loss of an entire X chromosome accounts for about half the cases of Turner syndrome. The importance of both X chromosomes during embryonic development is underscored by the observation that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of fetuses with only one X chromosome (karyotype 45, X0) are spontaneously aborted.

Autosomal trisomy
The term autosomal trisomy means that a chromosome other than the sex chromosomes X and Y is present in 3 copies instead of the normal number of 2 in diploid cells.

Down syndrome (trisomy 21)
Down syndrome, a trisomy of chromosome 21, is the most common anomaly of chromosome number in humans. The majority of cases result from nondisjunction during maternal meiosis I. Trisomy occurs in at least 0.3% of newborns and in nearly 25% of spontaneous abortions. It is the leading cause of pregnancy wastage and is the most common known cause of intellectual disability. It is well documented that advanced maternal age is associated with greater risk of meiotic nondisjunction leading to Down syndrome. This may be associated with the prolonged meiotic arrest of human oocytes potentially lasting for more than four decades.

Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18) and Patau syndrome (trisomy 13)
Human autosomal trisomies compatible with live birth, other than Down syndrome (trisomy 21), are Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18) and Patau syndrome (trisomy 13). Complete trisomies of other chromosomes are usually not viable and represent a relatively frequent cause of miscarriage. Only in rare cases of a mosaicism, the presence of a normal cell line, in addition to the trisomic cell line, may support the development of a viable trisomy of the other chromosomes.

Sex chromosome aneuploidy
The term sex chromosome aneuploidy summarizes conditions with an abnormal number of sex chromosomes, i.e., other than XX (female) or XY (male). Formally, X chromosome monosomy (Turner syndrome, see above) can also be classified as a form of sex chromosome aneuploidy.

Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY)
Klinefelter syndrome is the most common sex chromosome aneuploidy in humans. It represents the most frequent cause of hypogonadism and infertility in men. Most cases are caused by nondisjunction errors in paternal meiosis I. About eighty percent of individuals with this syndrome have one extra X chromosome resulting in the karyotype XXY. The remaining cases have either multiple additional sex chromosomes (48,XXXY; 48,XXYY; 49,XXXXY), mosaicism (46,XY/47,XXY), or structural chromosome abnormalities.

XYY Male (47, XYY)
The incidence of XYY syndrome is approximately 1 in 800–1000 male births. Many cases remain undiagnosed because of their normal appearance and fertility, and the absence of severe symptoms. The extra Y chromosome is usually a result of nondisjunction during paternal meiosis II.

Trisomy X (47,XXX)
Trisomy X is a form of sex chromosome aneuploidy where females have three instead of two X chromosomes. Most patients are only mildly affected by neuropsychological and physical symptoms. Studies examining the origin of the extra X chromosome observed that about 58–63% of cases were caused by nondisjunction in maternal meiosis I, 16–18% by nondisjunction in maternal meiosis II, and the remaining cases by post-zygotic, i.e., mitotic, nondisjunction.

Uniparental disomy
Uniparental disomy denotes the situation where both chromosomes of a chromosome pair are inherited from the same parent and are therefore identical. This phenomenon most likely is the result of a pregnancy that started as a trisomy due to nondisjunction. Since most trisomies are lethal, the fetus only survives because it loses one of the three chromosomes and becomes disomic. Uniparental disomy of chromosome 15 is, for example, seen in some cases of Prader-Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome.

Mosaicism syndromes
Mosaicism syndromes can be caused by mitotic nondisjunction in early fetal development. As a consequence, the organism evolves as a mixture of cell lines with differing ploidy (number of chromosomes). Mosaicism may be present in some tissues, but not in others. Affected individuals may have a patchy or asymmetric appearance. Examples of mosaicism syndromes include Pallister-Killian syndrome and Hypomelanosis of Ito.

Mosaicism in malignant transformation
Development of cancer often involves multiple alterations of the cellular genome (Knudson hypothesis). Human retinoblastoma is a well studied example of a cancer type where mitotic nondisjunction can contribute to malignant transformation: Mutations of the RB1 gene, which is located on chromosome 13 and encodes the tumor suppressor retinoblastoma protein, can be detected by cytogenetic analysis in many cases of retinoblastoma. Mutations of the RB1 locus in one copy of chromosome 13 are sometimes accompanied by loss of the other wild-type chromosome 13 through mitotic nondisjunction. By this combination of lesions, affected cells completely lose expression of functioning tumor suppressor protein.

Diagnosis
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PIGD) is a technique used to identify genetically normal embryos and is useful for couples who have a family history of genetic disorders. This is an option for people choosing to procreate through IVF. PGD is considered difficult due to it being both time consuming and having success rates only comparable to routine IVF.

Karyotyping
Karyotyping involves performing an amniocentesis in order to study the cells of an unborn fetus during metaphase 1. Light microscopy can be used to visually determine if aneuploidy is an issue.

Polar body diagnosis
Polar body diagnosis (PBD) can be used to detect maternally derived chromosomal aneuploidies as well as translocations in oocytes. The advantage of PBD over PGD is that it can be accomplished in a short amount of time. This is accomplished through zona drilling or laser drilling.

Blastomere biopsy
Blastomere biopsy is a technique in which blastomeres are removed from the zona pellucida.  It is commonly used to detect aneuploidy. Genetic analysis is conducted once the procedure is complete. Additional studies are needed to assess the risk associated with the procedure.

Lifestyle/environmental hazards
Exposure of spermatozoa to lifestyle, environmental and/or occupational hazards may increase the risk of aneuploidy. Cigarette smoke is a known aneugen (aneuploidy inducing agent). It is associated with increases in aneuploidy ranging from 1.5 to 3.0-fold. Other studies indicate factors such as alcohol consumption, occupational exposure to benzene, and exposure to the insecticides fenvalerate and carbaryl also increase aneuploidy.

== References ==


Nucleomodulins are a family of bacterial proteins that enter the nucleus of eukaryotic cells.This term comes from the contraction between "nucleus" and "modulins", which are microbial molecules that modulate the behaviour of eukaryotic cells. Nucleomodulins are produced by pathogenic or symbiotic bacteria. They act on various processes in the nucleus: remodelling of the chromatin structure, transcription, splicing of pre-messenger RNA, cell division.The identification of nucleomodulins in several species of bacterial pathogens of humans, animals and plants has led to the emergence of the concept that direct control of the nucleus is one of the most sophisticated strategies used by microbes to bypass host defences. Nucleomodulins can be directly secreted into the intracellular medium after entry of the bacteria into the cell, like Listeria monocytogenes, or they can be injected from the extracellular medium or intracellular organelles using a type III or IV bacterial secretion system, also known as a "molecular syringe".More recently, it has been shown that some of them, such as YopM from Yersinia pestis and IpaH9.8 from Shigella flexneri, can autonomously penetrate eukaryotic cells thanks to a membrane transduction domain.The diversity of molecular mechanisms triggered by nucleomodulins  is a source of inspiration for new biotechnologies. They are true nano-machines capable of hijacking a multitude of nuclear processes. In research, nucleomodulins are the subject of in-depth studies that have led to the discovery of new human nuclear regulators, such as the epigenetic regulator BAHD1.

Examples
Agrobacterium tumefaciens, responsible for crown gall disease, produces an arsenal of Vir proteins, including VirD2 and VirE2, enabling the precise integration of a piece of its DNA, called T-DNA, into that of the host plant Listeria monocytogenes, responsible for listeriosis, can modulate the expression of immunity genes. One of the mechanisms at play involves the bacterial protein LntA, which inhibits the function of the epigenetic regulator BAHD1. The action of this nucleomodulin is associated with chromatin decompaction and activation of an interferon response genes.Shigella flexneri, responsible for shigellosis, secretes the IpaH9.8 protein targeting a mRNA splicing protein that disrupts the production of protein isoforms and the inflammatory response in humans.Legionella pneumophila, responsible for legionellosis, secretes an enzyme with histone methyltransferase activity capable of methylating histones at different chromosome loci  or at the level of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) in the nucleolus.

== References ==


Oogenesis, ovogenesis, or oögenesis  is the differentiation of the ovum (egg cell) into a cell competent to further develop when fertilized. It is developed from the primary oocyte by maturation. Oogenesis is initiated in the embryonic stage.

Oogenesis in non-human mammals
In mammals, the first part of oogenesis starts in the germinal epithelium, which gives rise to the development of ovarian follicles, the functional unit of the ovary.
Oogenesis consists of several sub-processes: oocytogenesis, ootidogenesis, and finally maturation to form an ovum (oogenesis proper). Folliculogenesis is a separate sub-process that accompanies and supports all three oogenetic sub-processes.

Oogonium —(Oocytogenesis)—> Primary Oocyte —(Meiosis I)—> First Polar body (Discarded afterward) + Secondary oocyte —(Meiosis II)—> Second Polar Body (Discarded afterward) + Ovum
Oocyte meiosis, important to all animal life cycles yet unlike all other instances of animal cell division, occurs completely without the aid of spindle-coordinating centrosomes.

The creation of oogonia
The creation of oogonia traditionally does not belong to oogenesis proper, but, instead, to the common process of gametogenesis, which, in the female human, begins with the processes of folliculogenesis, oocytogenesis, and ootidogenesis. Oogonia enter meiosis during embryonic development, becoming oocytes. Meiosis begins with DNA replication and meiotic crossing over. It then stops in early prophase.

Maintenance of meiotic arrest
Mammalian oocytes are maintained in meiotic prophase arrest for a very long time—months in mice, years in humans. Initially the arrest is due to lack of sufficient cell cycle proteins to allow meiotic progression. However, as the oocyte grows, these proteins are synthesized, and meiotic arrest becomes dependent on cyclic AMP. The cyclic AMP is generated by the oocyte by adenylyl cyclase in the oocyte membrane. The adenylyl cyclase is kept active by a constitutively active G-protein-coupled receptor known as GPR3 and a G-protein, Gs, also present in the oocyte membrane.Maintenance of meiotic arrest also depends on the presence of a multilayered complex of cells, known as a follicle, that surrounds the oocyte. Removal of the oocyte from the follicle causes meiosis to progress in the oocyte. The cells that comprise the follicle, known as granulosa cells, are connected to each other by proteins known as gap junctions, that allow small molecules to pass between the cells. The granulosa cells produce a small molecule, cyclic GMP, that diffuses into the oocyte through the gap junctions. In the oocyte, cyclic GMP prevents the breakdown of cyclic AMP by the phosphodiesterase PDE3, and thus maintains meiotic arrest. The cyclic GMP is produced by the guanylyl cyclase NPR2.

Reinitiation of meiosis and stimulation of ovulation by luteinizing hormone
As follicles grow, they acquire receptors for luteinizing hormone, a pituitary hormone that reinitiates meiosis in the oocyte and causes ovulation of a fertilizable egg. Luteinizing hormone acts on receptors in the outer layers of granulosa cells of the follicle, causing a decrease in cyclic GMP in the granulosa cells. Because the granulosa cells and oocyte are connected by gap junctions, cyclic GMP also decreases in the oocyte, causing meiosis to resume. Meiosis then proceeds to second metaphase, where it pauses again until fertilization. Luteinizing hormone also stimulates gene expression leading to ovulation.

Human oogenesis
Oogenesis
Oogenesis starts with the process of developing primary oocytes, which occurs via the transformation of oogonia into primary oocytes, a process called oocytogenesis. From one single oogonium, only one mature oocyte will rise, with 3 other cells called polar bodies. Oocytogenesis is complete either before or shortly after birth.

Number of primary oocytes
It is commonly believed that, when oocytogenesis is complete, no additional primary oocytes are created, in contrast to the male process of spermatogenesis, where gametocytes are continuously created. In other words, primary oocytes reach their maximum development at ~20 weeks of gestational age, when approximately seven million primary oocytes have been created; however, at birth, this number has already been reduced to approximately 1-2 million per ovary. At puberty the number of oocytes decreases even more to reach about 60,000 to 80,000 per ovary, and only about 500 mature oocytes will be produced during a woman's life, the others will undergo atresia (degeneration).
Two publications have challenged the belief that a finite number of oocytes are set around the time of birth. The renewal of ovarian follicles from germline stem cells (originating from bone marrow and peripheral blood) has been reported in the postnatal mouse ovary. In contrast, DNA clock measurements do not indicate ongoing oogenesis during human females' lifetimes.
Thus, further experiments are required to determine the true dynamics of small follicle formation.

Ootidogenesis
The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle.

Meiosis I
Meiosis I of ootidogenesis begins during embryonic development, but halts in the diplotene stage of prophase I until puberty. The mouse oocyte in the dictyate (prolonged diplotene) stage actively repairs DNA damage, whereas DNA repair is not detectable in the pre-dictyate (leptotene, zygotene and pachytene) stages of meiosis. For those primary oocytes that continue to develop in each menstrual cycle, however, synapsis occurs and tetrads form, enabling chromosomal crossover to occur. As a result of meiosis I, the primary oocyte has now developed into the secondary oocyte.

Meiosis II
Immediately after meiosis I, the haploid secondary oocyte initiates meiosis II. However, this process is also halted at the metaphase II stage until fertilization, if such should ever occur. If the egg is not fertilized, it is disintegrated and released (menstruation) and the secondary oocyte does not complete meiosis II (and does not become an ovum). When meiosis II has completed, an ootid and another polar body have now been created. The polar body is small in size.

Folliculogenesis
Synchronously with ootidogenesis, the ovarian follicle surrounding the ootid has developed from a primordial follicle to a preovulatory one.

Maturation into ovum
Both polar bodies disintegrate at the end of Meiosis II, leaving only the ootid, which then eventually undergoes maturation into a mature ovum.
The function of forming polar bodies is to discard the extra haploid sets of chromosomes that have resulted as a consequence of meiosis.

In vitro maturation
In vitro maturation (IVM) is the technique of letting ovarian follicles mature in vitro. It can potentially be performed before an IVF. In such cases, ovarian hyperstimulation is not essential. Rather, oocytes can mature outside the body prior to IVF. Hence, no (or at least a lower dose of) gonadotropins have to be injected in the body. Immature eggs have been grown until maturation in vitro at a 10% survival rate, but the technique is not yet clinically available. With this technique, cryopreserved ovarian tissue could possibly be used to make oocytes that can directly undergo in vitro fertilization.

In vitro oogenesis
By definition it means, to recapitulate mammalian oogenesis and producing fertilizable oocytes in vitro.it is a complex process involving several different cell types, precise follicular cell-oocyte reciprocal interactions, a variety of nutrients and combinations of cytokines, and precise growth factors and hormones depending on the developmental stage. In 2016, two papers published by Morohaku et al. and Hikabe et al. reported in vitro procedures that appear to reproduce efficiently these conditions allowing for the production, completely in a dish, of a relatively large number of oocytes that are fertilizable and capable of giving rise to viable offspring in the mouse. This technique can be mainly benefited in cancer patients where in today's condition their ovarian tissue
is cryopreserved for preservation of fertility. Alternatively to the autologous transplantation, the development of culture systems that support oocyte development from the primordial follicle stage represent a valid strategy to restore fertility. Over time, many studies have been conducted with the aim to optimize the characteristics of ovarian tissue culture systems and to better support the three main phases: 1) activation of primordial follicles; 2) isolation and culture of growing preantral follicles; 3) removal from the follicle environment and maturation of oocyte cumulus complexes. While complete oocyte in vitro development has been achieved in mouse, with the production of live offspring, the goal of obtaining oocytes of sufficient quality to support embryo development has not been completely reached into higher mammals despite decades of effort.

Ovarian aging
BRCA1 and ATM proteins are employed in repair of DNA double-strand break during meiosis. These proteins appear to have a critical role in resisting ovarian aging.  However, homologous recombinational repair of DNA double-strand breaks mediated by BRCA1 and ATM weakens with age in oocytes of humans and other species.  Women with BRCA1 mutations have lower ovarian reserves and experience earlier menopause than women without these mutations.  Even in woman without specific BRCA1 mutations, ovarian aging is associated with depletion of ovarian reserves leading to menopause, but at a slower rate than in those with such mutations.  Since older premenopausal women ordinarily have normal progeny, their capability for meiotic recombinational repair appears to be sufficient to prevent deterioration of their germline despite the reduction in ovarian reserve.  DNA damages may arise in the germline during the decades long period in humans between early oocytogenesis and the stage of meiosis in which homologous chromosomes are effectively paired (dictyate stage).  It has been suggested that such DNA damages may be removed, in large part, by mechanisms dependent on chromosome pairing, such as homologous recombination.

Oogenesis in non-mammals
Some algae and the oomycetes produce eggs in oogonia. In the brown alga Fucus, all four egg cells survive oogenesis, which is an exception to the rule that generally only one product of female meiosis survives to maturity.
In plants, oogenesis occurs inside the female gametophyte via mitosis. In many plants such as bryophytes, ferns, and gymnosperms, egg cells are formed in archegonia. In flowering plants, the female gametophyte has been reduced to an eight-celled embryo sac within the ovule inside the ovary of the flower. Oogenesis occurs within the embryo sac and leads to the formation of a single egg cell per ovule.
In ascaris, the oocyte does not even begin meiosis until the sperm touches it, in contrast to mammals, where meiosis is completed in the estrus cycle.
In female Drosophila flies, genetic recombination occurs during meiosis.  This recombination is associated with formation of DNA double-strand breaks and the repair of these breaks.
  The repair process leads to crossover recombinants as well as at least three times as many noncrossover recombinants (e.g. arising by gene conversion without crossover).

See also
Anisogamy
Archegonium
Evolution of sexual reproduction
Female infertility
Female reproductive system
Meiosis
Oncofertility
Oogonium
Oocyte
Origin and function of meiosis
Sexual reproduction
Spermatogenesis

References
Cho WK, Stern S, Biggers JD. 1974. Inhibitory effect of dibutyryl cAMP on mouse oocyte maturation in vitro. J Exp Zool.187:383-386

BibliographyManandhar G, Schatten H and Sutovsky P (2005). Centrosome reduction during gametogenesis and its significance. Biol Reprod, 72(1)2-13.

External links
Reproductive Physiology


Pathogenicity islands (PAIs), as termed in 1990, are a distinct class of genomic islands acquired by microorganisms through horizontal gene transfer. Pathogenicity islands are found in both animal and plant pathogens. Additionally, PAIs are found in both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. They are transferred through horizontal gene transfer events such as transfer by a plasmid, phage, or conjugative transposon. Therefore, PAIs contribute to microorganisms' ability to evolve.
One species of bacteria may have more than one PAI. For example, Salmonella has at least five.An analogous genomic structure in rhizobia is termed a symbiosis island.

Properties
Pathogenicity islands (PAIs) are gene clusters incorporated in the genome, chromosomally or extrachromosomally, of pathogenic organisms, but are usually absent from those nonpathogenic organisms of the same or closely related species. They may be located on a bacterial chromosome or may be transferred within a plasmid or can be found in bacteriophage genomes. The GC-content and codon usage of pathogenicity islands often differs from that of the rest of the genome, potentially aiding in their detection within a given DNA sequence, unless the donor and recipient of the PAI have similar GC-content.PAIs are discrete genetic units flanked by direct repeats, insertion sequences or tRNA genes, which act as sites for recombination into the DNA. Cryptic mobility genes may also be present, indicating the provenance as transduction. PAIs are flanked by direct repeats; the sequence of bases at two ends of the inserted sequence are the same. They carry functional genes, such as integrases, transposases, phagocytosis, or part of insertion sequences, to enable insertion into host DNA. PAIs are often associated with tRNA genes, which target sites for this integration event. They can be transferred as a single unit to new bacterial cells, thus conferring virulence to formerly benign strains.PAIs, a type of mobile genetic element, may range from 10-200 kb and encode genes which contribute to the virulence of the respective pathogen. Pathogenicity islands carry genes encoding one or more virulence factors, including, but not limited to, adhesins, secretion systems (like type III secretion system), toxins, invasins, modulins, effectors, superantigens, iron uptake systems, o-antigen synthesis, serum resistance, immunoglobulin A proteases, apoptosis, capsule synthesis, and plant tumorigenesis via Agrobacterium tumefaciens.There are various combinations of regulation involving pathogenicity islands. The first combination is that the pathogenicity island contains the genes to regulate the virulence genes encoded on the PAI. The second combination is that the pathogenicity island contains the genes to regulate genes located outside of the pathogenecity island. Additionally, regulatory genes outside of the PAI may regulate virulence genes in the pathogenicity island. Regulation genes typically encoded on PAIs include AraC-like proteins and two-component response regulators.PAIs can be considered unstable DNA regions as they are susceptible to deletions or mobilization. This may be due to the structure of PAIs, with direct repeats, insertion sequences and association with tRNA that enables deletion and mobilization at higher frequencies. Additionally, deletions of pathogenicity islands inserted in the genome can result in disrupting tRNA and subsequently affect the metabolism of the cell.

Examples
The P fimbriae island contains virulence factors such as haemolysin, pili, cytotoxic necrosing factor, and uropathogenic specific protein (USP).
Yersinia pestis high pathogenicity island I has genes regulating iron uptake and storage.
Salmonella SP1 and SP2 sites.
Rhodococcus equi virulence plasmid pathogenicity island encodes virulence factors for proliferation in macrophages.
The SaPI family of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity islands, mobile genetic elements, encode superantigens, including the gene for toxic shock syndrome toxin, and are mobilized at high frequencies by specific bacteriophages.
Phage encoded Cholera toxin of Vibrio cholerae, Diphtheria toxin of Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Neurotoxins of Clostridium botulinum and Cytotoxin of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Helicobacter pylori has two strains, one being more virulent than the other due to the presence of the Cag pathogenicity island.

References
External links
BAC definition of pathogenicity


Patome is a database of biological sequence data of issued patents and/or published applications.

See also
Patents
Gene patent

References
External links
https://web.archive.org/web/20101223004907/http://www.patome.org/


Penetrance in genetics is the proportion of individuals carrying a particular variant (or allele) of a gene (genotype) that also expresses an associated trait (phenotype). In medical genetics, the penetrance of a disease-causing mutation is the proportion of individuals with the mutation that exhibit clinical symptoms among all individuals with such mutation. For example: If a mutation in the gene responsible for a particular autosomal dominant disorder has 75% penetrance, then 75% of those with the mutation will go on to develop the disease, showing its phenotype, whereas 25% will not.

Penetrance only refers to whether an individual with a specific genotype exhibits any phenotypic signs or symptoms, and is not to be confused with variable expressivity which is to what extent or degree the symptoms for said disease are shown (the expression of the phenotypic trait). Meaning that, even if the same disease-causing mutation affects separate individuals, the expressivity will vary.

Degrees of Penetrance
Complete penetrance
If 100% of individuals carrying a particular genotype express the associated trait, the genotype is said to show complete penetrance. Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), is an autosomal dominant condition which shows complete penetrance, consequently everyone who inherits the disease-causing variant of this gene will develop some degree of symptoms for NF1.

Reduced penetrance
The penetrance is said to be reduced if less than 100% of individuals carrying a particular genotype express associated traits, and is likely to be caused by a combination of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors. BRCA1 is an example of a genotype with reduced penetrance. By age 70, the mutation is estimated to have a breast cancer penetrance of around 65% in women. Meaning that about 65% of women carrying the gene will develop breast cancer by the time they turn 70.
Non-penetrance: Within the category of reduced penetrance, individuals carrying the mutation without displaying any signs or symptoms, are said to have a genotype that is non-penetrant. For the BRCA1 example above, the remaining 35% which never develop breast cancer, are therefore carrying the mutation, but it is non-penetrant. This can lead to healthy, unaffected parents carrying the mutation on to future generations that might be affected.

Factors affecting penetrance
Many factors such as age, sex, environment, epigenetic modifiers, and modifier genes are linked to penetrance. These factors can help explain why certain individuals with a specific genotype exhibit symptoms or signs of disease, whilst others do not.

Age-dependent penetrance
If clinical signs associated with a specific genotype appear more frequently with increasing age, the penetrance is said to be age dependent. Some diseases are non-penetrant up until a certain age and then the penetrance starts to increase drastically, whilst others exhibit low penetrance at an early age and continue to increase with time. For this reason, many diseases have a different estimated penetrance dependent on the age.A specific hexanucleotide repeat expansion within the C9orf72 gene said to be a major cause for developing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is an example of a genotype with age dependent penetrance. The genotype is said to be non-penetrant until the age of 35, 50% penetrant by the age of 60, and almost completely penetrant by age 80.

Gender-related penetrance
For some mutations, the phenotype is more frequently present in one sex and in rare cases mutations appear completely non-penetrant in a particular gender. This is called gender-related penetrance or sex-dependent penetrance and may be the result of allelic variation, disorders in which the expression of the disease is limited to organs only found in one sex such as testis or ovaries, or sex steroid-responsive genes. Breast cancer caused by the BRCA2 mutation is an example of a disease with gender-related penetrance. The penetrance is determined to be much higher in women than men. By age 70, around 86% of females in contrast to 6% of males with the same mutation is estimated to develop breast cancer.In cases where clinical symptoms or the phenotype related to a genetic mutation are present only in one sex, the disorder is said to be sex-limited. Familial male-limited precocious puberty (FMPP) caused by a mutation in the LHCGR gene, is an example of a genotype only penetrant in males. Meaning that males with this particular genotype exhibit symptoms of the disease whilst the same genotype is nonpenetrant in females.

Genetic modifiers
Genetic modifiers are genetic variants or mutations able to modify a primary disease-causing variant's phenotypic outcome without being disease causing themselves. For instance, in single gene disorders there is one gene primarily responsible for development of the disease, but modifier genes inherited separately can affect the phenotype. Meaning that the presence of a mutation located on a loci different from the one with the disease-causing mutation, may either hinder manifestation of the phenotype or alter the mutations effects, and thereby influencing the penetrance.

Environmental modifiers
Exposure to environmental and lifestyle factors such as chemicals, diet, alcohol intake, drugs and stress are some of the factors that might influence disease penetrance. For example, several studies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, associated with an elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women, have examined associations with environmental and behavioral modifiers such as pregnancies, history of breast feeding, smoking, diet, and so forth.

Epigenetic regulation
Sometimes, genetic alterations which can cause genetic disease and phenotypic traits, are not from changes related directly to the DNA sequence, but from epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation or histone modifications. Epigenetic differences may therefore be one of the factors contributing to reduced penetrance. A study done on a pair of genetically identical monozygotic twins, where one twin got diagnosed with leukemia and later on thyroid carcinoma whilst the other had no registered illnesses, showed that the affected twin had increased methylation levels of the BRCA 1 gene. The research concluded that the family had no known DNA-repair syndrome or any other hereditary diseases in the last four generations, and no genetic differences between the studied pair of monozygotic twins were detected in the BRCA1 regulatory region. This indicates that epigenetic changes caused by environmental or behavioral factors had a key role in the cause of promotor hypermethylation of the BRCA1 gene in the affected twin, which caused the cancer.

Determining penetrance
It can be challenging to estimate the penetrance of a specific genotype due to all the influencing factors. In addition to the factors mentioned above there are several other considerations that must be taken into account when penetrance is determined:

Ascertainment bias
Penetrance estimates can be affected by ascertainment bias if the sampling is not systematic. Traditionally a phenotype-driven approach focusing on individuals with a given condition and their family members has been used to determine penetrance. However, it may be difficult to transfer these estimates over to the general population because family members may share other genetic and/or environmental factors that could influence manifestation of said disease, leading to ascertainment bias and an overestimation of the penetrance. Large-scale population-based studies, which use both genetic sequencing and phenotype data from large groups of people, is a different method for determining penetrance. This method offers less upward bias compared to family-based studies and is more accurate the larger the sample population is. These studies may contain a healthy-participant-bias which can lead to lower penetrance estimates.

Phenocopies
A genotype with complete penetrance will always display the clinical phenotypic traits related to its mutation (taking into consideration the expressivity), but the signs or symptoms displayed by a specific affected individual can often be similar to other unrelated phenotypical traits. Taking into consideration the effect that environmental or behavioral modifiers have, and how they can impact the cause of a mutation or epigenetic alteration, we now have the cause as to how different paths lead to the same phenotypic display. When similar phenotypes can be observed but by different causes, it is called phenocopies. Phenocopies is when environmental and/or behavioral modifiers causes an illness which mimics the phenotype of a genetic inherited disease. Because of phenocopies, determining the degree of penetrance for a genetic disease requires full knowledge of the individuals attending the studies, and the factors that may or may not have caused their illness.
For example, new research on Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) based on a technique called Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR), describes how various genetic illnesses that showcase the same phenotypic traits as HCM, are actually phenocopies. Previously these phenocopies were all diagnosed and treated, thought to arrive from the same cause, but because of new diagnostic methods, they can now be separated and treated more efficiently.

Subjects not yet covered
Allelic heterogeneity
Polygenic inheritance
Locus heterogeneity

References
External links
Tutorial about the different aspects of genetic penetrance.


A phene is an individual genetically determined characteristic or trait which can be possessed by an organism, such as eye colour, height, behavior, tooth shape or any other observable characteristic.

Phene - phenotype - phenome distinction
The term 'phene' was evidently coined as an obvious parallel construct to 'gene'.  Phene is to Phenotype as Gene is to Genotype, and Similarly Phene is to Phenome as Gene is to Genome. More specifically, a Phene is an abstract concept describing a particular characteristic which can be possessed by an organism. Whereas Phenotype refers to a collection of Phenes possessed by a particular organism, and Phenome refers to the entire set of Phenes that exist within an organism or species.
Genome wide association studies use "phenes" or "traits" (symptoms) to distinguish groups in the human population. These groups are then employed to identify associations with genetic alleles that are more common in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic control group. Allen et al. report that with respect to Schizophrenia "Research in molecular genetics has focused on detecting multiple genes of small effect" This indicates the importance of discovering individual traits or "phenes" that are governed by single genes. Schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may be described as a phenotype but how many individual traits or "phenes" contribute to these phenotypes? Very large genome wide association studies have not found many significant gene linkages. On the contrary the results of these studies implicate a large number of gene alleles that have a very small effect (phene).It is important to note that the word phenotype was originally used to refer to both the trait/character itself (e.g. the blue eyes phenotype) and the set of traits/characteristics possessed by the organism (clair's eye-colour phenotype is blue). While this definition is still used in many places, the lack of distinction can make in-depth explanations confusing and thus use of the term Phene becomes necessary. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine precisely what the fundamental building blocks of a phenome are. Since the term "phenotype" has been used to describe traits and syndromes and population characteristics  it is not helpful in the collective search for specific traits that could be a consequence of a single gene or gene–environmental interaction. Phene has emerged as a candidate building block for the phenome.

Phene - gene distinction
Genes give rise to phenes. Genes are the biochemical instructions encoding what an organism can be, while phenes are what the organism is. In general it takes a combination of particular genes, environmental influences and random variation to give rise to any one phene in an organism. Both phenes and genes are subject to evolution. However, if one defines "genes" as "DNA sequences encoding polypeptides", they are not directly accessible to natural selection; the associated phenes are. Note that some, e.g. Richard Dawkins, have used a wider definition of "gene" than the one used in genetics on occasion, extending it to any DNA sequence with a function.
Due to the distinct chemical and physical properties of the nucleotides in the DNA and some mutations being "silent" (that is, not altering gene expression), the DNA primary sequence may also be a phene. For example, A-T and C-G base pairs are differently resistant to heat (see also DNA-DNA hybridization). In a thermophilic microorganism, "silent" mutations may have an effect on DNA stability and thus survival. While being subject to evolution, natural selection affects the primary sequence directly in this case, with or without it being expressed.
Consider, for example, a mutation that makes a zygote abort development as a young embryo. This mutation, obviously, will not spread, as it is quickly fatal. It is not the mutated nucleotide that is selected against, but the fact that due to this mutation, the phene (a key enzyme or developmental factor for example) does not get expressed.
Compare a (fictional) kind of mutation that breaks the DNA strand in a crucial position and defies all attempts to repair it, leading to cell death. Here, the mutated and unmutated DNA sequences would be phenes themselves; it is the changed primary sequence itself which by failing would cause death, not the corresponding polypeptide.
See also Dawkin's concept of extended phenotype.

Origin
The term has been widely adopted by the academic community and appears in scientific literature. A quick keyword search of titles and abstracts containing "phene" at PubMed returns many articles.
It is a valuable concept in the genomic era where "phenes" or "traits" (symptoms) are used to distinguish groups with genetic disorders.

Usages
"Phene" is used as to refer to relevant phenotypic traits in the OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals) database. One of the objectives of the OMIA is to match genotypes to phenotypes. Lenffer et al. (2006) describe the OMIA as a "comparative biology resource"  "(The) OMIA is a comprehensive resource of phenotypic information on heritable animal traits and genes in a strongly comparative context, relating traits to genes where possible. OMIA is modelled on and is complementary to Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)." The term "phene" is equated with "trait".

See also
Phenotype
Phenotypic trait
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (a database of human phenes)

References

Porter, Ian H (June 1973). "From gene to phene". J Invest Dermatol. 60 (6): 360–368. doi:10.1111/1523-1747.ep12702133. PMID 4268033.
Science Of Biogenetics : Can two Brown eyed parents have blue eyed child


A phenocopy is a variation in phenotype (generally referring to a single trait) which is caused by environmental conditions (often, but not necessarily, during the organism's development), such that the organism's phenotype matches a phenotype which is determined by genetic factors. It is not a type of mutation, as it is non-hereditary.
The term was coined by Richard Goldschmidt in 1935. He used it to refer to forms, produced by some experimental procedure, whose appearance duplicates or copies the phenotype of some mutant or combination of mutants.

Examples
The butterfly genus Vanessa can change phenotype based on the local temperature. If introduced to Lapland they mimic butterflies localised to this area; and if localised to Syria they mimic butterflies of this area.
The larvae of Drosophila melanogaster have been found to be particularly vulnerable to environmental factors which produce phenocopies of known mutations; these factors include temperature, shock, radiation, and various chemical compounds. In fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, the normal body colour is brownish gray with black margins. A hereditary mutant for this was discovered by T.H. Morgan in 1910 where the body colour is yellow. This was a genotypic character which was constant in both the flies in all environments. However, in 1939, Rapoport discovered that if larvae of normal flies were fed with silver salts, they develop into yellow bodied flies irrespective of their genotype. The yellow bodied flies which are genetically brown is a variant of the original yellow bodied fly.

Phenocopy can also be observed in Himalayan rabbits. When raised in moderate temperatures, Himalayan rabbits are white in colour with black tail, nose, and ears, making them phenotypically distinguishable from genetically black rabbits. However, when raised in cold temperatures, Himalayan rabbits show black colouration of their coats, resembling the genetically black rabbits. Hence this Himalayan rabbit is a phenocopy of the genetically black rabbit.Reversible and/or cosmetic modifications such as the use of hair bleach are not considered to be phenocopy, as they are not inherent traits.

See also
Genocopy

== References ==