What are housekeeping genes?

Abstract

The concept of “housekeeping gene” has been used for four decades but remains loosely defined. Housekeeping genes are commonly described as “essential for cellular existence regardless of their specific function in the tissue or organism”, and “stably expressed irrespective of tissue type, developmental stage, cell cycle state, or external signal”. However, experimental support for the tenet that gene essentiality is linked to stable expression across cell types, conditions, and organisms has been limited. Here we use genome-scale functional genomic screens together with bulk and single-cell sequencing technologies to test this link and optimize a quantitative and experimentally validated definition of housekeeping gene. Using the optimized definition, we identify, characterize, and provide as resources, housekeeping gene lists extracted from several human datasets, and 10 other animal species that include primates, chicken, and C . elegans . We find that stably expressed genes are not necessarily essential, and that the individual genes that are essential and stably expressed can considerably differ across organisms; yet the pathways enriched among these genes are conserved. Further, the level of conservation of housekeeping genes across the analyzed organisms captures their taxonomic groups, showing evolutionary relevance for our definition. Therefore, we present a quantitative and experimentally supported definition of housekeeping genes that can contribute to better understanding of their unique biological and evolutionary characteristics.

References 55

1. 1.

   Eisenberg E, Levanon EY. Human housekeeping genes, revisited. Trends Genet. 2013;29: 569–574

   Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2013.05.010

2. 2.

   Tu Z, Wang L, Xu M, Zhou X, Chen T, Sun F. Further understanding human disease genes by comparing with housekeeping genes and other genes. BMC Genomics. 2006;7: 31

   Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-7-31

3. 3.

   Butte AJ, Dzau VJ, Glueck SB. Further defining housekeeping, or “maintenance,” genes Focus on “A compendium of gene expression in normal human tissues”. Physiol Genomics. 2001

   Not in our library10.1007/s10857-005-4766-0

4. 4.

   Zhu J, He F, Hu S, Yu J. On the nature of human housekeeping genes. Trends Genet. 2008;24: 481–484

   Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2008.08.004

5. 5.

   Warrington JA, Nair A, Mahadevappa M, Tsyganskaya M. Comparison of human adult and fetal expression and identification of 535 housekeeping/maintenance genes. Physiol Genomics. 2000;2000: 143–147

   Not in our library10.1152/physiolgenomics.2000.2.3.143

6. 6.

   Thellin O, Zorzi W, Lakaye B, De Borman B, Coumans B, Hennen G, et al. Housekeeping genes as internal standards: Use and limits. J Biotechnol. 1999;75: 291–295

   Not in our library10.1016/s0168-1656(99)00163-7

7. 7.

   López-Maury L, Marguerat S, Bähler J. Tuning gene expression to changing environments: From rapid responses to evolutionary adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2008. pp. 583–593

   Not in our library10.1038/nrg2398

8. 8.

   Zhang L, Li WH. Mammalian Housekeeping Genes Evolve More Slowly than Tissue-Specific Genes. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21: 236–239

   Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msh010

9. 9.

   Koonin E V. How many genes can make a cell: The minimal-gene-set concept. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2000;1: 99–116

   Not in our library10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.99

10. 10.
    Transcription Initiation Patterns Indicate Divergent Strategies for Gene Regulation at the Chromatin Level · 2011

    No notice
11. 11.

    Russo M, Natoli G, Ghisletti S. Housekeeping and tissue-specific cis-regulatory elements: Recipes for specificity and recipes for activity. 2017

    Not in our library10.1080/21541264.2017.1378158

12. 12.
    A benchmark of gene expression tissue-specificity metrics · 2016

    No notice
13. 13.

    Opdam S, Richelle A, Kellman B, Li S, Zielinski DC, Lewis NE. A Systematic Evaluation of Methods for Tailoring Genome-Scale Metabolic Models. Cell Syst. 2017;4: 318–329.e6

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.010

14. 14.

    Lewis NE, Schramm G, Bordbar A, Schellenberger J, Andersen MP, Cheng JK, et al. Large-scale in silico modeling of metabolic interactions between cell types in the human brain. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28: 1279–1285

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.1711

15. 15.

    Mardinoglu A, Agren R, Kampf C, Asplund A, Uhlen M, Nielsen J. Genome-scale metabolic modelling of hepatocytes reveals serine deficiency in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Commun. 2014;5: 3083

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms4083

16. 16.

    Shen Y, Liu J, Estiu G, Isin B, Ahn Y-Y, Lee D-S, et al. Blueprint for antimicrobial hit discovery targeting metabolic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 1082–7

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0909181107

17. 17.

    Kim MK, Lun DS. Methods for integration of transcriptomic data in genome-scale metabolic models. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014;11: 59–65

    Not in our library10.1016/j.csbj.2014.08.009

18. 18.

    Cao J, Packer JS, Ramani V, Cusanovich DA, Huynh C, Daza R, et al. Comprehensive single-cell transcriptional profiling of a multicellular organism. Science. 2017;357: 661–667

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aam8940

19. 19.

    Uhlen M, Zhang C, Lee S, Sjöstedt E, Fagerberg L, Bidkhori G, et al. A pathology atlas of the human cancer transcriptome. Science. 2017;357: eaan2507

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aan2507

20. 20.

    Creecy JP, Conway T. Quantitative bacterial transcriptomics with RNA-seq. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;23: 133–40

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mib.2014.11.011

21. 21.

    Han X, Wang R, Zhou Y, Fei L, Sun H, Lai S, et al. Mapping the Mouse Cell Atlas by Microwell-Seq. Cell. 2018;172: 1091–1107.e17

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.001

22. 22.

    Uhlen M, Fagerberg L, Hallstrom BM, Lindskog C, Oksvold P, Mardinoglu A, et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science (80-). 2015;347: 1260419–1260419

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1260419

23. 23.

    Barbosa-Morais NL, Irimia M, Pan Q, Xiong HY, Gueroussov S, Lee LJ, et al. The Evolutionary Landscape of Alternative Splicing in Vertebrate Species. Science (80-). 2012;338: 1587–1593

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1230612

24. 24.

    Song Q, Ando A, Jiang N, Ikeda Y, Chen ZJ. Single-cell RNA-seq analysis reveals ploidy-dependent and cell-specific transcriptome changes in Arabidopsis female gametophytes. Genome Biol. 2020;21: 178

    Not in our library10.1186/s13059-020-02094-0

25. 25.

    Ning K, Ding C, Huang Q, Zhang W, Yang C, Liang D, et al. Transcriptome profiling revealed diverse gene expression patterns in poplar (Populus × euramericana) under different planting densities. 2019

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0217066

26. 26.

    Breschi A, Djebali S, Gillis J, Pervouchine DD, Dobin A, Davis CA, et al. Gene-specific patterns of expression variation across organs and species. Genome Biol. 2016;17: 151

    Not in our library10.1186/s13059-016-1008-y

27. 27.

    Yang Y, Yang Y-CT, Yuan J, Lu ZJ, Li JJ. Large-scale mapping of mammalian transcriptomes identifies conserved genes associated with different cell states. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;45: 1657–1672

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkw1256

28. 28.

    Tilli TM, Da C, Castro S, Tuszynski JA, Carels N. A strategy to identify housekeeping genes suitable for analysis in breast cancer diseases. 2016 [cited 27 Jan 2020]

    Not in our library10.1186/s12864-016-2946-1

29. 29.

    Bartha I, Di Iulio J, Venter JC, Telenti A. Human gene essentiality. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19: 51–62

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg.2017.75

30. 30.

    Chen H, Zhang Z, Jiang S, Li R, Li W, Zhao C, et al. New insights on human essential genes based on integrated analysis and the construction of the HEGIAP web-based platform. Brief Bioinform. 2019;21: 1397–1410

    Not in our library10.1093/bib/bbz072

31. 31.

    Cacheiro P, Muñoz-Fuentes V, Murray SA, Dickinson ME, Bucan M, Nutter LMJ, et al. Human and mouse essentiality screens as a resource for disease gene discovery. Nat Commun. 2020;11

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-020-14284-2

32. 32.

    O’Hagan S, Wright Muelas M, Day PJ, Lundberg E, Kell DB. GeneGini: Assessment via the Gini Coefficient of Reference “Housekeeping” Genes and Diverse Human Transporter Expression Profiles. Cell Syst. 2018;6: 230–244.e1

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2018.01.003

33. 33.

    Wright Muelas M, Mughal F, O’Hagan S, Day PJ, Kell DB. The role and robustness of the Gini coefficient as an unbiased tool for the selection of Gini genes for normalising expression profiling data. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 718007

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-54288-7

34. 34.

    Gini C. Measurement of Inequality of Incomes. Source Econ J. 1921.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    Brawand D, Soumillon M, Necsulea A, Julien P, Csárdi G, Harrigan P, et al. The evolution of gene expression levels in mammalian organs. Nature. 2011;478: 343–348

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10532

36. 36.

    GTEx Consortium TGte. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat Genet. 2013;45: 580–5

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.2653

37. 37.

    Klijn C, Durinck S, Stawiski EW, Haverty PM, Jiang Z, Liu H, et al. A comprehensive transcriptional portrait of human cancer cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33: 306–312

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3080

38. 38.

    W.C R M. S, S. V, J. D. CellMiner, a systems pharmacological web-application for the NCI-60 cancerous cell-lines: Updates, data integration, and translationally relevant results. Cancer Research. 2016. p. no pagination. Available: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/76/14_Supplement/75%5Cnhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed18b&NEWS=N&AN=613611346

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Xiong K, la Cour Karottki KJ, Hefzi H, Li S, Grav LM, Li S, et al. An optimized genome-wide, virus-free CRISPR screen for mammalian cells. Cell Reports Methods. 2021;1: 100062

    Not in our library10.1016/j.crmeth.2021.100062

40. 40.

    Aguirre AJ, Meyers RM, Weir BA, Vazquez F, Zhang C-Z, Ben-David U, et al. Genomic Copy Number Dictates a Gene-Independent Cell Response to CRISPR/Cas9 Targeting. Cancer Discov. 2016;6: 914–29

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-0154

Cited by papers we hold 1

• Reference genes validation in tear fluid for RNA analysis in ocular surface disease · 2025
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.