PRC1 marks the difference in plant PcG repression

From mammals to plants, the Polycomb Group (PcG) machinery plays a crucial role in maintaining the repression of genes that are not required in a specific differentiation status. However, the mechanism by which PcG machinery mediates gene repression is still largely unknown in plants. Compared to animals, few PcG proteins have been identified in plants, not only because just some of these proteins are clearly conserved to their animal counterparts, but also because some PcG functions are carried out by plant-specific proteins, most of them as yet uncharacterized. For a long time, the apparent lack of Polycomb Repressive Complex (PRC)1 components in plants was interpreted according to the idea that plants, as sessile organisms, do not need a long-term repression as they must be able to respond rapidly to environmental signals; however, some PRC1 components have been recently identified, indicating that this may not be the case. Furthermore, new data regarding the recruitment of PcG complexes and maintenance of PcG repression in plants have revealed important differences to what has been reported so far. This review highlights recent progress in plant PcG function, focusing on the role of the putative PRC1 components.Peer Reviewe

RAWUL: A new ubiquitin-like domain in PRC1 Ring finger proteins that unveils putative plant and worm PRC1 orthologs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are a set of chromatin-modifying proteins that play a key role in epigenetic gene regulation. The PcG proteins form large multiprotein complexes with different activities. The two best-characterized PcG complexes are the PcG repressive complex 1 (PRC1) and 2 (PRC2) that respectively possess histone 2A lysine 119 E3 ubiquitin ligase and histone 3 lysine 27 methyltransferase activities. While PRC2-like complexes are conserved throughout the eukaryotic kingdoms, PRC1-like complexes have only been described in Drosophila and vertebrates. Since both complexes are required for the gene silencing mechanism in Drosophila and vertebrates, how PRC1 function is realized in organisms that apparently lack PRC1 such as plants, is so far unknown. In vertebrates, PRC1 includes three proteins, Ring1B, Ring1A, and Bmi-1 that form an E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. These PRC1 proteins have an N-terminally located Ring finger domain associated to a poorly characterized conserved C-terminal region.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We obtained statistically significant evidences of sequence similarity between the C-terminal region of the PRC1 Ring finger proteins and the ubiquitin (Ubq)-like family proteins, thus defining a new Ubq-like domain, the RAWUL domain. In addition, our analysis revealed the existence of plant and worm proteins that display the conserved combination of a Ring finger domain at the N-terminus and a RAWUL domain at the C-terminus.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Analysis of the conserved domain architecture among PRC1 Ring finger proteins revealed the existence of long sought PRC1 protein orthologs in these organisms, suggesting the functional conservation of PRC1 throughout higher eukaryotes.</p

H2A monoubiquitination in Arabidopsis thaliana is generally independent of LHP1 and PRC2 activity

Background: Polycomb group complexes PRC1 and PRC2 repress gene expression at the chromatin level in eukaryotes. The classic recruitment model of Polycomb group complexes in which PRC2-mediated H3K27 trimethylation recruits PRC1 for H2A monoubiquitination was recently challenged by data showing that PRC1 activity can also recruit PRC2. However, the prevalence of these two mechanisms is unknown, especially in plants as H2AK121ub marks were examined at only a handful of Polycomb group targets. Results: By using genome-wide analyses, we show that H2AK121ub marks are surprisingly widespread in Arabidopsis thaliana, often co-localizing with H3K27me3 but also occupying a set of transcriptionally active genes devoid of H3K27me3. Furthermore, by profiling H2AK121ub and H3K27me3 marks in atbmi1a/b/c, clf/swn, and lhp1 mutants we found that PRC2 activity is not required for H2AK121ub marking at most genes. In contrast, loss of AtBMI1 function impacts the incorporation of H3K27me3 marks at most Polycomb group targets. Conclusions: Our findings show the relationship between H2AK121ub and H3K27me3 marks across the A. thaliana genome and unveil that ubiquitination by PRC1 is largely independent of PRC2 activity in plants, while the inverse is true for H3K27 trimethylation.Peer reviewe

The Arabidopsis Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) Components AtBMI1A, B, and C Impact Gene Networks throughout All Stages of Plant Development

Polycomb Group regulation in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) is required to maintain cell differentiation and allow developmental phase transitions. This is achieved by the activity of three PcG repressive complex 2s (PRC2s) and the participation of a yet poorly defined PRC1. Previous results showed that apparent PRC1 components perform discrete roles during plant development, suggesting the existence of PRC1 variants; however, it is not clear in how many processes these components participate. We show that AtBMI1 proteins are required to promote all developmental phase transitions and to control cell proliferation during organ growth and development, expanding their proposed range of action. While AtBMI1 function during germination is closely linked to B3 domain transcription factors VAL1/2 possibly in combination with GT-box binding factors, other AtBMI1 regulatory networks require participation of different factor combinations. Conversely, EMF1 and LHP1 bind many H3K27me3 positive genes up-regulated in atbmi1a/b/c mutants; however, loss of their function affects expression of a different subset, suggesting that even if EMF1, LHP1, and AtBMI1 exist in a common PRC1 variant, their role in repression depends on the functional context.Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad BIO2013-44078-

Roles of Polycomb complexes in regulating gene expression and chromatin structure in plants

The evolutionary conserved Polycomb Group (PcG) repressive system comprises two central protein complexes, PcG repressive complex 1 (PRC1) and PRC2. These complexes, through the incorporation of histone modifications on chromatin, have an essential role in the normal development of eukaryotes. In recent years, a significant effort has been made to characterize these complexes in the different kingdoms, and despite there being remarkable functional and mechanistic conservation, some key molecular principles have diverged. In this review, we discuss current views on the function of plant PcG complexes. We compare the composition of PcG complexes between animals and plants, highlight the role of recently identified plant PcG accessory proteins, and discuss newly revealed roles of known PcG partners. We also examine the mechanisms by which the repression is achieved and how these complexes are recruited to target genes. Finally, we consider the possible role of some plant PcG proteins in mediating local and long-range chromatin interactions and, thus, shaping chromatin 3D architecturePeer reviewe

Deciphering the Role of POLYCOMB REPRESSIVE COMPLEX1 Variants in Regulating the Acquisition of Flowering Competence in Arabidopsis

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins play important roles in regulating developmental phase transitions in plants; however, little is known about the role of the PcG machinery in regulating the transition from juvenile to adult phase. Here, we show that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) B lymphoma Moloney murine leukemia virus insertion region1 homolog (BMI1) POLYCOMB REPRESSIVE COMPLEX1 (PRC1) components participate in the repression of microRNA156 (miR156). Loss of AtBMI1 function leads to the up-regulation of the primary transcript of MIR156A and MIR156C at the time the levels of miR156 should decline, resulting in an extended juvenile phase and delayed flowering. Conversely, the PRC1 component EMBRYONIC FLOWER (EMF1) participates in the regulation of SQUAMOSA PROMOTER-BINDING PROTEIN-LIKE and MIR172 genes. Accordingly, plants impaired in EMF1 function displayed misexpression of these genes early in development, which contributes to a CONSTANS-independent up-regulation of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) leading to the earliest flowering phenotype described in Arabidopsis. Our findings show how the different regulatory roles of two functional PRC1 variants coordinate the acquisition of flowering competence and help to reach the threshold of FT necessary to flower. Furthermore, we show how two central regulatory mechanisms, such as PcG and microRNA, assemble to achieve a developmental outcomePeer reviewe

Floral Meristem Identity Genes Are Expressed during Tendril Development in Grapevine

To study the early steps of flower initiation and development in grapevine (Vitis vinifera), we have isolated two MADS-box genes, VFUL-L and VAP1, the putative FUL-like and AP1 grapevine orthologs, and analyzed their expression patterns during vegetative and reproductive development. Both genes are expressed in lateral meristems that, in grapevine, can give rise to either inflorescences or tendrils. They are also coexpressed in inflorescence and flower meristems. During flower development, VFUL-L transcripts are restricted to the central part of young flower meristems and, later, to the prospective carpel-forming region, which is consistent with a role of this gene in floral transition and carpel and fruit development. Expression pattern of VAP1 suggests that it may play a role in flowering transition and flower development. However, its lack of expression in sepal primordia, does not support its role as an A-function gene in grapevine. Neither VFUL-L nor VAP1 expression was detected in vegetative organs such as leaves or roots. In contrast, they are expressed throughout tendril development. Transcription of both genes in tendrils of very young plants that have not undergone flowering transition indicates that this expression is independent of the flowering process. These unique expression patterns of genes typically involved in reproductive development have implications on our understanding of flower induction and initiation in grapevine, on the origin of grapevine tendrils and on the functional roles of AP1-and FUL-like genes in plant development. These results also provide molecular support to the hypothesis that Vitis tendrils are modified reproductive organs adapted to climb

Flowering transition in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)

The available information on the regulation of flowering transition in model systems, such as Arabidopsis and rice, provides a framework to undertake the study of this process in plant species with different growth strategies. The grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is the most widely cultivated and economically important fruit crop in the world. Understanding the regulation of flowering transition in this species can be relevant for the improvement of yield and quality of the crop. The grapevine is a representative of the family Vitaceae, whose species mostly grow as vines and have evolved climbing organs, tendrils, which are ontogenetically related to the reproductive organs. Here, we summarize the available information on the flowering transition in the grapevine. With this purpose, we first describe the vegetative and reproductive development of the grapevine as well as the reports on the physiology of flowering induction in this species. As well, we review the recent information on the molecular genetics of flowering signal integrator and flower meristem identity genes in the grapevine and compare the process with what is already known in model systems such as Arabidopsis. Finally, we propose a preliminary model to explain the regulation of flower initiation in the grapevine that is useful to identify its differential features and infer future prospects in the understanding of this process.Peer reviewe