Biallelic non-productive enhancer-promoter interaction precedes imprinted expression of<i>Kcnk9</i>during mouse neural commitment

AbstractHow constitutive allelic methylation at imprinting control regions (ICRs) interacts with other levels of regulation to drive timely parental allele-specific expression along large imprinted domains remains partially understood. To gain insight into the regulation of thePeg13-Kcnk9domain, an imprinted domain with important brain functions, during neural commitment, we performed an integrative analysis of the epigenetic, transcriptomic and cis-spatial organisation in an allele-specific manner in a mouse stem cell-based model of corticogenesis that recapitulates the control of imprinted gene expression during neurodevelopment. We evidence that despite an allelic higher-order chromatin structure associated with the paternally CTCF-boundPeg13ICR, the enhancer-Kcnk9promoter contacts can occur on both alleles, although they are only productive on the maternal allele. This observation challenges the canonical model in which CTCF binding isolates the enhancer and its target gene on either side, and suggests a more nuanced role for allelic CTCF binding at some ICRs.</jats:p

Biallelic non-productive enhancer-promoter interactions precede imprinted expression of Kcnk9 during mouse neural commitment

Summary: It is only partially understood how constitutive allelic methylation at imprinting control regions (ICRs) interacts with other regulation levels to drive timely parental allele-specific expression along large imprinted domains. The Peg13-Kcnk9 domain is an imprinted domain with important brain functions. To gain insights into its regulation during neural commitment, we performed an integrative analysis of its allele-specific epigenetic, transcriptomic, and cis-spatial organization using a mouse stem cell-based corticogenesis model that recapitulates the control of imprinted gene expression during neurodevelopment. We found that, despite an allelic higher-order chromatin structure associated with the paternally CTCF-bound Peg13 ICR, enhancer-Kcnk9 promoter contacts occurred on both alleles, although they were productive only on the maternal allele. This observation challenges the canonical model in which CTCF binding isolates the enhancer and its target gene on either side and suggests a more nuanced role for allelic CTCF binding at some ICRs

Imprinted Gene Expression and Function of the Dopa Decarboxylase Gene in the Developing Heart

Dopa decarboxylase (DDC) synthesizes serotonin in the developing mouse heart where it is encoded by Ddc_exon1a, a tissue-specific paternally expressed imprinted gene. Ddc_exon1a shares an imprinting control region (ICR) with the imprinted, maternally expressed (outside of the central nervous system) Grb10 gene on mouse chromosome 11, but little else is known about the tissue-specific imprinted expression of Ddc_exon1a. Fluorescent immunostaining localizes DDC to the developing myocardium in the pre-natal mouse heart, in a region susceptible to abnormal development and implicated in congenital heart defects in human. Ddc_exon1a and Grb10 are not co-expressed in heart nor in brain where Grb10 is also paternally expressed, despite sharing an ICR, indicating they are mechanistically linked by their shared ICR but not by Grb10 gene expression. Evidence from a Ddc_exon1a gene knockout mouse model suggests that it mediates the growth of the developing myocardium and a thinning of the myocardium is observed in a small number of mutant mice examined, with changes in gene expression detected by microarray analysis. Comparative studies in the human developing heart reveal a paternal expression bias with polymorphic imprinting patterns between individual human hearts at DDC_EXON1a, a finding consistent with other imprinted genes in human

Regulation and function of bivalent chromatin in mammals : genomic imprinting as a model

La différenciation et le développement requièrent une régulation fine de l’expression desgènes, médiée en partie par les modifications épigénétiques. Parmi les modificationsd’histones, la chromatine bivalente, signature chromatinienne atypique associant lesmarques permissive H3K4me2/3 et répressive H3K27me3, est de par sa plasticité, pressentiepour jouer un rôle décisionnel dans l’acquisition d’une identité cellulaire. Pour étudier le rôlede la chromatine bivalente au cours du développement, nous avons choisi d’utiliserl’empreinte parentale. Ce cadre développemental bien caractérisé, conduit à l’expression decertains gènes à partir d’un seul des deux allèles selon son origine parentale. La méthylationdifférentielle de l’ADN d’une région clé, appelée ICR (Imprinting Control Region), bienqu’absolument requise pour l’expression mono-allélique de ces gènes, n’est pas suffisantepour rendre compte de la complexité du profil d’expression de ces gènes suggérantl’implication d’autres mécanismes. Sur 15 ICR méthylés sur l’allèle maternel, nous avonsprécisément mis en évidence que la chromatine bivalente est présente par défaut sur l’allèlenon-méthylé lorsque celui-ci est transcriptionnellement inactif, quel que soit le stadedéveloppemental ou le tissu étudié, participant ainsi à la régulation fine de l’expressiontissu-spécifique à partir de ces régions. Dans leur ensemble, nos données révèlent que lachromatine bivalente joue un rôle moins dynamique que pressentie. Ainsi, au niveau del’empreinte parentale, sa fonction principale serait de protéger l’allèle non-méthylé des ICRcontre l’acquisition de méthylation tout en aidant à le maintenir réprimé dans certainstissus. Nous proposons que la chromatine bivalente joue un rôle similaire sur l’ensemble desîlots CpG du génome, contribuant ainsi à la protection de l’identité cellulaire. Afin decompléter cette première étude, j’ai étudié la régulation de l’expression d’un candidat de larégulation de la dynamique de la chromatine bivalente, l’histone déméthylase pourH3K27me3, JMJD3. Les résultats obtenus suggèrent que l’induction d’expression observéeau cours de la différenciation neurale s’appuie sur une dynamique de la structuretridimensionnelle de la chromatine qui pourrait elle-même être régulée par la transcriptiond’un eARN (enhancer ARN) et l’hydroxyméthylation. Ce modèle souligne un mode derégulation complexe de ce nouvel acteur épigénétique, impliquant des régionsintragéniques, et pourrait notamment permettre de comprendre les mécanismes impliquésdans sa dérégulation dans les cancers.Fine-tuned regulation of gene expression is required for cell fate determination anddevelopment. Epigenetics modifications are well documented to be instrumental in thisprocess. Among them, bivalent chromatin, an unusual chromatin signature, which associatesthe permissive mark H3K4me2/3 and the repressive mark H3K27me3, is believed to arbitrategene expression during cell commitment. To study its precise role in development, we haveundertaken to study bivalency in the context of genomic imprinting. This well-defineddevelopmental frame is a process restricting expression of some genes to one parental alleleonly. The constitutive differential DNA methylation at the key region called ICR (ImprintingControl Region), is absolutely required but not sufficient to explain the complexity of themono-allelic expression pattern of imprinted genes, indicating that other mechanisms couldbe involved. Specifically, on 15 maternally methylated ICR, we showed that bivalentchromatin is acquired by default on the unmethylated allele of ICR when it istranscriptionally inactive whatever the developmental stage or the tissue studied and thuscontribute to tissue-specific expression from these regions. Altogether, our results revealthat chromatin bivalency is much less dynamic than proposed. In the context of genomicimprinting, it seems to plays more a safeguard function at ICR by protecting theunmethylated allele against DNA methylation acquisition while keeping it silent in a subsetof tissues. To complete this study, I studied the regulation of JMJD3, a histone demethylasefor H3K27me3, candidate to regulate bivalency dynamic. Our results suggest that theinduction of Jmjd3 expression observed during neural differentiation rely on the dynamic ofthe tridimensional architecture at the locus which could be regulated by the transcription ofan eRNA (enhancer RNA) and by hydroxymethylation. This model highlight a complex way ofregulation for this new epigenetics actor, involving intragenic regions and could help tounderstand how Jmjd3 expression is deregulated in a pathological context such as in cancer

Intragenic CpG islands and their impact on gene regulation

The mammalian genome is depleted in CG dinucleotides, except at protected regions where they cluster as CpG islands (CGIs). CGIs are gene regulatory hubs and serve as transcription initiation sites and are as expected, associated with gene promoters. Advances in genomic annotations demonstrate that a quarter of CGIs are found within genes. Such intragenic regions are repressive environments, so it is surprising that CGIs reside here and even more surprising that some resist repression and are transcriptionally active within a gene. Hence, intragenic CGI positioning within genes is not arbitrary and is instead, selected for. As a wealth of recent studies demonstrate, intragenic CGIs are embedded within genes and consequently, influence ‘host’ gene mRNA isoform length and expand transcriptome diversity

The Nucleosome Remodelling and Deacetylation complex coordinates the transcriptional response to lineage commitment in pluripotent cells.

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: We thank Céline Labouesse and members of the Hendrich, Laue, Arnaud and Oakey labs for discussion, advice, and comments on the manuscript. We thank Andy Riddell, Maike Paramour and Sally Lees for expert technical assistance and advice.Publication status: PublishedFunder: Microsoft Research; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006112Funder: Isaac Newton Trust; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004815Funder: University of Cambridge; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000735As cells exit the pluripotent state and begin to commit to a specific lineage they must activate genes appropriate for that lineage while silencing genes associated with pluripotency and preventing activation of lineage-inappropriate genes. The Nucleosome Remodelling and Deacetylation (NuRD) complex is essential for pluripotent cells to successfully undergo lineage commitment. NuRD controls nucleosome density at regulatory sequences to facilitate transcriptional responses, and also has been shown to prevent unscheduled transcription (transcriptional noise) in undifferentiated pluripotent cells. How these activities combine to ensure cells engage a gene expression program suitable for successful lineage commitment has not been determined. Here, we show that NuRD is not required to silence all genes. Rather, it restricts expression of genes primed for activation upon exit from the pluripotent state, but maintains them in a transcriptionally permissive state in self-renewing conditions, which facilitates their subsequent activation upon exit from naïve pluripotency. We further show that NuRD coordinates gene expression changes, which acts to maintain a barrier between different stable states. Thus NuRD-mediated chromatin remodelling serves multiple functions, including reducing transcriptional noise, priming genes for activation and coordinating the transcriptional response to facilitate lineage commitment.Isaac Newton Trust Microsoft Researc

The Nucleosome Remodelling and Deacetylation complex coordinates the transcriptional response to lineage commitment in pluripotent cells.

As cells exit the pluripotent state and begin to commit to a specific lineage they must activate genes appropriate for that lineage while silencing genes associated with pluripotency and preventing activation of lineage-inappropriate genes. The Nucleosome Remodelling and Deacetylation (NuRD) complex is essential for pluripotent cells to successfully undergo lineage commitment. NuRD controls nucleosome density at regulatory sequences to facilitate transcriptional responses, and also has been shown to prevent unscheduled transcription (transcriptional noise) in undifferentiated pluripotent cells. How these activities combine to ensure cells engage a gene expression program suitable for successful lineage commitment has not been determined. Here we show that NuRD is not required to silence all genes. Rather it restricts expression of genes primed for activation upon exit from the pluripotent state, but maintains them in a transcriptionally permissive state in self-renewing conditions which facilitates their subsequent activation upon exit from naïve pluripotency. We further show that NuRD coordinates gene expression changes, which acts to maintain a barrier between different stable states. Thus NuRD-mediated chromatin remodelling serves multiple functions, including reducing transcriptional noise, priming genes for activation and coordinating the transcriptional response to facilitate lineage commitment.Isaac Newton Trust Microsoft Researc

A novel thrombopoietin ( THPO ) mutation altering mRNA splicing in a case of familial thrombocytosis

International audienceNo abstract availabl