Interpreting the language of histone and DNA modifications

A major mechanism regulating the accessibility and function of eukaryotic genomes are the covalent modifications to DNA and histone proteins that dependably package our genetic information inside the nucleus of every cell. Formally postulated over a decade ago, it is becoming increasingly clear that post-translational modifications (PTMs) on histones act singly and in combination to form a language or ‘code’ that is read by specialized proteins to facilitate downstream functions in chromatin. Underappreciated at the time was the level of complexity harbored both within histone PTMs and their combinations, as well as within the proteins that read and interpret the language. In addition to histone PTMs, newly-identified DNA modifications that can recruit specific effector proteins has raised further awareness that histone PTMs operate within a broader language of epigenetic modifications to orchestrate the dynamic functions associated with chromatin. Here, we highlight key recent advances in our understanding of the epigenetic language encompassing histone and DNA modifications and foreshadow challenges that lie ahead as we continue our quest to decipher the fundamental mechanisms of chromatin regulation

Systematic comparison of monoclonal versus polyclonal antibodies for mapping histone modifications by ChIP-seq.

BackgroundThe robustness of ChIP-seq datasets is highly dependent upon the antibodies used. Currently, polyclonal antibodies are the standard despite several limitations: They are non-renewable, vary in performance between lots and need to be validated with each new lot. In contrast, monoclonal antibody lots are renewable and provide consistent performance. To increase ChIP-seq standardization, we investigated whether monoclonal antibodies could replace polyclonal antibodies. We compared monoclonal antibodies that target five key histone modifications (H3K4me1, H3K4me3, H3K9me3, H3K27ac and H3K27me3) to their polyclonal counterparts in both human and mouse cells.ResultsOverall performance was highly similar for four monoclonal/polyclonal pairs, including when we used two distinct lots of the same monoclonal antibody. In contrast, the binding patterns for H3K27ac differed substantially between polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. However, this was most likely due to the distinct immunogen used rather than the clonality of the antibody.ConclusionsAltogether, we found that monoclonal antibodies as a class perform equivalently to polyclonal antibodies for the detection of histone post-translational modifications in both human and mouse. Accordingly, we recommend the use of monoclonal antibodies in ChIP-seq experiments

Structural basis for DNMT3A-mediated de novo DNA methylation.

DNA methylation by de novo DNA methyltransferases 3A (DNMT3A) and 3B (DNMT3B) at cytosines is essential for genome regulation and development. Dysregulation of this process is implicated in various diseases, notably cancer. However, the mechanisms underlying DNMT3 substrate recognition and enzymatic specificity remain elusive. Here we report a 2.65-ångström crystal structure of the DNMT3A-DNMT3L-DNA complex in which two DNMT3A monomers simultaneously attack two cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) dinucleotides, with the target sites separated by 14 base pairs within the same DNA duplex. The DNMT3A-DNA interaction involves a target recognition domain, a catalytic loop, and DNMT3A homodimeric interface. Arg836 of the target recognition domain makes crucial contacts with CpG, ensuring DNMT3A enzymatic preference towards CpG sites in cells. Haematological cancer-associated somatic mutations of the substrate-binding residues decrease DNMT3A activity, induce CpG hypomethylation, and promote transformation of haematopoietic cells. Together, our study reveals the mechanistic basis for DNMT3A-mediated DNA methylation and establishes its aetiological link to human disease

Comparative biochemical analysis of UHRF proteins reveals molecular mechanisms that uncouple UHRF2 from DNA methylation maintenance

UHRF1 is a histone- and DNA-binding E3 ubiquitin ligase that functions with DNMT1 to maintain mammalian DNA methylation. UHRF1 facilitates DNMT1 recruitment to replicating chromatin through a coordinated mechanism involving histone and DNA recognition and histone ubiquitination. UHRF2 shares structural homology with UHRF1, but surprisingly lacks functional redundancy to facilitate DNA methylation maintenance. Molecular mechanisms uncoupling UHRF2 from DNA methylation maintenance are poorly defined. Through comprehensive and comparative biochemical analysis of recombinant human UHRF1 and UHRF2 reader and writer activities, we reveal conserved modes of histone PTM recognition but divergent DNA binding properties. While UHRF1 and UHRF2 diverge in their affinities toward hemi-methylated DNA, we surprisingly show that both hemi-methylated and hemi-hydroxymethylated DNA oligonucleotides stimulate UHRF2 ubiquitin ligase activity toward histone H3 peptide substrates. This is the first example of an E3 ligase allosterically regulated by DNA hydroxymethylation. However, UHRF2 is not a productive histone E3 ligase toward purified mononucleosomes, suggesting UHRF2 has an intra-domain architecture distinct from UHRF1 that is conformationally constrained when bound to chromatin. Collectively, our studies reveal that uncoupling of UHRF2 from the DNA methylation maintenance program is linked to differences in the molecular readout of chromatin signatures that connect UHRF1 to ubiquitination of histone H3

Lysine Methylation Regulators Moonlighting outside the Epigenome

Landmark discoveries made nearly two decades ago identified known transcriptional regulators as histone lysine methyltransferases; since then the field of lysine methylation signaling has been dominated by studies of how this small chemical posttranslational modification regulates gene expression and other chromatin-based processes. However, recent advances in mass spectrometry-based proteomics have revealed that histones are just a subset of the thousands of eukaryotic proteins marked by lysine methylation. As the writers, erasers, and readers of histone lysine methylation are emerging as a promising therapeutic target class for cancer and other diseases, a key challenge for the field is to define the full spectrum of activities for these proteins. Here we summarize recent discoveries implicating non-histone lysine methylation as a major regulator of diverse cellular processes. We further discuss recent technological innovations that are enabling the expanded study of lysine methylation signaling. Collectively, these findings are shaping our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of non-histone protein regulation through this dynamic and multi-functional posttranslational modification

Peptide Microarrays to Interrogate the “Histone Code”

Histone posttranslational modifications (PTMs) play a pivotal role in regulating the dynamics and function of chromatin. Supported by an increasing body of literature, histone PTMs such as methylation and acetylation function together in the context of a “histone code,” which is read, or interpreted, by effector proteins that then drive a functional output in chromatin (e.g., gene transcription). A growing number of domains that interact with histones and/or their PTMs have been identified. While significant advances have been made in our understanding of how these domains interact with histones, a wide number of putative histone-binding motifs have yet to be characterized, and undoubtedly, novel domains will continue to be discovered. In this chapter, we provide a detailed method for the construction of combinatorially modified histone peptides, microarray fabrication using these peptides, and methods to characterize the interaction of effector proteins, antibodies, and the substrate specificity of histone-modifying enzymes. We discuss these methods in the context of other available technologies and provide a user-friendly approach to enable the exploration of histone–protein–enzyme interactions and function

Histone peptide microarray screen of chromo and Tudor domains defines new histone lysine methylation interactions

Additional file 6: Figure S4. CHD7 chromodomain histone peptide microarray. A) Representative array images of CHD7 chromodomain showing peptide binding indicated in red (right panel). The peptide tracer is shown in green (left panel). Positive antibody controls are outlined in white. B) Scatter plot of the relative binding of CHD7 chromodomain from two independent peptide arrays. All modified and unmodified H4 (1–23) peptides are shown in red. All other peptides are shown in black. C) Relative binding to the indicated histone peptides from one representative array. Data were normalized to the most intense binding and the average and standard deviation of triplicate spots is shown

An Allosteric Interaction Links USP7 to Deubiquitination and Chromatin Targeting of UHRF1

The protein stability and chromatin functions of UHRF1 (ubiquitin-like, containing PHD and RING finger domains, 1) are regulated in a cell-cycle-dependent manner. We report a structural characterization of the complex between UHRF1 and the deubiquitinase USP7. The first two UBL domains of USP7 bind to the polybasic region (PBR) of UHRF1, and this interaction is required for the USP7-mediated deubiquitination of UHRF1. Importantly, we find that the USP7-binding site of the UHRF1 PBR overlaps with the region engaging in an intramolecular interaction with the N-terminal tandem Tudor domain (TTD). We show that the USP7-UHRF1 interaction perturbs the TTD-PBR interaction of UHRF1, thereby shifting the conformation of UHRF1 from a TTD- occluded state to a state open for multivalent histone binding. Consistently, introduction of a USP7-interaction-defective mutation to UHRF1 significantly reduces its chromatin association. Together, these results link USP7 interaction to the dynamic deubiquitination and chromatin association of UHRF1

A physical basis for quantitative ChIP-sequencing

ChIP followed by next-generation sequencing (ChIP-Seq) is a key technique for mapping the distribution of histone posttranslational modifications (PTMs) and chromatin-associated factors across genomes. There is a perceived challenge to define a quantitative scale for ChIP-Seq data, and as such, several approaches making use of exogenous additives, or "spike-ins," have recently been developed. Herein, we report on the development of a quantitative, physical model defining ChIP-Seq. The quantitative scale on which ChIP-Seq results should be compared emerges from the model. To test the model and demonstrate the quantitative scale, we examine the impacts of an EZH2 inhibitor through the lens of ChIP-Seq. We report a significant increase in immunoprecipitation of presumed off-target histone PTMs after inhibitor treatment, a trend predicted by the model but contrary to spike-in-based indications. Our work also identifies a sensitivity issue in spike-in normalization that has not been considered in the literature, placing limitations on its utility and trustworthiness. We call our new approach the sans-spike-in method for quantitative ChIP-sequencing (siQ-ChIP). A number of changes in community practice of ChIP-Seq, data reporting, and analysis are motivated by this work

A Read/Write Mechanism Connects p300 Bromodomain Function to H2A.Z Acetylation

Acetylation of the histone variant H2A.Z (H2A.Zac) occurs at active regulatory regions associated with gene expression. Although the Tip60 complex is proposed to acetylate H2A.Z, functional studies suggest additional enzymes are involved. Here, we show that p300 acetylates H2A.Z at multiple lysines. In contrast, we found that although Tip60 does not efficiently acetylate H2A.Z in vitro, genetic inhibition of Tip60 reduces H2A.Zac in cells. Importantly, we found that interaction between the p300-bromodomain and H4 acetylation (H4ac) enhances p300-driven H2A.Zac. Indeed, H2A.Zac and H4ac show high genomic overlap, especially at active promoters. We also reveal unique chromatin features and transcriptional states at enhancers correlating with co-occurrence or exclusivity of H4ac and H2A.Zac. We propose that differential H4 and H2A.Z acetylation signatures can also define the enhancer state. In conclusion, we show both Tip60 and p300 contribute to H2A.Zac and reveal molecular mechanisms of writer/reader crosstalk between H2A.Z and H4 acetylation through p300