Interaction of SET domains with histones and nucleic acid structures in active chromatin

Changes in the normal program of gene expression are the basis for a number of human diseases. Epigenetic control of gene expression is programmed by chromatin modifications—the inheritable “histone code”—the major component of which is histone methylation. This chromatin methylation code of gene activity is created upon cell differentiation and is further controlled by the “SET” (methyltransferase) domain proteins which maintain this histone methylation pattern and preserve it through rounds of cell division. The molecular principles of epigenetic gene maintenance are essential for proper treatment and prevention of disorders and their complications. However, the principles of epigenetic gene programming are not resolved. Here we discuss some evidence of how the SET proteins determine the required states of target genes and maintain the required levels of their activity. We suggest that, along with other recognition pathways, SET domains can directly recognize the nucleosome and nucleic acids intermediates that are specific for active chromatin regions

Global Analysis of the Relationship between JIL-1 Kinase and Transcription

The ubiquitous tandem kinase JIL-1 is essential for Drosophila development. Its role in defining decondensed domains of larval polytene chromosomes is well established, but its involvement in transcription regulation has remained controversial. For a first comprehensive molecular characterisation of JIL-1, we generated a high-resolution, chromosome-wide interaction profile of the kinase in Drosophila cells and determined its role in transcription. JIL-1 binds active genes along their entire length. The presence of the kinase is not proportional to average transcription levels or polymerase density. Comparison of JIL-1 association with elongating RNA polymerase and a variety of histone modifications suggests two distinct targeting principles. A basal level of JIL-1 binding can be defined that correlates best with the methylation of histone H3 at lysine 36, a mark that is placed co-transcriptionally. The additional acetylation of H4K16 defines a second state characterised by approximately twofold elevated JIL-1 levels, which is particularly prominent on the dosage-compensated male X chromosome. Phosphorylation of the histone H3 N-terminus by JIL-1 in vitro is compatible with other tail modifications. In vivo, phosphorylation of H3 at serine 10, together with acetylation at lysine 14, creates a composite histone mark that is enriched at JIL-1 binding regions. Its depletion by RNA interference leads to a modest, but significant, decrease of transcription from the male X chromosome. Collectively, the results suggest that JIL-1 participates in a complex histone modification network that characterises active, decondensed chromatin. We hypothesise that one specific role of JIL-1 may be to reinforce, rather than to establish, the status of active chromatin through the phosphorylation of histone H3 at serine 10

Dietary phytochemicals, HDAC inhibition, and DNA damage/repair defects in cancer cells

Genomic instability is a common feature of cancer etiology. This provides an avenue for therapeutic intervention, since cancer cells are more susceptible than normal cells to DNA damaging agents. However, there is growing evidence that the epigenetic mechanisms that impact DNA methylation and histone status also contribute to genomic instability. The DNA damage response, for example, is modulated by the acetylation status of histone and non-histone proteins, and by the opposing activities of histone acetyltransferase and histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. Many HDACs overexpressed in cancer cells have been implicated in protecting such cells from genotoxic insults. Thus, HDAC inhibitors, in addition to unsilencing tumor suppressor genes, also can silence DNA repair pathways, inactivate non-histone proteins that are required for DNA stability, and induce reactive oxygen species and DNA double-strand breaks. This review summarizes how dietary phytochemicals that affect the epigenome also can trigger DNA damage and repair mechanisms. Where such data is available, examples are cited from studies in vitro and in vivo of polyphenols, organosulfur/organoselenium compounds, indoles, sesquiterpene lactones, and miscellaneous agents such as anacardic acid. Finally, by virtue of their genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, cancer chemopreventive agents are being redefined as chemo- or radio-sensitizers. A sustained DNA damage response coupled with insufficient repair may be a pivotal mechanism for apoptosis induction in cancer cells exposed to dietary phytochemicals. Future research, including appropriate clinical investigation, should clarify these emerging concepts in the context of both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms dysregulated in cancer, and the pros and cons of specific dietary intervention strategies