Contribution of promoter DNA sequence to heterochromatin formation velocity and memory of gene repression in mouse embryo fibroblasts

Durable gene silencing through the formation of compact heterochromatin domains plays a critical role during mammalian development in establishing defined tissues capable of retaining cellular identity. Hallmarks of heterochromatin gene repression are the binding of heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1), trimethylation of lysine 9 on histone H3 (H3K9me3) and the methylation of cytosine residues of DNA. HP1 binds directly to the H3K9me3 histone modification, and while DNA methyltransferases have been found in complex with histone methyltransferases and HP1, there remains much to be known about the relationship between DNA sequence and HP1 in differentiated mammalian cells. To further explore this interplay in a controlled system, we designed a system to test the effect of promoter CpG content on the formation kinetics and memory of an HP1-mediated heterochromatin domain in mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEF)s. To do this, we have constructed a side-by-side comparison of wild-type (CpGFull) and CpG-depleted (CpGDep) promoter-driven reporter constructs in the context of the Chromatin in vivo Assay (CiA), which uses chemically-induced proximity (CIP) to tether the chromoshadow domain of HP1α (csHP1α) to a fluorescent reporter gene in a reversible, chemically-dependent manner. By comparing the response of CpGFull and CpGDep reporter constructs, we discovered that the heterochromatin formation by recruitment of csHP1α is unaffected by the underlying CpG dinucleotide content of the promoter, as measured by the velocity of gene silencing or enrichment of H3K9me3 at the silenced gene. However, recovery from long-term silencing is measurably faster in the CpG-depleted reporter lines. These data provide evidence that the stability of the HP1 heterochromatin domain is reliant on the underlying DNA sequence. Moreover, these cell lines represent a new modular system with which to study the effect of the underlying DNA sequences on the efficacy of epigenetic modifiers. © 2019 Vignaux et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Transporter Inhibition Profile for the Antivirals Tilorone, Quinacrine and Pyronaridine

Pyronaridine, tilorone and quinacrine are cationic molecules that have in vitro activity against Ebola, SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses. All three molecules have also demonstrated in vivo activity against Ebola in mice, while pyronaridine showed in vivo efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in mice. We have recently tested these molecules and other antivirals against human organic cation transporters (OCTs) and apical multidrug and toxin extruders (MATEs). Quinacrine was found to be an inhibitor of OCT2, while tilorone and pyronaridine were less potent, and these displayed variability depending on the substrate used. To assess whether any of these three molecules have other potential interactions with additional transporters, we have now screened them at 10 μM against various human efflux and uptake transporters including P-gp, OATP1B3, OAT1, OAT3, MRP1, MRP2, MRP3, BCRP, as well as confirmational testing against OCT1, OCT2, MATE1 and MATE2K. Interestingly, in this study tilorone appears to be a more potent inhibitor of OCT1 and OCT2 than pyronaridine or quinacrine. However, both pyronaridine and quinacrine appear to be more potent inhibitors of MATE1 and MATE2K. None of the three compounds inhibited MRP1, MRP2, MRP3, OAT1, OAT3, P-gp or OATP1B3. Similarly, we previously showed that tilorone and pyronaridine do not inhibit OATP1B1 and have confirmed that quinacrine behaves similarly. In total, these observations suggest that the three compounds only appear to interact with OCTs and MATEs to differing extents, suggesting they may be involved in fewer clinically relevant drug-transporter interactions involving pharmaceutical substrates of the other major transporters tested. © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]