Physical interaction between MSL2 and CLAMP assures direct cooperativity and prevents competition at composite binding sites.

MSL2, the DNA-binding subunit of the Drosophila dosage compensation complex, cooperates with the ubiquitous protein CLAMP to bind MSL recognition elements (MREs) on the X chromosome. We explore the nature of the cooperative binding to these GA-rich, composite sequence elements in reconstituted naïve embryonic chromatin. We found that the cooperativity requires physical interaction between both proteins. Remarkably, disruption of this interaction does not lead to indirect, nucleosome-mediated cooperativity as expected, but to competition. The protein interaction apparently not only increases the affinity for composite binding sites, but also locks both proteins in a defined dimeric state that prevents competition. High Affinity Sites of MSL2 on the X chromosome contain variable numbers of MREs. We find that the cooperation between MSL2/CLAMP is not influenced by MRE clustering or arrangement, but happens largely at the level of individual MREs. The sites where MSL2/CLAMP bind strongly in vitro locate to all chromosomes and show little overlap to an expanded set of X-chromosomal MSL2 in vivo binding sites generated by CUT&RUN. Apparently, the intrinsic MSL2/CLAMP cooperativity is limited to a small selection of potential sites in vivo. This restriction must be due to components missing in our reconstitution, such as roX2 lncRNA.

Divergent evolution toward sex chromosome-specific gene regulation in Drosophila.

The dosage compensation complex (DCC) of Drosophila identifies its X-chromosomal binding sites with exquisite selectivity. The principles that assure this vital targeting are known from the D. melanogaster model: DCC-intrinsic specificity of DNA binding, cooperativity with the CLAMP protein, and noncoding roX2 RNA transcribed from the X chromosome. We found that in D. virilis, a species separated from melanogaster by 40 million years of evolution, all principles are active but contribute differently to X specificity. In melanogaster, the DCC subunit MSL2 evolved intrinsic DNA-binding selectivity for rare PionX sites, which mark the X chromosome. In virilis, PionX motifs are abundant and not X-enriched. Accordingly, MSL2 lacks specific recognition. Here, roX2 RNA plays a more instructive role, counteracting a nonproductive interaction of CLAMP and modulating DCC binding selectivity. Remarkably, roX2 triggers a stable chromatin binding mode characteristic of DCC. Evidently, X-specific regulation is achieved by divergent evolution of protein, DNA, and RNA components.

Drosophila SWR1 and NuA4 complexes are defined by DOMINO isoforms.

Histone acetylation and deposition of H2A.Z variant are integral aspects of active transcription. In Drosophila, the single DOMINO chromatin regulator complex is thought to combine both activities via an unknown mechanism. Here we show that alternative isoforms of the DOMINO nucleosome remodeling ATPase, DOM-A and DOM-B, directly specify two distinct multi-subunit complexes. Both complexes are necessary for transcriptional regulation but through different mechanisms. The DOM-B complex incorporates H2A.V (the fly ortholog of H2A.Z) genome-wide in an ATP-dependent manner, like the yeast SWR1 complex. The DOM-A complex, instead, functions as an ATP-independent histone acetyltransferase complex similar to the yeast NuA4, targeting lysine 12 of histone H4. Our work provides an instructive example of how different evolutionary strategies lead to similar functional separation. In yeast and humans, nucleosome remodeling and histone acetyltransferase complexes originate from gene duplication and paralog specification. Drosophila generates the same diversity by alternative splicing of a single gene.

Cells contain a large number of proteins that control the activity of genes in response to various signals and changes in their environment. Often these proteins work together in groups called complexes. In the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, one of these complexes is called DOMINO. The DOMINO complex alters gene activity by interacting with other proteins called histones which influence how the genes are packaged and accessed within the cell. DOMINO works in two separate ways. First, it can replace certain histones with other variants that regulate genes differently. Second, it can modify histones by adding a chemical marker to them, which alters how they interact with genes. It was not clear how DOMINO can do both of these things and how that is controlled; but it was known that cells can make two different forms of the central component of the complex, called DOM-A and DOM-B, which are both encoded by the same gene. Scacchetti et al. have now studied fruit flies to understand the activities of these forms. This revealed that they do have different roles and that gene activity in cells changes if either one is lost. The two forms operate as part complexes with different compositions and only DOM-A includes the TIP60 enzyme that is needed to modify histones. As such, it seems that DOM-B primarily replaces histones with variant forms, while DOM-A modifies existing histones. This means that each form has a unique role associated with each of the two known behaviors of this complex. The presence of two different DOMINO complexes is common to flies and, probably, other insects. Yet, in other living things, such as mammals and yeast, their two roles are carried out by protein complexes originating from two distinct genes. This illustrates a concept called convergent evolution, where different organisms find different solutions for the same problem. As such, these findings provide an insight into the challenges encountered through evolution and the diverse solutions that have developed. They will also help us to understand the ways in which protein activities can adapt to different needs over evolutionary time.

Micronuclei-based model system reveals functional consequences of chromothripsis in human cells.

Cancer cells often harbor chromosomes in abnormal numbers and with aberrant structure. The consequences of these chromosomal aberrations are difficult to study in cancer, and therefore several model systems have been developed in recent years. We show that human cells with extra chromosome engineered via microcell-mediated chromosome transfer often gain massive chromosomal rearrangements. The rearrangements arose by chromosome shattering and rejoining as well as by replication-dependent mechanisms. We show that the isolated micronuclei lack functional lamin B1 and become prone to envelope rupture, which leads to DNA damage and aberrant replication. The presence of functional lamin B1 partly correlates with micronuclei size, suggesting that the proper assembly of nuclear envelope might be sensitive to membrane curvature. The chromosomal rearrangements in trisomic cells provide growth advantage compared to cells without rearrangements. Our model system enables to study mechanisms of massive chromosomal rearrangements of any chromosome and their consequences in human cells.