DNA elements tether canonical Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 to human genes.

Development of multicellular animals requires epigenetic repression by Polycomb group proteins. The latter assemble in multi-subunit complexes, of which two kinds, Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) and Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2), act together to repress key developmental genes. How PRC1 and PRC2 recognize specific genes remains an open question. Here we report the identification of several hundreds of DNA elements that tether canonical PRC1 to human developmental genes. We use the term tether to describe a process leading to a prominent presence of canonical PRC1 at certain genomic sites, although the complex is unlikely to interact with DNA directly. Detailed analysis indicates that sequence features associated with PRC1 tethering differ from those that favour PRC2 binding. Throughout the genome, the two kinds of sequence features mix in different proportions to yield a gamut of DNA elements that range from those tethering predominantly PRC1 or PRC2 to ones capable of tethering both complexes. The emerging picture is similar to the paradigmatic targeting of Polycomb complexes by Polycomb Response Elements (PREs) of Drosophila but providing for greater plasticity.

Topological screen identifies hundreds of Cp190- and CTCF-dependent Drosophila chromatin insulator elements.

Drosophila insulators were the first DNA elements found to regulate gene expression by delimiting chromatin contacts. We still do not know how many of them exist and what impact they have on the Drosophila genome folding. Contrary to vertebrates, there is no evidence that fly insulators block cohesin-mediated chromatin loop extrusion. Therefore, their mechanism of action remains uncertain. To bridge these gaps, we mapped chromatin contacts in Drosophila cells lacking the key insulator proteins CTCF and Cp190. With this approach, we found hundreds of insulator elements. Their study indicates that Drosophila insulators play a minor role in the overall genome folding but affect chromatin contacts locally at many loci. Our observations argue that Cp190 promotes cobinding of other insulator proteins and that the model, where Drosophila insulators block chromatin contacts by forming loops, needs revision. Our insulator catalog provides an important resource to study mechanisms of genome folding.

Genetic Dissection Reveals the Role of Ash1 Domains in Counteracting Polycomb Repression.

Antagonistic functions of Polycomb and Trithorax proteins are essential for proper development of all metazoans. While the Polycomb proteins maintain the repressed state of many key developmental genes, the Trithorax proteins ensure that these genes stay active in cells where they have to be expressed. Ash1 is the Trithorax protein that was proposed to counteract Polycomb repression by methylating lysine 36 of histone H3. However, it was recently shown that genetic replacement of Drosophila histone H3 with the variant that carried Arginine instead of Lysine at position 36 did not impair the ability of Ash1 to counteract Polycomb repression. This argues that Ash1 counteracts Polycomb repression by methylating yet unknown substrate(s) and that it is time to look beyond Ash1 methyltransferase SET domain, at other evolutionary conserved parts of the protein that received little attention. Here we used Drosophila genetics to demonstrate that Ash1 requires each of the BAH, PHD and SET domains to counteract Polycomb repression, while AT hooks are dispensable. Our findings argue that, in vivo, Ash1 acts as a multimer. Thereby it can combine the input of the SET domain and PHD-BAH cassette residing in different peptides. Finally, using new loss of function alleles, we show that zygotic Ash1 is required to prevent erroneous repression of homeotic genes of the bithorax complex in the embryo.

Ash1 counteracts Polycomb repression independent of histone H3 lysine 36 methylation.

Polycomb repression is critical for metazoan development. Equally important but less studied is the Trithorax system, which safeguards Polycomb target genes from the repression in cells where they have to remain active. It was proposed that the Trithorax system acts via methylation of histone H3 at lysine 4 and lysine 36 (H3K36), thereby inhibiting histone methyltransferase activity of the Polycomb complexes. Here we test this hypothesis by asking whether the Trithorax group protein Ash1 requires H3K36 methylation to counteract Polycomb repression. We show that Ash1 is the only Drosophila H3K36-specific methyltransferase necessary to prevent excessive Polycomb repression of homeotic genes. Unexpectedly, our experiments reveal no correlation between the extent of H3K36 methylation and the resistance to Polycomb repression. Furthermore, we find that complete substitution of the zygotic histone H3 with a variant in which lysine 36 is replaced by arginine does not cause excessive repression of homeotic genes. Our results suggest that the model, where the Trithorax group proteins methylate histone H3 to inhibit the histone methyltransferase activity of the Polycomb complexes, needs revision.

PTE, a novel module to target Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 to the human cyclin D2 (CCND2) oncogene.

Polycomb group proteins are essential epigenetic repressors. They form multiple protein complexes of which two kinds, PRC1 and PRC2, are indispensable for repression. Although much is known about their biochemical properties, how mammalian PRC1 and PRC2 are targeted to specific genes is poorly understood. Here, we establish the cyclin D2 (CCND2) oncogene as a simple model to address this question. We provide the evidence that the targeting of PRC1 to CCND2 involves a dedicated PRC1-targeting element (PTE). The PTE appears to act in concert with an adjacent cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) island to arrange for the robust binding of PRC1 and PRC2 to repressed CCND2 Our findings pave the way to identify sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins implicated in the targeting of mammalian PRC1 complexes and provide novel link between polycomb repression and cancer.

Hierarchical recruitment of Polycomb complexes revisited.

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins epigenetically repress key developmental genes and thereby control alternative cell fates. PcG proteins act as complexes that can modify histones and these histone modifications play a role in transmitting the "memory" of the repressed state as cells divide. Here we consider mainstream models that link histone modifications to hierarchical recruitment of PcG complexes and compare them to results of a direct test of interdependence between PcG complexes for recruitment to Drosophila genes. The direct test indicates that PcG complexes do not rely on histone modifications to recognize their target genes but use them to stabilize the interactions within large chromatin domains. It also shows that multiple strategies are used to coordinate the targeting of PcG complexes to different genes, which may make the repression of these genes more or less robust.

Interdependence of PRC1 and PRC2 for recruitment to Polycomb Response Elements.

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic repressors essential for control of development and cell differentiation. They form multiple complexes of which PRC1 and PRC2 are evolutionary conserved and obligatory for repression. The targeting of PRC1 and PRC2 is poorly understood and was proposed to be hierarchical and involve tri-methylation of histone H3 (H3K27me3) and/or monoubiquitylation of histone H2A (H2AK118ub). Here, we present a strict test of this hypothesis using the Drosophila model. We discover that neither H3K27me3 nor H2AK118ub is required for targeting PRC complexes to Polycomb Response Elements (PREs). We find that PRC1 can bind PREs in the absence of PRC2 but at many PREs PRC2 requires PRC1 to be targeted. We show that one role of H3K27me3 is to allow PcG complexes anchored at PREs to interact with surrounding chromatin. In contrast, the bulk of H2AK118ub is unrelated to PcG repression. These findings radically change our view of how PcG repression is targeted and suggest that PRC1 and PRC2 can communicate independently of histone modifications.

Genome-wide activities of Polycomb complexes control pervasive transcription.

Polycomb group (PcG) complexes PRC1 and PRC2 are well known for silencing specific developmental genes. PRC2 is a methyltransferase targeting histone H3K27 and producing H3K27me3, essential for stable silencing. Less well known but quantitatively much more important is the genome-wide role of PRC2 that dimethylates ∼70% of total H3K27. We show that H3K27me2 occurs in inverse proportion to transcriptional activity in most non-PcG target genes and intergenic regions and is governed by opposing roaming activities of PRC2 and complexes containing the H3K27 demethylase UTX. Surprisingly, loss of H3K27me2 results in global transcriptional derepression proportionally greatest in silent or weakly transcribed intergenic and genic regions and accompanied by an increase of H3K27ac and H3K4me1. H3K27me2 therefore sets a threshold that prevents random, unscheduled transcription all over the genome and even limits the activity of highly transcribed genes. PRC1-type complexes also have global roles. Unexpectedly, we find a pervasive distribution of histone H2A ubiquitylated at lysine 118 (H2AK118ub) outside of canonical PcG target regions, dependent on the RING/Sce subunit of PRC1-type complexes. We show, however, that H2AK118ub does not mediate the global PRC2 activity or the global repression and is predominantly produced by a new complex involving L(3)73Ah, a homolog of mammalian PCGF3.

Combinatorial interactions are required for the efficient recruitment of pho repressive complex (PhoRC) to polycomb response elements.

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic repressors that control metazoan development and cell differentiation. In Drosophila, PcG proteins form five distinct complexes targeted to genes by Polycomb Response Elements (PREs). Of all PcG complexes PhoRC is the only one that contains a sequence-specific DNA binding subunit (PHO or PHOL), which led to a model that places PhoRC at the base of the recruitment hierarchy. Here we demonstrate that in vivo PHO is preferred to PHOL as a subunit of PhoRC and that PHO and PHOL associate with PREs and a subset of transcriptionally active promoters. Although the binding to the promoter sites depends on the quality of recognition sequences, the binding to PREs does not. Instead, the efficient recruitment of PhoRC to PREs requires the SFMBT subunit and crosstalk with Polycomb Repressive Complex 1. We find that human YY1 protein, the ortholog of PHO, binds sites at active promoters in the human genome but does not bind most PcG target genes, presumably because the interactions involved in the targeting to Drosophila PREs are lost in the mammalian lineage. We conclude that the recruitment of PhoRC to PREs is based on combinatorial interactions and propose that such a recruitment strategy is important to attenuate the binding of PcG proteins when the target genes are transcriptionally active. Our findings allow the appropriate placement of PhoRC in the PcG recruitment hierarchy and provide a rationale to explain why YY1 is unlikely to serve as a general recruiter of mammalian Polycomb complexes despite its reported ability to participate in PcG repression in flies.

Regulation of Polycomb group genes Psc and Su(z)2 in Drosophila melanogaster.

Certain Polycomb group (PcG) genes are themselves targets of PcG complexes. Two of these constitute the Drosophila Psc-Su(z)2 locus, a region whose chromatin is enriched for H3K27me3 and contains several putative Polycomb response elements (PREs) that bind PcG proteins. To understand how PcG mechanisms regulate this region, the repressive function of the PcG protein binding sites was analyzed using reporter gene constructs. We find that at least two of these are functional PREs that can silence a reporter gene in a PcG-dependent manner. One of these two can also display anti-silencing activity, dependent on the context. A PcG protein binding site near the Psc promoter behaves not as a silencer but as a down-regulation module that is actually stimulated by the Pc gene product but not by other PcG products. Deletion of one of the PREs increases the expression level of Psc and Su(z)2 by twofold at late embryonic stages. We present evidence suggesting that the Psc-Su(z)2 locus is flanked by insulator elements that may protect neighboring genes from inappropriate silencing. Deletion of one of these regions results in extension of the domain of H3K27me3 into a region containing other genes, whose expression becomes silenced in the early embryo.

Alternative epigenetic chromatin states of polycomb target genes.

Polycomb (PcG) regulation has been thought to produce stable long-term gene silencing. Genomic analyses in Drosophila and mammals, however, have shown that it targets many genes, which can switch state during development. Genetic evidence indicates that critical for the active state of PcG target genes are the histone methyltransferases Trithorax (TRX) and ASH1. Here we analyze the repertoire of alternative states in which PcG target genes are found in different Drosophila cell lines and the role of PcG proteins TRX and ASH1 in controlling these states. Using extensive genome-wide chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis, RNAi knockdowns, and quantitative RT-PCR, we show that, in addition to the known repressed state, PcG targets can reside in a transcriptionally active state characterized by formation of an extended domain enriched in ASH1, the N-terminal, but not C-terminal moiety of TRX and H3K27ac. ASH1/TRX N-ter domains and transcription are not incompatible with repressive marks, sometimes resulting in a "balanced" state modulated by both repressors and activators. Often however, loss of PcG repression results instead in a "void" state, lacking transcription, H3K27ac, or binding of TRX or ASH1. We conclude that PcG repression is dynamic, not static, and that the propensity of a target gene to switch states depends on relative levels of PcG, TRX, and activators. N-ter TRX plays a remarkable role that antagonizes PcG repression and preempts H3K27 methylation by acetylation. This role is distinct from that usually attributed to TRX/MLL proteins at the promoter. These results have important implications for Polycomb gene regulation, the "bivalent" chromatin state of embryonic stem cells, and gene expression in development.

Regulation of the Drosophila Enhancer of split and invected-engrailed gene complexes by sister chromatid cohesion proteins.

The cohesin protein complex was first recognized for holding sister chromatids together and ensuring proper chromosome segregation. Cohesin also regulates gene expression, but the mechanisms are unknown. Cohesin associates preferentially with active genes, and is generally absent from regions in which histone H3 is methylated by the Enhancer of zeste [E(z)] Polycomb group silencing protein. Here we show that transcription is hypersensitive to cohesin levels in two exceptional cases where cohesin and the E(z)-mediated histone methylation simultaneously coat the entire Enhancer of split and invected-engrailed gene complexes in cells derived from Drosophila central nervous system. These gene complexes are modestly transcribed, and produce seven of the twelve transcripts that increase the most with cohesin knockdown genome-wide. Cohesin mutations alter eye development in the same manner as increased Enhancer of split activity, suggesting that similar regulation occurs in vivo. We propose that cohesin helps restrain transcription of these gene complexes, and that deregulation of similarly cohesin-hypersensitive genes may underlie developmental deficits in Cornelia de Lange syndrome.

Association of cohesin and Nipped-B with transcriptionally active regions of the Drosophila melanogaster genome.

The cohesin complex is a chromosomal component required for sister chromatid cohesion that is conserved from yeast to man. The similarly conserved Nipped-B protein is needed for cohesin to bind to chromosomes. In higher organisms, Nipped-B and cohesin regulate gene expression and development by unknown mechanisms. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation, we find that Nipped-B and cohesin bind to the same sites throughout the entire non-repetitive Drosophila genome. They preferentially bind transcribed regions and overlap with RNA polymerase II. This contrasts sharply with yeast, where cohesin binds almost exclusively between genes. Differences in cohesin and Nipped-B binding between Drosophila cell lines often correlate with differences in gene expression. For example, cohesin and Nipped-B bind the Abd-B homeobox gene in cells in which it is transcribed, but not in cells in which it is silenced. They bind to the Abd-B transcription unit and downstream regulatory region and thus could regulate both transcriptional elongation and activation. We posit that transcription facilitates cohesin binding, perhaps by unfolding chromatin, and that Nipped-B then regulates gene expression by controlling cohesin dynamics. These mechanisms are likely involved in the etiology of Cornelia de Lange syndrome, in which mutation of one copy of the NIPBL gene encoding the human Nipped-B ortholog causes diverse structural and mental birth defects.

Polycomb complexes and the propagation of the methylation mark at the Drosophila ubx gene.

Polycomb group proteins are transcriptional repressors that control many developmental genes. The Polycomb group protein Enhancer of Zeste has been shown in vitro to methylate specifically lysine 27 and lysine 9 of histone H3 but the role of this modification in Polycomb silencing is unknown. We show that H3 trimethylated at lysine 27 is found on the entire Ubx gene silenced by Polycomb. However, Enhancer of Zeste and other Polycomb group proteins stay primarily localized at their response elements, which appear to be the least methylated parts of the silenced gene. Our results suggest that, contrary to the prevailing view, the Polycomb group proteins and methyltransferase complexes are recruited to the Polycomb response elements independently of histone methylation and then loop over to scan the entire region, methylating all accessible nucleosomes. We propose that the Polycomb chromodomain is required for the looping mechanism that spreads methylation over a broad domain, which in turn is required for the stability of the Polycomb group protein complex. Both the spread of methylation from the Polycomb response elements, and the silencing effect can be blocked by the gypsy insulator.

Genome-wide analysis of Polycomb targets in Drosophila melanogaster.

Polycomb group (PcG) complexes are multiprotein assemblages that bind to chromatin and establish chromatin states leading to epigenetic silencing. PcG proteins regulate homeotic genes in flies and vertebrates, but little is known about other PcG targets and the role of the PcG in development, differentiation and disease. Here, we determined the distribution of the PcG proteins PC, E(Z) and PSC and of trimethylation of histone H3 Lys27 (me3K27) in the D. melanogaster genome. At more than 200 PcG target genes, binding sites for the three PcG proteins colocalize to presumptive Polycomb response elements (PREs). In contrast, H3 me3K27 forms broad domains including the entire transcription unit and regulatory regions. PcG targets are highly enriched in genes encoding transcription factors, but they also include genes coding for receptors, signaling proteins, morphogens and regulators representing all major developmental pathways.

Characteristic low density and shear sensitivity of cross-linked chromatin containing polycomb complexes.

Chromatin cross-linking is widely used for mapping the distribution of chromosomal proteins by immunoprecipitation, but our knowledge of the physical properties of chromatin complexes remains rudimentary. Density gradients have been long used to separate fragments of cross-linked chromatin with their bound proteins from free protein or free DNA. We find that the association of DNA fragments with very-high-molecular-weight protein complexes shifts their buoyant density to values much lower then that of bulk chromatin. We show that in a CsCl gradient, Polycomb response elements, promoters of active genes, and insulator or boundary elements are found at buoyant densities similar to those of free protein and are depleted from the bulk chromatin fractions. In these regions, the low density is associated with the presence of large protein complexes and with high sensitivity to sonication. Our results suggest that separation of different chromatin regions according to their buoyant density may bias chromatin immunoprecipitation results. Density centrifugation of cross-linked chromatin may provide a simple approach to investigate the properties of large chromatin complexes in vivo.