A mouse-specific retrotransposon drives a conserved Cdk2ap1 isoform essential for development.

Retrotransposons mediate gene regulation in important developmental and pathological processes. Here, we characterized the transient retrotransposon induction during preimplantation development of eight mammals. Induced retrotransposons exhibit similar preimplantation profiles across species, conferring gene regulatory activities, particularly through long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon promoters. A mouse-specific MT2B2 retrotransposon promoter generates an N-terminally truncated Cdk2ap1ΔN that peaks in preimplantation embryos and promotes proliferation. In contrast, the canonical Cdk2ap1 peaks in mid-gestation and represses cell proliferation. This MT2B2 promoter, whose deletion abolishes Cdk2ap1ΔN production, reduces cell proliferation and impairs embryo implantation, is developmentally essential. Intriguingly, Cdk2ap1ΔN is evolutionarily conserved in sequence and function yet is driven by different promoters across mammals. The distinct preimplantation Cdk2ap1ΔN expression in each mammalian species correlates with the duration of its preimplantation development. Hence, species-specific transposon promoters can yield evolutionarily conserved, alternative protein isoforms, bestowing them with new functions and species-specific expression to govern essential biological divergence.

Evaluating Enhancer Function and Transcription.

Cell-type- and condition-specific profiles of gene expression require coordination between protein-coding gene promoters and cis-regulatory sequences called enhancers. Enhancers can stimulate gene activity at great genomic distances from their targets, raising questions about how enhancers communicate with specific gene promoters and what molecular mechanisms underlie enhancer function. Characterization of enhancer loci has identified the molecular features of active enhancers that accompany the binding of transcription factors and local opening of chromatin. These characteristics include coactivator recruitment, histone modifications, and noncoding RNA transcription. However, it remains unclear which of these features functionally contribute to enhancer activity. Here, we discuss what is known about how enhancers regulate their target genes and how enhancers and promoters communicate. Further, we describe recent data demonstrating many similarities between enhancers and the gene promoters they control, and we highlight unanswered questions in the field, such as the potential roles of transcription at enhancers.

Promoter-Intrinsic and Local Chromatin Features Determine Gene Repression in LADs.

It is largely unclear whether genes that are naturally embedded in lamina-associated domains (LADs) are inactive due to their chromatin environment or whether LADs are merely secondary to the lack of transcription. We show that hundreds of human promoters become active when moved from their native LAD position to a neutral context in the same cells, indicating that LADs form a repressive environment. Another set of promoters inside LADs is able to "escape" repression, although their transcription elongation is attenuated. By inserting reporters into thousands of genomic locations, we demonstrate that escaper promoters are intrinsically less sensitive to LAD repression. This is not simply explained by promoter strength but by the interplay between promoter sequence and local chromatin features that vary strongly across LADs. Enhancers also differ in their sensitivity to LAD chromatin. This work provides a general framework for the systematic understanding of gene regulation by repressive chromatin.

A Pan-cancer Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Pervasive Regulation through Alternative Promoters.

Most human protein-coding genes are regulated by multiple, distinct promoters, suggesting that the choice of promoter is as important as its level of transcriptional activity. However, while a global change in transcription is recognized as a defining feature of cancer, the contribution of alternative promoters still remains largely unexplored. Here, we infer active promoters using RNA-seq data from 18,468 cancer and normal samples, demonstrating that alternative promoters are a major contributor to context-specific regulation of transcription. We find that promoters are deregulated across tissues, cancer types, and patients, affecting known cancer genes and novel candidates. For genes with independently regulated promoters, we demonstrate that promoter activity provides a more accurate predictor of patient survival than gene expression. Our study suggests that a dynamic landscape of active promoters shapes the cancer transcriptome, opening new diagnostic avenues and opportunities to further explore the interplay of regulatory mechanisms with transcriptional aberrations in cancer.

YY1 Is a Structural Regulator of Enhancer-Promoter Loops.

There is considerable evidence that chromosome structure plays important roles in gene control, but we have limited understanding of the proteins that contribute to structural interactions between gene promoters and their enhancer elements. Large DNA loops that encompass genes and their regulatory elements depend on CTCF-CTCF interactions, but most enhancer-promoter interactions do not employ this structural protein. Here, we show that the ubiquitously expressed transcription factor Yin Yang 1 (YY1) contributes to enhancer-promoter structural interactions in a manner analogous to DNA interactions mediated by CTCF. YY1 binds to active enhancers and promoter-proximal elements and forms dimers that facilitate the interaction of these DNA elements. Deletion of YY1 binding sites or depletion of YY1 protein disrupts enhancer-promoter looping and gene expression. We propose that YY1-mediated enhancer-promoter interactions are a general feature of mammalian gene control.

Developmental and housekeeping transcriptional programs in Drosophila require distinct chromatin remodelers.

Gene transcription is a highly regulated process in all animals. In Drosophila, two major transcriptional programs, housekeeping and developmental, have promoters with distinct regulatory compatibilities and nucleosome organization. However, it remains unclear how the differences in chromatin structure relate to the distinct regulatory properties and which chromatin remodelers are required for these programs. Using rapid degradation of core remodeler subunits in Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells, we demonstrate that developmental gene transcription requires SWI/SNF-type complexes, primarily to maintain distal enhancer accessibility. In contrast, wild-type-level housekeeping gene transcription requires the Iswi and Ino80 remodelers to maintain nucleosome positioning and phasing at promoters. These differential remodeler dependencies relate to different DNA-sequence-intrinsic nucleosome affinities, which favor a default ON state for housekeeping but a default OFF state for developmental gene transcription. Overall, our results demonstrate how different transcription-regulatory strategies are implemented by DNA sequence, chromatin structure, and remodeler activity.

Chromatin-bound RB targets promoters, enhancers, and CTCF-bound loci and is redistributed by cell-cycle progression.

The interaction of RB with chromatin is key to understanding its molecular functions. Here, for first time, we identify the full spectrum of chromatin-bound RB. Rather than exclusively binding promoters, as is often described, RB targets three fundamentally different types of loci (promoters, enhancers, and insulators), which are largely distinguishable by the mutually exclusive presence of E2F1, c-Jun, and CTCF. While E2F/DP facilitates RB association with promoters, AP-1 recruits RB to enhancers. Although phosphorylation in CDK sites is often portrayed as releasing RB from chromatin, we show that the cell cycle redistributes RB so that it enriches at promoters in G1 and at non-promoter sites in cycling cells. RB-bound promoters include the classic E2F-targets and are similar between lineages, but RB-bound enhancers associate with different categories of genes and vary between cell types. Thus, RB has a well-preserved role controlling E2F in G1, and it targets cell-type-specific enhancers and CTCF sites when cells enter S-phase.

Calcium signaling instructs NIPBL recruitment at active enhancers and promoters via distinct mechanisms to reconstruct genome compartmentalization.

During developmental progression the genomes of immune cells undergo large-scale changes in chromatin folding. However, insights into signaling pathways and epigenetic control of nuclear architecture remain rudimentary. Here, we found that in activated neutrophils calcium influx rapidly recruited the cohesin-loading factor NIPBL to thousands of active enhancers and promoters to dictate widespread changes in compartment segregation. NIPBL recruitment to enhancers and promoters occurred with distinct kinetics. The induction of NIPBL-binding was coordinate with increased P300, BRG1 and RNA polymerase II occupancy. NIPBL-bound enhancers were associated with NFAT, PU.1, and CEBP cis elements, whereas NIPBL-bound promoters were enriched for GC-rich DNA sequences. Using an acute degradation system, we found that the histone acetyltransferases P300 and CBP maintained H3K27ac abundance and facilitated NIPBL occupancy at enhancers and that active transcriptional elongation is essential to maintain H3K27ac abundance. Chromatin remodelers, containing either of the mutually exclusive BRG1 and BRM ATPases, promoted NIPBL recruitment at active enhancers. Conversely, at active promoters, depletion of BRG1 and BRM showed minimal effect on NIPBL occupancy. Finally, we found that calcium signaling in both primary innate and adaptive immune cells swiftly induced NIPBL occupancy. Collectively, these data reveal how transcriptional regulators, histone acetyltransferases, chromatin remodelers, and transcription elongation promote NIPBL occupancy at active enhancers while the induction of NIPLB occupancy at promoters is primarily associated with GC-rich DNA sequences.

Interplay between the transcription preinitiation complex and the +1 nucleosome.

Eukaryotic transcription starts with the assembly of a preinitiation complex (PIC) on core promoters. Flanking this region is the +1 nucleosome, the first nucleosome downstream of the core promoter. While this nucleosome is rich in epigenetic marks and plays a key role in transcription regulation, how the +1 nucleosome interacts with the transcription machinery has been a long-standing question. Here, we summarize recent structural and functional studies of the +1 nucleosome in complex with the PIC. We specifically focus on how differently organized promoter-nucleosome templates affect the assembly of the PIC and PIC-Mediator on chromatin and result in distinct transcription initiation.

Replicational Dilution of H3K27me3 in Mammalian Cells and the Role of Poised Promoters.

Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) places H3K27me3 at developmental genes and is causally implicated in keeping bivalent genes silent. It is unclear if that silence requires minimum H3K27me3 levels and how the mark transmits faithfully across mammalian somatic cell generations. Mouse intestinal cells lacking EZH2 methyltransferase reduce H3K27me3 proportionately at all PRC2 target sites, but ∼40% uniform residual levels keep target genes inactive. These genes, derepressed in PRC2-null villus cells, remain silent in intestinal stem cells (ISCs). Quantitative chromatin immunoprecipitation and computational modeling indicate that because unmodified histones dilute H3K27me3 by 50% each time DNA replicates, PRC2-deficient ISCs initially retain sufficient H3K27me3 to avoid gene derepression. EZH2 mutant human lymphoma cells also require multiple divisions before H3K27me3 dilution relieves gene silencing. In both cell types, promoters with high basal H3K4me2/3 activate in spite of some residual H3K27me3, compared to less-poised promoters. These findings have implications for PRC2 inhibition in cancer therapy.

Functionally distinct promoter classes initiate transcription via different mechanisms reflected in focused versus dispersed initiation patterns.

Recruitment of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) to promoters is essential for transcription. Despite conflicting evidence, the Pol II preinitiation complex (PIC) is often thought to have a uniform composition and to assemble at all promoters via an identical mechanism. Here, using Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells as a model, we demonstrate that different promoter classes function via distinct PICs. Promoter DNA of developmentally regulated genes readily associates with the canonical Pol II PIC, whereas housekeeping promoters do not, and instead recruit other factors such as DREF. Consistently, TBP and DREF are differentially required by distinct promoter types. TBP and its paralog TRF2 also function at different promoter types in a partially redundant manner. In contrast, TFIIA is required at all promoters, and we identify factors that can recruit and/or stabilize TFIIA at housekeeping promoters and activate transcription. Promoter activation by tethering these factors is sufficient to induce the dispersed transcription initiation patterns characteristic of housekeeping promoters. Thus, different promoter classes utilize distinct mechanisms of transcription initiation, which translate into different focused versus dispersed initiation patterns.

Transcriptional bursting: stochasticity in deterministic development.

The transcription of DNA by RNA polymerase occurs as a discontinuous process described as transcriptional bursting. This bursting behavior is observed across species and has been quantified using various stochastic modeling approaches. There is a large body of evidence that suggests the bursts are actively modulated by transcriptional machinery and play a role in regulating developmental processes. Under a commonly used two-state model of transcription, various enhancer-, promoter- and chromatin microenvironment-associated features are found to differentially influence the size and frequency of bursting events - key parameters of the two-state model. Advancement of modeling and analysis tools has revealed that the simple two-state model and associated parameters may not sufficiently characterize the complex relationship between these features. The majority of experimental and modeling findings support the view of bursting as an evolutionarily conserved transcriptional control feature rather than an unintended byproduct of the transcription process. Stochastic transcriptional patterns contribute to enhanced cellular fitness and execution of proper development programs, which posit this mode of transcription as an important feature in developmental gene regulation. In this Review, we present compelling examples of the role of transcriptional bursting in development and explore the question of how stochastic transcription leads to deterministic organism development.

TERRA ONTseq: a long-read-based sequencing pipeline to study the human telomeric transcriptome.

The long noncoding RNA TERRA is transcribed from telomeres in virtually all eukaryotes with linear chromosomes. In humans, TERRA transcription is driven in part by promoters comprising CpG dinucleotide-rich repeats of 29 bp repeats, believed to be present in half of the subtelomeres. Thus far, TERRA expression has been analyzed mainly using molecular biology-based approaches that only generate partial and somehow biased results. Here, we present a novel experimental pipeline to study human TERRA based on long-read sequencing (TERRA ONTseq). By applying TERRA ONTseq to different cell lines, we show that the vast majority of human telomeres produce TERRA and that the cellular levels of TERRA transcripts vary according to their chromosomes of origin. Using TERRA ONTseq, we also identified regions containing TERRA transcription start sites (TSSs) in more than half of human subtelomeres. TERRA TSS regions are generally found immediately downstream from 29 bp repeat-related sequences, which appear to be more widespread than previously estimated. Finally, we isolated a novel TERRA promoter from the highly expressed subtelomere of the long arm of Chromosome 7. With the development of TERRA ONTseq, we provide a refined picture of human TERRA biogenesis and expression and we equip the scientific community with an invaluable tool for future studies.

Recognition of cyanobacteria promoters via Siamese network-based contrastive learning under novel non-promoter generation.

It is a vital step to recognize cyanobacteria promoters on a genome-wide scale. Computational methods are promising to assist in difficult biological identification. When building recognition models, these methods rely on non-promoter generation to cope with the lack of real non-promoters. Nevertheless, the factitious significant difference between promoters and non-promoters causes over-optimistic prediction. Moreover, designed for E. coli or B. subtilis, existing methods cannot uncover novel, distinct motifs among cyanobacterial promoters. To address these issues, this work first proposes a novel non-promoter generation strategy called phantom sampling, which can eliminate the factitious difference between promoters and generated non-promoters. Furthermore, it elaborates a novel promoter prediction model based on the Siamese network (SiamProm), which can amplify the hidden difference between promoters and non-promoters through a joint characterization of global associations, upstream and downstream contexts, and neighboring associations w.r.t. k-mer tokens. The comparison with state-of-the-art methods demonstrates the superiority of our phantom sampling and SiamProm. Both comprehensive ablation studies and feature space illustrations also validate the effectiveness of the Siamese network and its components. More importantly, SiamProm, upon our phantom sampling, finds a novel cyanobacterial promoter motif ('GCGATCGC'), which is palindrome-patterned, content-conserved, but position-shifted.

Spt6 Is Required for the Fidelity of Promoter Selection.

Spt6 is a conserved factor that controls transcription and chromatin structure across the genome. Although Spt6 is viewed as an elongation factor, spt6 mutations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae allow elevated levels of transcripts from within coding regions, suggesting that Spt6 also controls initiation. To address the requirements for Spt6 in transcription and chromatin structure, we have combined four genome-wide approaches. Our results demonstrate that Spt6 represses transcription initiation at thousands of intragenic promoters. We characterize these intragenic promoters and find sequence features conserved with genic promoters. Finally, we show that Spt6 also regulates transcription initiation at most genic promoters and propose a model of initiation site competition to account for this. Together, our results demonstrate that Spt6 controls the fidelity of transcription initiation throughout the genome.

Gcn4 Binding in Coding Regions Can Activate Internal and Canonical 5' Promoters in Yeast.

Gcn4 is a yeast transcriptional activator induced by amino acid starvation. ChIP-seq analysis revealed 546 genomic sites occupied by Gcn4 in starved cells, representing ∼30% of Gcn4-binding motifs. Surprisingly, only ∼40% of the bound sites are in promoters, of which only ∼60% activate transcription, indicating extensive negative control over Gcn4 function. Most of the remaining ∼300 Gcn4-bound sites are within coding sequences (CDSs), with ∼75 representing the only bound sites near Gcn4-induced genes. Many such unconventional sites map between divergent antisense and sub-genic sense transcripts induced within CDSs adjacent to induced TBP peaks, consistent with Gcn4 activation of cryptic bidirectional internal promoters. Mutational analysis confirms that Gcn4 sites within CDSs can activate sub-genic and full-length transcripts from the same or adjacent genes, showing that functional Gcn4 binding is not confined to promoters. Our results show that internal promoters can be regulated by an activator that functions at conventional 5'-positioned promoters.

Transcription factor expression repertoire basis for epigenetic and transcriptional subtypes of colorectal cancers.

Colorectal cancers (CRCs) form a heterogenous group classified into epigenetic and transcriptional subtypes. The basis for the epigenetic subtypes, exemplified by varying degrees of promoter DNA hypermethylation, and its relation to the transcriptional subtypes is not well understood. We link cancer-specific transcription factor (TF) expression alterations to methylation alterations near TF-binding sites at promoter and enhancer regions in CRCs and their premalignant precursor lesions to provide mechanistic insights into the origins and evolution of the CRC molecular subtypes. A gradient of TF expression changes forms a basis for the subtypes of abnormal DNA methylation, termed CpG-island promoter DNA methylation phenotypes (CIMPs), in CRCs and other cancers. CIMP is tightly correlated with cancer-specific hypermethylation at enhancers, which we term CpG-enhancer methylation phenotype (CEMP). Coordinated promoter and enhancer methylation appears to be driven by downregulation of TFs with common binding sites at the hypermethylated enhancers and promoters. The altered expression of TFs related to hypermethylator subtypes occurs early during CRC development, detectable in premalignant adenomas. TF-based profiling further identifies patients with worse overall survival. Importantly, altered expression of these TFs discriminates the transcriptome-based consensus molecular subtypes (CMS), thus providing a common basis for CIMP and CMS subtypes.

Mechanism of selective recruitment of RNA polymerases II and III to snRNA gene promoters.

RNA polymerase II (Pol II) small nuclear RNA (snRNA) promoters and type 3 Pol III promoters have highly similar structures; both contain an interchangeable enhancer and "proximal sequence element" (PSE), which recruits the SNAP complex (SNAPc). The main distinguishing feature is the presence, in the type 3 promoters only, of a TATA box, which determines Pol III specificity. To understand the mechanism by which the absence or presence of a TATA box results in specific Pol recruitment, we examined how SNAPc and general transcription factors required for Pol II or Pol III transcription of SNAPc-dependent genes (i.e., TATA-box-binding protein [TBP], TFIIB, and TFIIA for Pol II transcription and TBP and BRF2 for Pol III transcription) assemble to ensure specific Pol recruitment. TFIIB and BRF2 could each, in a mutually exclusive fashion, be recruited to SNAPc. In contrast, TBP-TFIIB and TBP-BRF2 complexes were not recruited unless a TATA box was present, which allowed selective and efficient recruitment of the TBP-BRF2 complex. Thus, TBP both prevented BRF2 recruitment to Pol II promoters and enhanced BRF2 recruitment to Pol III promoters. On Pol II promoters, TBP recruitment was separate from TFIIB recruitment and enhanced by TFIIA. Our results provide a model for specific Pol recruitment at SNAPc-dependent promoters.

Enhancer transcription: what, where, when, and why?

Following the discovery of widespread enhancer transcription, enhancers and promoters have been found to be far more similar than previously thought. In this issue of Genes & Development, two studies (Henriques and colleagues [pp. 26-41] and Mikhaylichenko and colleagues [pp. 42-57]) shine new light on the transcriptional nature of promoters and enhancers in Drosophila Together, these studies support recent work in mammalian cells that indicates that most active enhancers drive local transcription using factors and mechanisms similar to those of promoters. Intriguingly, enhancer transcription is shown to be coordinated by SPT5- and P-TEFb-mediated pause-release, but the pause half-life is shorter, and termination is more rapid at enhancers than at promoters. Moreover, bidirectional transcription from promoters is associated with enhancer activity, lending further credence to models in which regulatory elements exist along a spectrum of promoter-ness and enhancer-ness. We propose a general unified model to explain possible functions of transcription at enhancers.

The degree of enhancer or promoter activity is reflected by the levels and directionality of eRNA transcription.

Gene expression is regulated by promoters, which initiate transcription, and enhancers, which control their temporal and spatial activity. However, the discovery that mammalian enhancers also initiate transcription questions the inherent differences between enhancers and promoters. Here, we investigate the transcriptional properties of enhancers during Drosophila embryogenesis using characterized developmental enhancers. We show that while the timing of enhancer transcription is generally correlated with enhancer activity, the levels and directionality of transcription are highly varied among active enhancers. To assess how this impacts function, we developed a dual transgenic assay to simultaneously measure enhancer and promoter activities from a single element in the same embryo. Extensive transgenic analysis revealed a relationship between the direction of endogenous transcription and the ability to function as an enhancer or promoter in vivo, although enhancer RNA (eRNA) production and activity are not always strictly coupled. Some enhancers (mainly bidirectional) can act as weak promoters, producing overlapping spatio-temporal expression. Conversely, bidirectional promoters often act as strong enhancers, while unidirectional promoters generally cannot. The balance between enhancer and promoter activity is generally reflected in the levels and directionality of eRNA transcription and is likely an inherent sequence property of the elements themselves.