DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Analysis of Position–Effect Variegation Mutations in Drosophila Melanogaster Delineates the Targets of Modifiers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Analysis of Position–Effect Variegation Mutations in Drosophila Melanogaster Delineates the Targets of Modifiers Copyright © 1998 by the Genetics Society of America Comparative Analysis of Position–Effect Variegation Mutations in Drosophila melanogaster Delineates the Targets of Modifiers Georgette L. Sass and Steven Henikoff Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109 Manuscript received August 1, 1997 Accepted for publication October 10, 1997 ABSTRACT In Drosophila melanogaster, heterochromatin-induced silencing or position–effect variegation (PEV) of a reporter gene has provided insights into the properties of heterochromatin. Class I modifiers suppress PEV, and class II modifiers enhance PEV when the modifier gene is present in fewer than two doses. We have examined the effects of both class I and class II modifiers on four PEV mutations. These mutations in- clude the inversions In(1)wm4 and In(2R)bwVDe2, which are classical chromosomal rearrangements that typify PEV mutations. The other mutations are a derivative of brownDominant, in which brown1 reporters are inacti- vated by a large block of heterochromatin, and a P[white1] transposon insertion associated with second chromosome heterochromatin. In general, we find that class I modifiers affect both classical and nonclassi- cal PEV mutations, whereas class II modifiers affect only classical PEV mutations. We suggest that class II modifiers affect chromatin architecture in the vicinity of reporter genes, and only class I modifiers identify proteins that are potentially involved in heterochromatin formation or maintenance. In addition, our ob- servations support a model in which there are different constraints on the process of heterochromatin- induced silencing in classical vs. nonclassical PEV mutations. ENE expression depends on both intrinsic regula- presumed to reflect an intrinsic difference between G tory mechanisms, including enhancer–promoter heterochromatin and euchromatin with respect to interactions, and chromosomal context, including chro- chromatin structure and gene expression. matin structure. Whereas intrinsic regulatory mech- Genic modifiers of PEV have been readily recovered anisms are well defined molecularly, chromosomal con- in different screens (Dorn et al. 1993b; Locke et al. text is difficult to assess and is sometimes revealed only 1988; Sinclair et al. 1989, 1992; Wustmann et al. 1989) by gene-silencing phenomena. Examples of gene si- and have been considered a valuable tool in the study lencing include X-chromosome inactivation and paren- of heterochromatin. These modifiers have been catego- tal imprinting in mammals, telomere and mating-type rized into two classes (Locke et al. 1988). Class I modifi- silencing in yeast, as well as heterochromatin-induced ers act to suppress PEV when only one dose of the wild- gene silencing known as position–effect variegation type gene is present and may enhance variegation in (PEV) in Drosophila melanogaster (for review see Hen- three doses. In genetic screens, class I modifiers were drich and Willard 1995). In PEV, chromosomal rear- recovered as Suppressors of variegation [Su(var)s], which rangements that change the position of a gene so that are gene mutations or deficiencies, and as chromosomal it is placed near heterochromatin result in the variable duplications that acted as Enhancers of variegation [E(var)s]. expression of the gene. In contrast to gene-rich euchro- Because suppression of a PEV phenotype indicates a matin, heterochromatin has comparatively few genes, reduction in the ability of heterochromatin to silence a remains condensed throughout the cell cycle, and is gene, Su(var)s were predicted to be mutations in genes enriched in satellite and middle repetitive DNA se- that code for either structural components of hetero- quences (reviewed in Csink et al. 1997). Although gene chromatin or proteins that regulate heterochromatin inactivation is a direct consequence of relocation to components (Locke et al. 1988). Class II modifiers, iso- heterochromatin, it is not a normal function of hetero- lated as mutations in E(var) genes, enhance variegation chromatin, as evidenced by the presence of expressed in one dose and may suppress in three doses. Therefore, genes in heterochromatin (Gatti and Pimpinelli E(var) genes might code for proteins that antagonize the 1992). Nevertheless, the ability to inactivate a gene is silencing potential of heterochromatin or promote the formation of euchromatin (Locke et al. 1988). More than 100 dosage-dependent modifiers of PEV Corresponding author: Steven Henikoff, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Locke Reuter Research Center, A1-162, 1100 Fairview Ave. N., P.O. Box 19024, Seat- have been identified ( et al. 1988; and tle, WA 98109-1024. E-mail: [email protected] Spierer 1992; Wustmann et al. 1989). Most of these Genetics 148: 733–741 ( February, 1998) 734 G. L. Sass and S. Henikoff were identified by phenotypic suppression or enhance- (Trl ), which codes for the GAGA protein (Farkas et al. ment of the chromosomal rearrangement In(1)wm4 1994), would modify the phenotype of bwD, but other (wm4). This inversion positions the white1 (w1) gene modifiers would not. To differentiate between these within 25 kb of pericentric heterochromatin, and the and other possibilities, we examined a collection of resulting mosaic inactivation of w1 produces patches of PEV modifiers for effects on a panel of both classical white tissue in a normally red eye (Tartof et al. 1984). and nonclassical PEV mutations. Our results indicate The enhancement or suppression of this phenotype that insensitivity to class II modifiers is not restricted to can be readily scored as more or less white tissue, re- the bwD mutation, but extends to two nonclassical PEV spectively, in a genetic screen. Modifiers of PEV iso- mutations, a derivative of bwD and a variegating w1 lated using wm4 have been tested with other PEV transgene insertion into heterochromatin. We rational- mutations, such as the chromosomal rearrangements ize these findings in terms of differences in targets of In(2R)bwVDe2, In(1)y3p, and T(2:3)SbV which affect the action between class I and class II modifiers. Addition- brown, yellow, and Stubble genes, respectively. Modifiers ally, our observations point to potentially different to- isolated using wm4 typically behave similarly with these pological causes of heterochromatin-induced silencing other PEV mutations. in classical vs. nonclassical PEV mutations. A different response to genic modifiers was reported for PEV associated with the brownDominant (bwD) mutation. MATERIALS AND METHODS bwD contains a large heterochromatic insertion into the coding region of the brown1 (bw1) gene, generating a Fly stocks: Flies were reared on standard cornmeal-molas- null allele (Henikoff et al. 1993). The heterochroma- ses medium in vials or bottles at a constant temperature of 8 tin of the bwD insertion is able to silence a wild-type 25 . Four PEV mutations were used in these experiments (Fig- 1 ure 1). The isolation and characterization of the Byron mu- copy of the bw gene that is present on the homolog. tation has been described (Henikoff et al. 1995). This is referred to as trans-inactivation, and such domi- P[w1tARry1t7.2AR 5 wAR]B133-0923 (referred to in this paper as nant PEV is characteristic of all variegating alleles of P[wAR]B133) is a w1 transgene insertion in or near chromo- brown. A genetic screen designed to recover dominant some 2R heterochromatin from R. Levis, Syracuse University, modifiers of bwD identified unlinked mutations that NY. The collection of genic modifiers of PEV used in this study include both molecularly characterized mutations (ref- suppressed trans-inactivation but failed to detect com- parable enhancer mutations (Talbert et al. 1994). A collection of these suppressors of bwD were tested for their effect on wm4, and 33 out of 37 were found to be typical class I modifiers [i.e., Su(var) mutations]. The notable absence of enhancers of bwD was not caused by an inability to detect enhancement of the phenotype because two dominant enhancer mutations, both in- volving a rearrangement of the bwD chromosome, were identified. In addition, the bwD mutation is enhanced in males that lack a Y chromosome (P. Talbert, per- sonal communication), indicating that bwD responds to this modifier in a manner that is consistent with other PEV mutations (Spofford 1976). These observations suggest that classical PEV mutations (i.e., gross chromo- somal rearrangements such as wm4) and nonclassical PEV mutations such as bwD exhibit differential re- sponses to PEV modifiers, specifically to class II modi- fiers. Failure to recover class II modifiers (i.e., E(var) muta- tions) in the collection of modifiers of bwD could be ex- Figure 1.—Depictions of PEV mutations used for compar- plained if the linkage enhancers of bwD were exception- ative analysis. The classical PEV mutation wm4 is a chromo- 1 ally strong, and therefore weaker effects would have somal inversion in which the w gene is moved proximally to within 25 kb of X chromosome heterochromatin. In the case been undetected. Alternatively, the lack of enhancers of bwVDe2, the bw1 gene is moved close to 2R heterochromatin. D may be indicative of a bw -specific property. For exam- In each case, the small arrows show the position of the inver- ple, the bwD heterochromatic insertion is composed sion breakpoints. The nonclassical PEV mutation Byron is a primarily of the simple sequence satellite (AAGAG) duplication of the 59E region in which the proximal element n D D (Csink and Henikoff 1996), which is present in het- carries bw and the distal element carries a wild-type bw gene. P[wAR]B133 is a nonclassical PEV mutation in which a erochromatin (Lohe et al. 1993), and bound by GAGA 1 Raff w transgene has inserted into or very near 2R heterochroma- protein in early embryos ( et al. 1994). This raises tin. For PEV mutations involving the second chromosome, the possibility that the class II modifier Trithorax-like only the right arm is depicted. Targets of Variegation Modifiers 735 TABLE 1 Molecularly characterized modifiers of PEV Modifier Protein product Reference Class I Su(var)2-5 Heterochromatin protein 1, HP1, associates with Eissenberg et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 603.Full.Pdf
    Copyright 0 1984 by the Genetics Society of America STUDIES ON THE MECHANISM OF HETEROCHROMATIC POSITION EFFECT AT THE ROSY LOCUS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER C. A. RUSHLOW,'*' W. BENDERt AND A. CHOVNICK'** 'Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology Section, Biological Sciences Group, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268; and tDepartment ojBiological Chemistry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetss 02115 Manuscript received February 15, 1984 Revised copy accepted June 14, 1984 ABSTRACT Experiments are described that extend the characterization of position effect variants of the rosy locus and test possible mechanisms of heterochromatic position effect.-Rosy position effect variants exhibit a variegated phenotype with respect to xanthine dehydrogenase activity in malpighian tubules.-The breakpoints of the position effect mutations are located on the DNA map of the rosy region outside of the rosy locus DNA; yp'1'156is located in the DNA of the l(3p12 gene immediately proximal to rosy, whereas ryp""' is located some 15 kb distal to rosy in the pic locus.-Southern blot experiments are described that test and reject the notion that heterochromatic position effect results from underreplication of the position-affected gene. Rather, the results of Northern blots serve to direct attention to position effect as a defect in transcription.- Histone region deletion heterozygosity and butyrate-feeding experiments failed to exhibit specific suppression of position effect at the rosy locus. HE accompanying report (RUSHLOWand CHOVNICK1984) describes obser- T vations and experiments utilizing classical genetic and biochemical tech- niques to characterize two radiation-induced "leaky" mutants at the rosy locus, ryfiS1 and rfS1 as position effect mutants associated with heterochromatic rearrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Role of CK2 and PP2A in Drosophila Position Effect Variegation
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2010 Analyzing the role of CK2 and PP2A in Drosophila position effect variegation Swati Banerjee West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Banerjee, Swati, "Analyzing the role of CK2 and PP2A in Drosophila position effect variegation" (2010). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4563. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4563 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYZING THE ROLE OF CK2 AND PP2A IN DROSOPHILA POSITION EFFECT VARIEGATION Swati Banerjee Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Biology Dr. Clifton P. Bishop, Chair Dr. Ashok P. Bidwai Dr. Daniel Panaccione Department of Biology Morgantown, West Virginia 2010 Keyword: Drosophila; Position effect variegation (PEV); Chromatin Structure; Heterochromatin; CK2; PP2A; white (w); white-mottled 4 (wm4); Stubble (Sb).
    [Show full text]
  • Position-Dependent Variegation of Globin Transgene Expression
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 92, pp. 5371-5375, June 1995 Genetics Position-dependent variegation of globin transgene expression in mice GRAHAM ROBERTSON*, DAVID GARRICK*, WENLIAN WU*, MARGOT KEARNS*, DAVID MARTINt, AND EMMA WHITELAW*f *Department of Biochemistry, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; and tDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1124 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Communicated by Stuart H. Orkin, The Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, February 9, 1995 (received for review December 19, 1994) ABSTRACT Expression of genes in eukaryotes has com- with development (15, 16) and is not copy number dependent monly been analyzed in a whole tissue, and levels ofexpression (14-17). have been interpreted as the result of equivalent rates of We have generated transgenic mouse lines using globin transcription in every cell. We have produced transgenic promoter-aHS-40 constructs linked to the Escherichia coli mouse lines that express 18-galactosidase under the control of lacZ gene rather than a globin structural gene. Histochemical globin promoters linked to the major tissue-specific regula- staining for 13-galactosidase (13-gal) activity provides a simple tory element of the a-globin locus, which permits the analysis cell-by-cell assay for transgene expression in individual eryth- of transgene expression in individual red blood cells. We find rocytes. We find that the transgene is expressed in a hetero- that expression of the transgene within all mouse lines is cellular pattern. Furthermore, the number of 13-gal-expressing heterocellular. Individual cells either do not express the cells varies greatly between different transgenic lines derived transgene at all or express it at a level characteristic of that from the same construct but is consistent within a line.
    [Show full text]
  • Position Effect Variegation in Natural Populations Not Explained by Common Variation in Known Modifiers
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/129999; this version posted April 24, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. GENETICS | INVESTIGATION Position Effect Variegation in natural populations not explained by common variation in known modifiers Keegan J. P. Kelsey and Andrew G. Clark1 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 ABSTRACT Changes in chromatin state may drive changes in gene expression, and it is of growing interest to understand the population genetic forces that drive differences in chromatin state. Here, we use the phenomenon of position effect variegation (PEV), a well-studied proxy for chromatin state, to explore the genetic architecture of natural variation in factors that modify chromatin state. While previous mutation screens have identified over 150 suppressors and enhancers of PEV, it remains unknown to what extent allelic variation in these modifiers mediates inter-individual variation in chromatin state. Is natural variation in PEV mediated by segregating variation in known Su(var) and E(var) genes, or is the trait polygenic, with many variants mapping elsewhere in the genome? We designed a mapping study that directly answers this question and suggests that the bulk of the variance in PEV does not map to genes with prior annotated impact to PEV. Instead, we find enrichment of top P-value ranked associations that suggest impact to active promoter and transcription start site proximal regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Telomere Position Effect: Silencing Near the End
    10_Telomeres_p_261_316.qxd 1/16/07 11:24 AM Page 261 10 Telomere Position Effect: Silencing Near the End Michelle A. Mondoux and Virginia A. Zakian Department of Molecular Biology, Lewis Thomas Laboratories Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1014 HETEROCHROMATIC SILENCING IS DISTINCT FROM TRANSCRIPTIONAL GENE REPRESSION The organization of genomes into heterochromatic and euchromatic regions is a global method of gene regulation, in contrast to single-gene transcriptional control. Originally defined cytologically in higher organisms as dark-staining chromatin, heterochromatin is now characterized by a collection of molecular markers including repetitive DNA, regular nucleo- some spacing, low gene density, late S phase replication, and histone tail modifications including hypoacetylation (for review, see Henikoff 2000; Richards and Elgin 2002). Heterochromatin is often found at centromeric and telomeric loci, and active genes that are translocated to heterochromatin are heritably silenced, often in a mosaic or variegated pattern from cell to cell. This variegation is thought to reflect a stochastic heterochromatin assembly at a formerly euchromatic locus. Termed “facultative heterochro- matin,” these genes are silent in only a subset of the cells, as opposed to “constitutive heterochromatin,” where silencing is stable in all cells (for review, see Richards and Elgin 2002). Heterochromatic transcriptional silencing is distinct from transcrip- tional repression seen at individual promoters that occurs at particular times in the cell cycle or during organismal development. Unlike the mechanisms of repression at specific promoters, heterochromatic silencing is generally promoter-nonspecific, such that almost all promoters are silenced by heterochromatin. Heterochromatin constitutes a repressive environment for gene expression over a large distance, in contrast to Telomeres, 2nd Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Silencing and Position Effects at Telomeres and Centromeres: Parallels and Differences
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RERO DOC Digital Library CMLS, Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 60 (2003) 2303–2318 1420-682X/03/112303-16 DOI 10.1007/s00018-003-3246-x CMLS Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences © Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2003 Long-range silencing and position effects at telomeres and centromeres: parallels and differences S. Perrod and S. M. Gasser* University of Geneva, Department of Molecular Biology, Quai Ernest-Ansermet 30, 1211 Geneva 4 (Switzerland), Fax: +41 22 379 6868, e-mail [email protected] Abstract. Most of the human genome is compacted into dress the mechanisms of centromeric, telomeric and lo- heterochromatin, a form that encompasses multiple cus-specific gene silencing, comparing simple and com- forms of inactive chromatin structure. Transcriptional si- plex animals with yeast. Some aspects are universally lencing mechanisms in budding and fission yeasts have shared, such as histone-tail modifications, while others provided genetically tractable models for understanding are unique to either centromeres or telomeres. These may heritably repressed chromatin. These silent domains are reflect roles for heterochromatin in other chromosomal typically found in regions of repetitive DNA, that is, ei- functions, like kinetochore attachment and DNA ends ther adjacent to centromeres or telomeres or within the protection. tandemly repeated ribosomal DNA array. Here we ad- Key words. Silencing; PEV; yeast; SIR protein; epigenetics; Drosophila; telomeres; rDNA. Comparison of long-range silencing with generally refers to noncoding satellite repeats. Faculta- heterochromatin tive heterochromatin can be specific to one of two ho- mologous chromosomes, or to a certain cell type or de- Long-range silencing generates a heritable, transcription- velopmental stage, and leads to the repression of unique ally inactive chromatin structure that is associated with sequences rich in genes.
    [Show full text]
  • P Transposon-Induced Dominant Enhancer Mutations of Position-Effect Variegation in Drosophila Melanogaster
    Copyright 0 1993 by the Genetics Society of America P Transposon-Induced Dominant Enhancer Mutationsof Position-Effect Variegation in Drosophila melanogaster Rainer Dorn,* Janos Szidonya?’ Gunter Korge? Madeleine Sehnert,*Helge Taubert,* Essmail Archoukieh,* Bettina Tschiersch,*Henning Morawietz,* Gerold Wustmann,*’* Gyula Hoffmannt and Gunter Reuter*” *Znstitutjiir Genetik, Martin-Luther-Universitat, 0-0-4020HallelS., Germany,+Znstitute of Genetics, Biological Research Center .f the Hungarian Academy ofsciences, H-6701 Szeged, Hungary, and SZnstitut fur Genetik, Freie Universitrit Berlin, 0-1000Berlin 33, Germany Manuscript received May 18, 1992 Accepted for publication October7, 1992 ABSTRACT P transposon induced modifier mutations of position-effect variegation (PEV) were isolated with the help of hybrid dysgenic crosses (7r2 strain) and after transposition of the mutator elements pUChsneory+ and P[IArB]. Enhancer mutations were found with a ten times higher frequency than suppressors. The 19 pUChsneory+- and 15 P[lArB]-induced enhancer mutations canbe used for cloning of genomic sequences at the insertion sites of the mutator elements viaplasmid rescue. Together with a large sampleof X-ray-induced (48) and spontaneous(93) enhancer mutationsa basic genetic analysis of thisgroup of modifier geneswas performed. Onthe basis of complementation and mapping data we estimate the number of enhancer genes at about 30 in the third chromosome and between 50 and 60 for the whole autosome complement.Therefore, enhancer of PEV loci are found in the Drosophila genome as frequently as suppressor genes. Many of the enhancer mutations display paternal effects consistent with the hypothesis that some of these mutations can induce genomic imprinting. First studies on the developmentally regulated gene expression of PEV enhancer genes were performed by &plactosidase staining in P[IArB] induced mutations.
    [Show full text]
  • Epigenetic Minireview Aspects of Position–Effect Variegation in Drosophila
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Cell, Vol. 93, 321±324, May 1, 1998, Copyright 1998 by Cell Press Beyond the Nucleosome: Epigenetic Minireview Aspects of Position±Effect Variegation in Drosophila Barbara T. Wakimoto two chromosomal domains were originally defined on the Department of Zoology basis of cytological properties. Heterochromatin retains University of Washington its deeply staining, condensed appearance throughout Seattle, Washington 98195 the cell cycle, including interphase, whereas euchroma- tin appears diffuse during interphase. Heterochromatin is a nearly ubiquitous feature of the eukaryotic chromo- It is now widely recognized that heritable changes in gene some. Although heterochromatin is not cytologically vis- expression can occur without accompanying changes ible in yeast, gene silencing phenomena with features in DNA sequence. The discovery of position±effect varie- similar to heterochromatin-induced gene inactivation in gation (PEV) by H. J. Muller in 1930 provided the first Drosophila are observed in S. cerevisiae and S. pombe description of a phenomenon with an underlying epige- (reviewed by Grunstein, 1998 [this issue of Cell]). netic basis. Muller described mutations of the white1 General Models of PEV: cis-Spreading (w1) eye color gene of Drosophila that resulted in strik- and trans-Interactions ing, cell-to-cell variations in gene expression. The mosaic How does heterochromatin induce variegated position phenotypes were caused by a chromosomal position effects on euchromatic genes? Although several models effect in which a rearrangement breakpoint displaced have been proposed to explain the underlying basis the w1 gene from its normal euchromatic location and of PEV in Drosophila, the most popular one envisions placed it in the vicinity of heterochromatin.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating the Influence of CHD1 on Gene Expression in Drosophila Melanogaster Using Position Effect Variegation Phuongngan Thi Uib Scripps College
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2015 Investigating the Influence of CHD1 on Gene Expression in Drosophila Melanogaster Using Position Effect Variegation Phuongngan Thi uiB Scripps College Recommended Citation Bui, Phuongngan Thi, "Investigating the Influence of CHD1 on Gene Expression in Drosophila Melanogaster Using Position Effect Variegation" (2015). Scripps Senior Theses. Paper 537. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/537 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Investigating the influence of CHD1 on gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster using Position Effect Variegation A Thesis Presented by Phuongngan Thi Bui To the W.M. Keck Science Department Of the Claremont Colleges In partial fulfillment of The degree of Bachelor of Arts Senior Thesis in Biology December 8, 2014 Bui 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………..………………………..………………………2 INTRODUCTION ………………………………..………………………..………………..…3 Figure 1. Levels of DNA Compaction …………………………………………………4 Figure 2. Types of Histone tail Modifications ………………………………………....5 Figure 3. Histone Modification …………………………………………………….…..6 MATERIAL AND METHODS ………………………………..………………………..….…10 Table 1. Fly lines and sources …………………………..………………………….….10 Table 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Position‐Effect Variegation Revisited
    Prospects & Overviews Review essays Position-effect variegation revisited: HUSHing up heterochromatin in human cells Richard T. TimmsÃ, Iva A. Tchasovnikarovaà and Paul J. Lehnerà Much of what we understand about heterochromatin Introduction formation in mammals has been extrapolated from forward genetic screens for modifiers of position-effect variegation As a result of the many genome sequencing projects undertaken (PEV) in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. The recent over the past two decades, we now have a detailed understand- identification of the HUSH (Human Silencing Hub) complex ing of the precise nature of the genetic code that holds the suggests that more recent evolutionary developments information required to build a biological machine as complex as the human body. However, merely cataloguing the exact contribute to the mechanisms underlying PEV in human sequence of the millions of the DNA bases A, C, G and T does cells. Although HUSH-mediated repression also involves not equate to being able to understand how multicellular heterochromatin spreading through the reading and organisms function, as this genetic information must clearly writing of the repressive H3K9me3 histone modification, be interpreted quite differently to enable the functions of all clear orthologues of HUSH subunits are not found in the different cell types. The DNA in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells is found in Drosophila but are conserved in vertebrates. Here we complex with proteins called histones, which together form a compare the insights into the mechanisms of PEV derived structure known as chromatin. The basic functional unit of from genetic screens in the fly, the mouse and in human chromatin is the nucleosome, consisting of 147 base pairs cells, review what is currently known about the HUSH of DNA wrapped around two copies of each of the histones complex and discuss the implications of HUSH-mediated H2A, H2B, H3 and H4.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Sequences Associated with Position-Effect Variegation at Pericentric Sites in Drosophila Heterochromatin
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations Biology 11-1998 Characterization of sequences associated with position-effect variegation at pericentric sites in Drosophila heterochromatin D Cryderman M Cuaycong Washington University in St. Louis Sarah C.R. Elgin Washington University in St. Louis, [email protected] L Wallrath Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bio_facpubs Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Cryderman, D; Cuaycong, M; Elgin, Sarah C.R.; and Wallrath, L, "Characterization of sequences associated with position-effect variegation at pericentric sites in Drosophila heterochromatin" (1998). Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations. 209. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bio_facpubs/209 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chromosoma (1998) 107:277±285 Springer-Verlag 1998 Characterization of sequences associated with position-effect variegation at pericentric sites in Drosophila heterochromatin Diane E. Cryderman1, Matthew H. Cuaycong2, Sarah C.R. Elgin2, Lori L. Wallrath1 1 Department of Biochemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA 2 Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA Received: 15 January 1998; in revised form: 27 May 1998 / Accepted: 4 September 1998 Abstract. In a variety of organisms, euchromatic genes tion-effect variegation (PEV), a silencing of gene expres- brought into juxtaposition with pericentric heterochroma- sion in a subset of the cells in which the gene is normally tin show position-effect variegation (PEV), a silencing of expressed, leading to a mosaic phenotype.
    [Show full text]
  • Unexpected Roles of a Shugoshin Protein at Subtelomeres
    Genes Genet. Syst. (2017) 92, p. 127–133 Roles of shugoshin at subtelomeres 127 Unexpected roles of a shugoshin protein at subtelomeres Junko Kanoh* Institute for Protein Research, Osaka University, 3-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan (Received 3 April 2017, accepted 19 June 2017; J-STAGE Advance published date: 9 August 2017) A chromosome is composed of structurally and functionally distinct domains. Telo- meres, which are located at the ends of linear chromosomes, play crucial roles in genome stability. Although substantial knowledge of telomeres has been accu- mulated, the regulation and function of subtelomeres, which are the domains adjacent to telomeres, remain largely unknown. In this review, I describe recent discoveries about the multiple roles of a shugoshin family protein, Sgo2, which is localized at centromeres in mitosis and contributes to precise chromosome segrega- tion, in defining chromatin structure and functions of the subtelomeres in fission yeast. Sgo2 becomes enriched at the subtelomeres, particularly during G2 phase, and is essential for the formation of a highly condensed subtelomeric chromatin body called the knob. Furthermore, Sgo2 maintains the expression levels of sub- telomeric genes and the timing of DNA replication at subtelomeric late origins. Key words: subtelomere, shugoshin, heterochromatin, knob, replication timing regulated remain outstanding issues. INTRODUCTION The telomere, a specialized chromatin structure at the Composition of subtelomeric DNA Telomeres are ends of chromosomes, plays important roles in genome composed of DNA with repeated sequence ([TTAGGG]n integrity, and the adjacent chromosomal region, the sub- in mammals) and its associated proteins. In contrast, telomere, has recently become a focus of attention in the subtelomeres do not possess telomere repeat sequences; medical field.
    [Show full text]