Investigations of CHD1 Function in Transcription and Development of Drosophila Melanogaster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright Ó 2008 by the Genetics Society of America DOI: 10.1534/genetics.107.079038 Note Investigations of CHD1 Function in Transcription and Development of Drosophila melanogaster Ivy E. McDaniel, Jennifer M. Lee, Matthew S. Berger, Cori K. Hanagami and Jennifer A. Armstrong1 Joint Science Department, W. M. Keck Science Center, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, and Pitzer Colleges, Claremont, California 91711 Manuscript received July 19, 2007 Accepted for publication November 19, 2007 ABSTRACT In this report we describe chd1 mutant alleles and show that the CHD1 chromatin-remodeling factor is important for wing development and fertility. While CHD1 colocalizes with elongating RNA polymerase II (Pol II) on polytene chromosomes, elongating Pol II can persist on chromatin in the absence of CHD1. These results clarify the roles of chromatin remodelers in transcription and provide novel insights into CHD1 function. N eukaryotic cells, RNA polymerase II (Pol II) encoun- derived from larvae lacking the Kismet (KIS) chroma- I ters nucleosomes at each step in transcription. To tin-remodeling protein retain Pol IIoser5, but lose Pol deal with these obstacles, Pol II requires the action of a IIoser2, suggesting that KIS is required for an early step in plethora of proteins including chromatin-remodeling the transition to transcription elongation (Srinivasan factors, which function as DNA-translocating machines et al. 2005). The CHD1 (chromodomain, helicase, DNA- that draw waves of DNA around the histone octamer to binding protein 1) chromatin-remodeling protein local- slide, perturb, or disassemble the nucleosomes (Cairns izes to active genes of polytenes in a pattern nearly 2005; Smith and Peterson 2005; Saha et al. 2006). identical to that of Pol IIoser2, suggesting a role for CHD1 While a number of chromatin-remodeling factors have in facilitating elongation (Stokes et al. 1996; Srinivasan been identified, the relative roles of these proteins in Pol et al. 2005). II transcription are unclear. Taken together, these results lead to a model in which The stages of transcription are largely defined by the three Drosophila chromatin-remodeling factors function phosphorylation status of the C-terminal domain sequentially to allow transcription: (1) BRM is required (CTD) of the largest subunit of Pol II. During initiation, for initiation, (2) KIS is required for the transition from the CTD is unphosphorylated (Pol IIa); as Pol II clears promoter clearance to the elongation phase, and (3) the promoter, it is phosphorylated at serine 5 within the CHD1 is required for continued elongation by Pol II. A heptad repeats of the CTD; and later in elongation, Pol place for CHD1 in elongation is also supported by data II is phosphorylated on serine 2 (Pol IIoser2)(Phatnani in yeast. Saccharomyces cerevisiae CHD1 is localized to a and Greenleaf 2006). Recent studies utilizing tran- transcriptionally active gene and physically interacts scriptionally active polytene chromosomes derived from with transcription elongation factors (Simic et al. 2003). Drosophila melanogaster larval salivary glands suggest that To determine whether Drosophila CHD1 is required for three distinct chromatin-remodeling factors may be elongation, we generated loss-of-function alleles of chd1 required for a successful round of transcription. Pol and examined the consequences of the loss of CHD1 on IIa levels are reduced on polytene chromosomes de- global chromosome structure and transcription. rived from larvae expressing a dominant-negative allele chd1 is not an essential gene: To investigate the func- of brahma (brm), suggesting that the SWI2-like BRM tion of CHD1, we generated two deletion alleles (chd14 chromatin remodeler is critical for transcription initia- and chd15) by imprecise excision of an EP element tion (Armstrong et al. 2002). Polytene chromosomes inserted into position -2 of the chd1 promoter (GenExel stock G2213) (Figure 1A). We observed no differences 1 in the behavior of the two alleles. As described below, Corresponding author: Joint Science Department, W. M. Keck Science 4 5 4 5 Center, 925 N. Mills Ave., Scripps, Claremont McKenna, and Pitzer chd1 and chd1 homozygous and chd1 /chd1 hetero- Colleges, Claremont, CA 91711. E-mail: [email protected] allelic individuals display phenotypes that are less se- Genetics 178: 583–587 (January 2008) 584 I. E. McDaniel et al. Figure 1.—The generation of two chd1 alleles. (A) The chd14 allele carries a dele- tion from À1to11994 with the additional sequence CATGATGAAATAACATATAGT TAGATATGAAATAA. The chd15 allele car- ries a deletion from À1to11871 with the additional sequence CATGATGAAAT AACATCATCATAACATGAAATAAC. Much of the additional sequence in both alleles is derived from the P element. (B) Western blot analysis of embryo extracts derived from Oregon-R (WT), flies in which the P element was precisely excised (precise), and chd14/CyO and chd15/CyO heterozy- gotes. Full-length CHD1 is observed in each lane, and a truncated protein (pre- dicted to be 166 kDa) is not observed in the mutant heterozygous embryo extracts. The CHD1 rabbit polyclonal antibody was raised and affinity purified against CHD1 amino acids 1706–1721 (CRLNMDRHED RKKHHRG) (Covance). This peptide antibody recognizes CHD1 on polytenes in a pattern identical to that observed with the antibody raised by Robert Perry (Stokes et al. 1996) (data not shown). vere than those seen in hemizygous mutants ½using mRNA by in situ hybridization and found that chd1 is Df(2L)Exel7014. These genetic data would suggest that broadly expressed throughout embryogenesis and in chd14 and chd15 are hypomorphic alleles. We investi- imaginal discs (data not shown). This broad expression gated the possibility that the two chd1 alleles could pattern is similar to that of brm and kis (Elfring et al. 1998; generate proteins with N-terminal truncations. Given Daubresse et al. 1999) and suggests that, like BRM and the location of the earliest in-frame start codon, we KIS, CHD1 could function globally to regulate transcription. predict that both chd14 and chd15 alleles would gener- While chd1 is broadly expressed, we observed specific ate a 166-kDa protein. However, Western blot analysis phenotypes in mutant animals, suggesting that CHD1 of heterozygous embryo extracts failed to detect an may function as a tissue-specific chromatin-remodeling N-terminal truncated protein (Figure 1B). While it is factor. Wing margins in chd14 and chd15 homozygous, formally possible that chd14 and chd15 express an un- heteroallelic, and hemizygous mutant individuals dis- stable protein that is not detectable by Western blot, played notching (Figure 2B), with 3.8–36% of heteroallelic we propose that our alleles are protein nulls and con- individuals and 75–94% of hemizygous individuals clude that chd1 is not an essential gene. chd14 and chd15 showing notched wing margins (Table 1). Several con- homozygous, heteroallelic, and hemizygous mutant in- trol individuals are presented in Table 1 to ensure that dividuals are viable, although they display a 1- to 2-day the cut-in wing margins were not a consequence of the developmental delay, and some marker combinations chromosomal markers (which are a result of meiotic reduce viability of chd1 mutants. Given the genetic data mapping of the chd1 alleles), although the markers may described above, we propose that 1 of the other 18 genes affect how often the phenotype is seen (Table 1). The uncovered by Df(2L)Exel7014 may dominantly enhance variability of the wing-notching phenotype was not chd1 mutant phenotypes. For example, okra (the RAD54 correlated with developmental delay or viability. Indi- homolog, a SNF2-like helicase) is located 20 kb away viduals homozygous for the precise excision did not from chd1. okra mutant phenotypes include female show cut-in wing margins, indicating that the phenotype sterility (Kooistra et al. 1997), one of the chd1 pheno- is due to lack of CHD1. This specific wing phenotype is types that may be dominantly enhanced by the deficiency. not observed in animals lacking BRM or KIS and sug- chd1 mutants reveal unexpected defects in fertility and gests that genes critical for wing-margin formation are wing development: We examined the distribution of chd1 especially sensitive to loss of CHD1. Figure 2.—chd1 mutant individuals display wing defects that include notched wing margins. In contrast to a wild-type Oregon-R wing (A), wings from chd14 b pr c px sp/chd5 b individuals show notched wing margins (B). Wings from chd1 mu- tant animals are 80% the size of wild-type wings, consistent with their overall smaller size. Note 585 TABLE 1 Wing defects in chd1 mutant flies Total % of flies no. of displaying cut-in Genotype flies wing marginsa chd14 b pr c px sp/chd15 b 285 3.8 chd14 b pr c px sp/chd15 bcsp 115 36 chd14 b pr c px sp/b 269 0 chd14 b pr c px sp/al b c sp 294 0 b pr c px sp/chd15 bcsp 280 0 chd14 b pr c px sp/Df(2L)Exel7014 159 78 chd15 b/Df(2L)Exel7014 48 94 In(2LR) Gla, Bc/Df(2L)Exel7014 209 0 a At least one wing showed a cut-in wing margin. chd14 and chd15 homozygous, heteroallelic, and hemi- zygous males are sterile; CHD1 is therefore required for male fertility (Table 2). chd1 mutant males displayed normal mating behaviors, and there were no obvious defects in the general morphology of testes of chd14/ chd15 mutant males (data not shown). While our mutant males produced zero progeny, control males produced an average of 101 progeny per single male under the same conditions. CHD1 is also important for female fertility as chd1 mutant females produced few offspring (Table 2) (by comparison, a single wild-type female Figure 3.—chd1 mutant individuals display defects in oo- produced 108 progeny under the same conditions). We genesis. Ovarioles derived from wild-type (A) and chd14/ propose that the majority of the fertilized eggs cannot Df(2L)Exel7014 hemizygous mutant females (B) were stained develop due to an inability to repackage the sperm with DAPI and prepared as described (Verheyen and Cooley pronuclear DNA into H3.3-containing chromatin (Konev 1994).