DOCSLIB.ORG

Visualizing Long-Range Enhancer–Promoter Interaction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Visualizing Long-Range Enhancer–Promoter Interaction news & views TRANSCRIPTIONAL REGULATION Visualizing long-range enhancer–promoter interaction A new study uses multicolor live imaging to simultaneously visualize enhancer–promoter interaction and transcription in Drosophila embryos. Albert Tsai and Justin Crocker ranscriptional enhancers are short DNA fragments that remotely Distal OFF Proximal ON control gene expression, being able Insulator T eve Enhancer to drive transcription from promoters ✓ located tens of thousands of base pairs away. Several decades have passed since their initial discovery, and we are just beginning to unravel how enhancers and promoters interact in vivo. A long-standing ✓ question in the field remains: how does the Distal ParB Distal ParB physical interaction between enhancers promoter promoter and promoters impact gene expression? In 1 this issue, Chen et al. describe an imaging Fig. 1 | Models of enhancer–promoter interaction. Left, MS2-tagged mRNA (magenta) provides a approach to directly monitor long-range direct readout of native eve transcription by nearby enhancers. The distal eve promoter, marked with interactions between promoters and distal ParB (green), is inactive when it is physically far from enhancers in the ‘distal off’ state. Right, insulator enhancers and their consequences on elements facilitate interactions that bring distal elements into proximity. Additional interactions between transcriptional output. the enhancer and promoter are needed for the reporter to enter the transcriptionally active ‘proximal Transcriptional enhancers in on’ state. PP7-tagged mRNA (orange) provides a direct readout of the distal promoter. The promoter on multicellular eukaryotes greatly outnumber the reporter construct can compete with the native eve promoter, leading to reduced eve expression and genes. In the case of humans, estimates developmental defects. for the total number of enhancers exceed a million elements2,3. This number stands in stark contrast to the estimated that transcription is dynamic and even promoter. Collectively, this three-color setup ~20,000 genes. Thus, each promoter is, on stochastic, live imaging studies will allowed the authors to measure the physical average, under the control of more than necessarily have a pivotal role. distance between the native eve enhancers ten regulatory elements. Furthermore, and the distal reporter construct, providing a the distances between enhancers and Enhancer–promoter interaction goes live direct readout of long-range transcriptional promoters vary over a wide range—with Chen et al.1 imaged the positions of regulation (Fig. 1). some separated by over a million base enhancers relative to eve promoters within A hallmark of early Drosophila embryos pairs4. However, the mechanisms and live Drosophila embryos. eve is a well- is their rapid nuclear divisions, occurring functional significance of enhancer– characterized developmental locus expressed with timing on the order of 30 min or less. promoter interaction have remained in seven stripes along the anterior-to- These rapid cell cycles potentially leave enduring questions. posterior axis of early Drosophila embryos, insufficient time for long-range interactions One shortcoming in the field has been patterning corresponding body segments. to form. To facilitate the formation of stable that most measurements concerning The authors first tagged the native eve looping interactions, the authors took enhancer–promoter communication are mRNA with binding sites for fluorescent advantage of a homie insulator element based on imaging or sequencing studies viral coat proteins (from MS2)5,6, providing present in the native eve locus9 and added from fixed samples. Such assays do not a direct readout of transcription from the a corresponding insulator to the distal often capture the temporal dynamics of endogenous locus. Enhancers driving stripes reporter construct. With pairing insulator transcriptional interactions, leading to of eve expression are located proximal to the elements, the distal reporter became many outstanding questions. What kind native promoter, which allowed the authors transcriptionally active, even with the rapid of physical interactions are required to to monitor the location of eve enhancers nuclear divisions. drive transcription? How close must the using MS2 coat protein fluorescence as a The authors observed that the enhancer be to the promoter to drive proxy. The authors additionally inserted a distances between enhancers and transcription? How frequent or stable remote reporter construct 142 kb away. It promoters were shorter when the are enhancer–promoter interactions? contained ParB binding sites to mark its reporter was transcriptionally active. In How do these interactions shape animal location7,8 and a reporter mRNA tagged with fact, immediately before transcriptional development? With recent reports hinting PP7 stem loops under the control of an eve activation, the distance between the NATURE GENETICS | www.nature.com/naturegenetics news & views enhancer and promoter decreased by how many of these regions are functional or transcriptional environments may be the around twofold. Conversely, when the how many elements have ‘homing’ activity. key to understanding the mechanisms distance between the enhancer and Future work could address the generalities of transcriptional regulation during promoter increased, transcription stopped. of such insulator function and its dynamics, development. It is intriguing that many These findings suggest that sustained leading to a deeper understanding of of these results are converging on similarly physical proximity of regulatory elements is transcriptional regulation. sized transcriptional ‘hubs’, which may required for transcription. These findings are consistent with the form transiently on the stable chromatin Further characterizing the dynamics suggestion that chromosomal boundaries scaffolds formed by insulator proteins. of long-range gene regulation, the authors are rather stable, based on the similarity of Ultimately, continued work to found that a model with three states fit the boundaries across cell types from genomic connect genomics to these in vivo distribution of distances between regulatory data11. However, the dynamics of the measurements promises to lead to a elements. These states represented three loop structures that form such insulated better understanding of how the molecular functional conformations, concerning neighborhoods10 and the enhancer– interactions within the nucleus lead to a physical distance (distal versus proximal) promoter interactions within these regions fully functional organism. ❐ and transcriptional state (on versus off): are not yet fully understood. Furthermore, distal off, proximal off and proximal on. in the Drosophila genome, there is evidence Albert Tsai and Justin Crocker* Deletion of individual components in for stable, long-range interactions between Developmental Biology Unit, European Molecular the reporter construct supported this loci12, consistent with the findings of Chen Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany. interpretation. Tracking the populations of et al.1. In fact, the majority of enhancer *e-mail: [email protected] each state over time highlighted the striking interactions show no evidence of dynamic observation that sustained proximity is changes across development12. The Published: xx xx xxxx required to transition into the on state. experimental approaches used by Chen et al.1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0198-5 could be applied to study the dynamics of The future of live-imaging transcription such neighborhoods of gene expression and References Chen et al.1 demonstrated the power of enhancer–promoter interactions. 1. Chen, H. et al. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018- 0175-z (2018). using in vivo imaging to confirm that Intriguingly, the finding that stable 2. Lim, B., Heist, T., Levine, M. & Fukaya, T. Mol. Cell 70, enhancer–promoter proximity is required physical proximity of regulatory elements 287–296 (2018). for sustained transcription. These results is required for transcription seems to be 3. ENCODE Project Consortium. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012). 4. Lettice, L. A. et al. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12, 1725–1735 (2003). highlight the relationship between DNA at odds with recent work demonstrating 5. Bertrand, E. et al. Mol. Cell 2, 437–445 (1998). topological association and physical that active transcription sites are highly 6. Garcia, H. G. G., Tikhonov, M., Lin, A. & Gregor, T. Curr. Biol. 23, proximity. That is, elements that strongly dynamic13–15 and can diffuse more 2140–2145 (2013). 16 7. Saad, H. et al. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004187 (2014). influence the conformation of chromosomes freely . These differences may be 8. Dubarry, N., Pasta, F. & Lane, D. J. Bacteriol. 188, directly alter gene regulation. The homie the result of the insulator elements 1489–1496 (2006). insulator element chosen by the authors inducing a very stable chromatin 9. Fujioka, M., Wu, X. & Jaynes, J. B. Development 136, 3077–3087 (2009). is a particularly strong example of this conformation, working with timing 10. Hnisz, D., Day, D. S. & Young, R. A. Cell 167, 1188–1200 (2016). 9 kind of element , as it was able to hijack on the order of tens of minutes. In 11. Dixon, J. R. et al. Nature 518, 331–336 (2015). transcription from the native eve promoter contrast, recent studies focused on 12. Ghavi-Helm, Y. et al. Nature 512, 96–100 (2014). 13. Mir, M. et al. Genes Dev. 31, 1784–1794 (2017). to the distal reporter construct, leading to transcriptional dynamics occurring 14. Cisse, I. I. et al. Science 341, 664–667 (2013). competition between promoters resulting in in time frames from milliseconds 15. Tsai, A. et al. eLife 6, e28975 (2017). developmental defects. Furthermore, while to minutes. Resolving the apparent 16. Gu, B. et al. Science 359, 1050–1055 (2018). many regions in the genome are bound by inconsistencies between the stable, similar insulator or architectural proteins long-range chromatin topologies found Competing interests (i.e., CTCF and BEAF32)10, it is not clear by Chen et al.1 and the dynamic local The authors declare no competing interests. NATURE GENETICS | www.nature.com/naturegenetics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Yin and Yang of Enhancer–Promoter Interactions
    RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology | Published online 20 Dec 2017; doi:10.1038/nrm.2017.136 GENE EXPRESSION in the promoters of two genes resulted in reduced YY1 binding, reduced contact frequency between the pro- The yin and yang of enhancer– moters and their cognate enhancers and, in one of the genes, reduced expression. The lack of reduced promoter interactions expression of one of the genes was probably due to YY1 binding at Transcription factors can facilitate the could bind to these elements and facil- other, less optimal motifs; indeed, physical interaction between enhanc- itate their interaction. They identified YY1 depletion resulted in decreased ers and promoters and looping of deletion of another zinc finger protein, YY1, expression of both genes. the intervening DNA between them. YY1 binding which, like CTCF, is essential for cell Next, using an inducible protein Such loops are formed within larger, viability and is ubiquitously expressed. degradation system, the genome-wide insulated chromosomal loops (also motifs… Importantly, co- immunoprecipitation effects of YY1 depletion were meas- known as topologically associating reduced of differentially tagged YY1 proteins ured. The expression of thousands domains (TADs)), which are formed contact confirmed that YY1 can form of genes was changed (increased or by dimerization of the zinc finger frequency homodimers. decreased), and in general the genes protein CTCF bound to chromatin. In various mouse and human cell with the greatest changes following Weintraub et al. now show that, anal- between the types, YY1 occupied enhancers and YY1 depletion were those with ogously to CTCF, the protein yin and promoters and promoters genome-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • A Curated Benchmark of Enhancer-Gene Interactions for Evaluating Enhancer-Target Gene Prediction Methods
    University of Massachusetts Medical School eScholarship@UMMS Open Access Articles Open Access Publications by UMMS Authors 2020-01-22 A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods Jill E. Moore University of Massachusetts Medical School Et al. Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs Part of the Bioinformatics Commons, Computational Biology Commons, Genetic Phenomena Commons, and the Genomics Commons Repository Citation Moore JE, Pratt HE, Purcaro MJ, Weng Z. (2020). A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods. Open Access Articles. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13059-019-1924-8. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs/4118 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Articles by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moore et al. Genome Biology (2020) 21:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1924-8 RESEARCH Open Access A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods Jill E. Moore, Henry E. Pratt, Michael J. Purcaro and Zhiping Weng* Abstract Background: Many genome-wide collections of candidate cis-regulatory elements (cCREs) have been defined using genomic and epigenomic data, but it remains a major challenge to connect these elements to their target genes. Results: To facilitate the development of computational methods for predicting target genes, we develop a Benchmark of candidate Enhancer-Gene Interactions (BENGI) by integrating the recently developed Registry of cCREs with experimentally derived genomic interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • An HMG I/Y-Containing Repressor Complex and Supercolled DNA Topology Are Critical for Long-Range Enhancer-Dependent Transcription in Vitro
    Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on September 26, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press An HMG I/Y-containing repressor complex and supercolled DNA topology are critical for long-range enhancer-dependent transcription in vitro Rajesh Bagga and Beverly M. Emerson 1 Regulatory Biology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California 92037 USA The 3' enhancer of the T cell receptor s.chain (TCR~) gene directs the tissue- and stage-specific expression and V(D)Jrecombination of this gene locus. Using an in vitro system that reproduces TCRoL enhancer activity efficiently, we show that long-range promoter-enhancer regulation requires a T cell-specific repressor complex and is sensitive to DNA topology. In this system, the enhancer functions to derepress the promoter on supercoiled, but not relaxed, templates. We find that the TCRoL promoter is inactivated by a repressor complex that contains the architectural protein HMG I/Y. In the absence of this repressor complex, expression of the TCR~ gene is completely independent of the 3' enhancer and DNA topology. The interaction of the T cell-restricted protein LEF-1 with the TCR~ enhancer is required for promoter derepression. In this system, the TCR~ enhancer increases the number of active promoters rather than the rate of transcription. Thus, long-range enhancers function in a distinct manner from promoters and provide the regulatory link between repressors, DNA topology, and gene activity. [Key Words: TCR genes; transcription; enhancers; HMG I/Y; derepression; DNA topology] Received December 27, 1996; revised version accepted January 14, 1997. The widespread importance of long-range promoter- Giaever 1988; Rippe et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoter Methylation Status for Cell-Type Deconvolution
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.28.428654; this version posted January 29, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Long Reads Capture Simultaneous Enhancer- Promoter Methylation Status for Cell-type Deconvolution Sapir Margalit1,2, Yotam Abramson1,2, Hila Sharim1,2, Zohar Manber2,3, Surajit Bhattacharya4, Yi-Wen Chen4,5, Eric Vilain4,5, Hayk Barseghyan4,5, Ran Elkon2,3, Roded Sharan2,6* and Yuval Ebenstein1,2* 1Department of physical chemistry, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel., 2Edmond J. Safra Center for Bioinformatics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel., 3Department of Human Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel., 4Center for Genetic Medicine Research, Children’s National Hospital, 111 Michigan Avenue NW, Washington DC 20010, USA., 5Department of Genomics and Precision Medicine, George Washington University 1918 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20052, USA., 6School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel.*Corresponding Author Abstract Motivation: While promoter methylation is associated with reinforcing fundamental tissue identities, the methylation status of distant enhancers was shown by genome-wide association studies to be a powerful determinant of cell-state and cancer. With recent availability of long-reads that report on the methylation status of enhancer-promoter pairs on the same molecule, we hypothesized that probing these pairs on the single-molecule level may serve the basis for detection of rare cancerous transformations in a given cell population. We explore various analysis approaches for deconvolving cell-type mixtures based on their genome-wide enhancer-promoter methylation profiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Basis of the Function of Transcriptional Enhancers
    cells Review Molecular Basis of the Function of Transcriptional Enhancers 1,2, 1, 1,3, Airat N. Ibragimov y, Oleg V. Bylino y and Yulii V. Shidlovskii * 1 Laboratory of Gene Expression Regulation in Development, Institute of Gene Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 34/5 Vavilov St., 119334 Moscow, Russia; [email protected] (A.N.I.); [email protected] (O.V.B.) 2 Center for Precision Genome Editing and Genetic Technologies for Biomedicine, Institute of Gene Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 34/5 Vavilov St., 119334 Moscow, Russia 3 I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 8, bldg. 2 Trubetskaya St., 119048 Moscow, Russia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-4991354096 These authors contributed equally to this study. y Received: 30 May 2020; Accepted: 3 July 2020; Published: 5 July 2020 Abstract: Transcriptional enhancers are major genomic elements that control gene activity in eukaryotes. Recent studies provided deeper insight into the temporal and spatial organization of transcription in the nucleus, the role of non-coding RNAs in the process, and the epigenetic control of gene expression. Thus, multiple molecular details of enhancer functioning were revealed. Here, we describe the recent data and models of molecular organization of enhancer-driven transcription. Keywords: enhancer; promoter; chromatin; transcriptional bursting; transcription factories; enhancer RNA; epigenetic marks 1. Introduction Gene transcription is precisely organized in time and space. The process requires the participation of hundreds of molecules, which form an extensive interaction network. Substantial progress was achieved recently in our understanding of the molecular processes that take place in the cell nucleus (e.g., see [1–9]).
    [Show full text]
  • Structure, Function, and Evolution of a Signal-Regulated Enhancer
    Structure, Function, and Evolution of a Signal-Regulated Enhancer by Christina Ione Swanson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Cell and Developmental Biology) in the University of Michigan 2010 Doctoral Committee: Assistant Professor Scott E. Barolo, Chair Professor J. Douglas Engel Associate Professor Kenneth M. Cadigan Associate Professor Billy Tsai Assistant Professor Patricia J. Wittkopp To my family, for your truly unconditional love and support. And to Mike - the best thing that happened to me in grad school. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 What do enhancers look like? ................................................................................ 2 Mechanisms of enhancer function ......................................................................... 3 Enhancer structure and organization ...................................................................... 6 Unanswered questions in the field ....................................................................... 10 The D-Pax2 sparkling enhancer .......................................................................... 12 CHAPTER II: STRUCTURAL RULES
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancer Rnas Are an Important Regulatory Layer of the Epigenome
    REVIEW ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0446-0 Enhancer RNAs are an important regulatory layer of the epigenome Vittorio Sartorelli 1 and Shannon M. Lauberth 2 ✉ Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) direct a remarkable number of diverse functions in development and disease through their regula- tion of transcription, RNA processing and translation. Leading the charge in the RNA revolution is a class of ncRNAs that are synthesized at active enhancers, called enhancer RNAs (eRNAs). Here, we review recent insights into the biogenesis of eRNAs and the mechanisms underlying their multifaceted functions and consider how these findings could inform future investigations into enhancer transcription and eRNA function. he explosion of high-throughput sequencing data has Many different models for how enhancers function in gene con- revealed the complexity and diversity of the transcriptome. trol have been proposed since their initial discovery nearly four TThese data have also unexpectedly revealed that only 1–2% decades ago19–21. Specifically, there is considerable evidence demon- of the transcriptome provides instructions for the synthesis of strating that looping of distal enhancers to their target promoters is functional proteins, while the remaining 98–99% gives rise to a required for enhancer function (reviewed in ref. 22). For example, plethora of ncRNAs, including transfer RNAs (tRNAs), ribosomal a key study revealed that experimental induction of chromatin RNAs (rRNAs), intronic RNAs, small nuclear (sn)RNAs, small looping between the mouse β-globin (Hbb) promoter and its asso- nucleolar (sno)RNAs, microRNAs (miRNAs) and long noncoding ciated enhancer region results in transcriptional activation of the RNAs (lncRNAs). A recent addition to the expanding list of regu- Hbb gene23.
    [Show full text]
  • EZH2 Reduction Is an Essential Mechanoresponse for The
    Li et al. Cell Death and Disease (2020) 11:757 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-020-02963-3 Cell Death & Disease ARTICLE Open Access EZH2 reduction is an essential mechanoresponse for the maintenance of super-enhancer polarization against compressive stress in human periodontal ligament stem cells Qian Li1,XiwenSun2,YunyiTang2, Yanan Qu2, Yanheng Zhou1 and Yu Zhang2 Abstract Despite the ubiquitous mechanical cues at both spatial and temporal dimensions, cell identities and functions are largely immune to the everchanging mechanical stimuli. To understand the molecular basis of this epigenetic stability, we interrogated compressive force-elicited transcriptomic changes in mesenchymal stem cells purified from human periodontal ligament (PDLSCs), and identified H3K27me3 and E2F signatures populated within upregulated and weakly downregulated genes, respectively. Consistently, expressions of several E2F family transcription factors and EZH2, as core methyltransferase for H3K27me3, decreased in response to mechanical stress, which were attributed to force-induced redistribution of RB from nucleoplasm to lamina. Importantly, although epigenomic analysis on H3K27me3 landscape only demonstrated correlating changes at one group of mechanoresponsive genes, we observed a genome-wide destabilization of super-enhancers along with aberrant EZH2 retention. These super- enhancers were tightly bounded by H3K27me3 domain on one side and exhibited attenuating H3K27ac deposition fl 1234567890():,; 1234567890():,; 1234567890():,; 1234567890():,; and attening H3K27ac peaks along with compensated EZH2 expression after force exposure, analogous to increased H3K27ac entropy or decreased H3K27ac polarization. Interference of force-induced EZH2 reduction could drive actin filaments dependent spatial overlap between EZH2 and super-enhancers and functionally compromise the multipotency of PDLSC following mechanical stress. These findings together unveil a specific contribution of EZH2 reduction for the maintenance of super-enhancer stability and cell identity in mechanoresponse.
    [Show full text]
  • The 8-Crystallin Enhancer-Binding Protein 6EF1 Is a Repressor of E2
    MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY, Sept. 1994, p. 5692-5700 Vol. 14, No. 9 0270-7306/94/$04.00 + 0 Copyright © 1994, American Society for Microbiology The 8-Crystallin Enhancer-Binding Protein 6EF1 Is a Repressor of E2-Box-Mediated Gene Activation RYOHEI SEKIDO,' KASUMI MURAI,' JUN-ICHI FUNAHASHI,2 YUSUKE KAMACHI, ATSUKO FUJISAWA-SEHARA,3 YO-ICHI NABESHIMA,3 AND HISATO KONDOHI* Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Osaka University, Suitashi, Osaka 565,' Institute of Development, Ageing and Cancer, Tohoku University, Seiryo-mach4 Aobaku, Sendai 980-77,2 and Division of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Neuroscience, National Center of Neurobiology and Psychiatry, Ogawahigashi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187,3 Japan Received 22 March 1994/Returned for modification 3 May 1994/Accepted 6 June 1994 The repressor 8EF1 was discovered by its action on the DC5 fragment of the lens-specific 81-crystallin enhancer. C-proximal zinc fingers of 8EF1 were found responsible for binding to the DC5 fragment and had specificity to CACCT as revealed by selection of high-affinity binding sequences from a random oligonucleotide pool. CACCT is present not only in DC5 but also in the E2 box (CACCTG) elements which are the binding sites of various basic helix-loop-helix activators and also the target of an unidentified repressor, raising the possibility that 8EF1 accounts for the E2 box repressor activity. 8EF1 competed with E47 for binding to an E2 box sequence in vitro. In lymphoid cells, endogenous 8EF1 activity as a repressor was detectable, and exogenous 8EF1 repressed immunoglobulin K enhancer by binding to the KE2 site.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Repression in the Drosophila Embryo HAINI N
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 9309-9314, September 1996 Colloquium Paper This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled "Biology of Developmental Transcription Control, " organized by Eric H. Davidson, Roy J. Britten, and Gary Felsenfeld, held October 26-28, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences in Irvine, CA. Long-range repression in the Drosophila embryo HAINI N. CAI, DAVID N. ARNOSTI, AND MICHAEL LEVINE* Department of Biology, Center for Molecular Genetics, Pacific Hall, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0347 ABSTRACT Transcriptional repressors can be character- Short-range transcriptional repression appears to account ized by their range of action on promoters and enhancers. for enhancer autonomy in a modular promoter. Repressors Short-range repressors interact over distances of50-150 bp to bound to a given enhancer do not interfere with the activators inhibit, or quench, either upstream activators or the basal contained within neighboring enhancers. For example, the transcription complex. In contrast, long-range repressors act posterior border of eve stripe 3 is established by the gap over several kilobases to silence basal promoters. We describe repressor knirps (kni; ref. 7), which is a member of the nuclear recent progress in characterizing the functional properties of receptor superfamily, and is expressed in the presumptive one such long-range element in the Drosophila embryo and abdomen in early embryos (8). There are at least five kni- discuss the contrasting types of gene regulation that are made binding sites in the stripe 3 enhancer, two of which map within possible by short- and long-range repressors.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Transcription Factors of RNA Polymerase II
    Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 7, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press REVIEW The general transcription factors of RNA polymerase II George Orphanides, Thierry Lagrange, and Danny Reinberg 1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Biochemistry, Division of Nucleic Acid Enzymology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-5635 USA Messenger RNA (mRNA) synthesis occurs in distinct unique functions and the observation that they can as- mechanistic phases, beginning with the binding of a semble at a promoter in a specific order in vitro sug- DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to the promoter re- gested that a preinitiation complex must be built in a gion of a gene and culminating in the formation of an stepwise fashion, with the binding of each factor promot- RNA transcript. The initiation of mRNA transcription is ing association of the next. The concept of ordered as- a key stage in the regulation of gene expression. In eu- sembly recently has been challenged, however, with the karyotes, genes encoding mRNAs and certain small nu- discovery that a subset of the GTFs exists in a large com- clear RNAs are transcribed by RNA polymerase II (pol II). plex with pol II and other novel transcription factors. However, early attempts to reproduce mRNA transcrip- The existence of this pol II holoenzyme suggests an al- tion in vitro established that purified pol II alone was not ternative to the paradigm of sequential GTF assembly capable of specific initiation (Roeder 1976; Weil et al. (for review, see Koleske and Young 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Epigenomic Profiling of Myelofibrosis Reveals Widespread DNA
    ARTICLE Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Epigenomic profiling of myelofibrosis reveals Ferrata Storti Foundation widespread DNA methylation changes in enhancer elements and ZFP36L1 as a potential tumor suppressor gene that is epigenetically regulated Nicolás Martínez-Calle,1,2# Marien Pascual,1,2# Raquel Ordoñez,1,2# Edurne San Haematologica 2019 José Enériz,1,2 Marta Kulis,3 Estíbaliz Miranda,1,2 Elisabeth Guruceaga,4 Víctor 4 5 6 2,5 Volume 104(8):1572-1579 Segura, María José Larráyoz, Beatriz Bellosillo, María José Calasanz, Carles Besses,7 José Rifón,2,8 José I. Martín-Subero,2,9,10 Xabier Agirre1,2* and Felipe Prosper1,2,8* 1Área de Hemato-Oncología, Centro de Investigación Médica Aplicada, IDISNA, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona; 2Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid; 3Fundació Clínic per a la Recerca Biomèdica, Barcelona; 4Unidad de Bioinformática, Centro de Investigación Médica Aplicada, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona; 5CIMA Laboratory of Diagnostics, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona; 6Departmento de Patología, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona; 7Departmento de Hematología, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona; 8Departamento de Hematología, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona; 9Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona and 10Departament de Fonaments Clinics, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. #These authors share first authorship *These authors share senior authorship ABSTRACT n this study we interrogated the DNA methylome of myelofibrosis patients using high-density DNA methylation arrays. We detected Correspondence: I35,215 differentially methylated CpG, corresponding to 10,253 genes, XABIER AGIRRE between myelofibrosis patients and healthy controls. These changes were [email protected] present both in primary and secondary myelofibrosis, which showed no differences between them.
    [Show full text]