MOF-associated complexes ensure stem cell identity and Xist repression

  1. Tomasz Chelmicki
  2. Friederike Dündar
  3. Matthew Turley
  4. Tasneem Khanam
  5. Tugce Aktas
  6. Fidel Ramírez
  7. Anne-Valerie Gendrel
  8. Patrick R Wright
  9. Pavankumar Videm
  10. Rolf Backofen
  11. Edith Heard
  12. Thomas Manke
  13. Asifa Akhtar  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Germany
  2. Institute Curie, France
  3. University of Freiburg, Germany
  4. Institut Curie, France

Abstract

Histone acetyl transferases (HATs) play distinct roles in many cellular processes and are frequently misregulated in cancers. Here, we study the regulatory potential of MYST1-(MOF)-containing MSL and NSL complexes in mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and neuronal progenitors. We find that both complexes influence transcription by targeting promoters as well as TSS-distal enhancers. In contrast to flies, the MSL complex is not exclusively enriched on the X chromosome yet it is crucial for mammalian X chromosome regulation as it specifically regulates Tsix, the major repressor of Xist lncRNA. MSL depletion leads to decreased Tsix expression, reduced REX1 recruitment, and consequently, enhanced accumulation of Xist and variable numbers of inactivated X chromosomes during early differentiation. The NSL complex provides additional, Tsix-independent repression of Xist by maintaining pluripotency. MSL and NSL complexes therefore act synergistically by using distinct pathways to ensure a fail-safe mechanism for the repression of X inactivation in ESCs.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Tomasz Chelmicki

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Friederike Dündar

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Matthew Turley

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Tasneem Khanam

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Tugce Aktas

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Fidel Ramírez

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Anne-Valerie Gendrel

    Institute Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Patrick R Wright

    University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Pavankumar Videm

    University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Rolf Backofen

    University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Edith Heard

    Institut Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Thomas Manke

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Asifa Akhtar

    Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics, Freiburg, Germany
    For correspondence
    akhtar@immunbio.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    Asifa Akhtar, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Copyright

© 2014, Chelmicki et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,683
    views
  • 684
    downloads
  • 78
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Tomasz Chelmicki
  2. Friederike Dündar
  3. Matthew Turley
  4. Tasneem Khanam
  5. Tugce Aktas
  6. Fidel Ramírez
  7. Anne-Valerie Gendrel
  8. Patrick R Wright
  9. Pavankumar Videm
  10. Rolf Backofen
  11. Edith Heard
  12. Thomas Manke
  13. Asifa Akhtar
(2014)
MOF-associated complexes ensure stem cell identity and Xist repression
eLife 3:e02024.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02024

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02024

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Steven Henikoff, David L Levens
    Insight

    A new method for mapping torsion provides insights into the ways that the genome responds to the torsion generated by RNA polymerase II.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.