In vivo targeting of de novo DNA methylation by histone modifications in yeast and mouse

  1. Marco Morselli  Is a corresponding author
  2. William A Pastor
  3. Barbara Montanini
  4. Kevin Nee
  5. Roberto Ferrari
  6. Kai Fu
  7. Giancarlo Bonora
  8. Liudmilla Rubbi
  9. Amander T Clark
  10. Simone Ottonello
  11. Steven E Jacobsen
  12. Matteo Pellegrini
  1. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  2. Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Italy

Abstract

Methylation of cytosines (5meC) is a widespread heritable DNA modification. During mammalian development, two global demethylation events are followed by waves of de novo DNA methylation. In vivo mechanisms of DNA methylation establishment are largely uncharacterized. Here we use Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a system lacking DNA methylation to define the chromatin features influencing the activity of the murine DNMT3B. Our data demonstrate that DNMT3B and H3K4 methylation are mutually exclusive and that DNMT3B is co-localized with H3K36 methylated regions. In support of this observation, DNA methylation analysis in yeast strains without Set1 and Set2 show an increase of relative 5meC levels at the TSS and a decrease in the gene-body, respectively. We extend our observation to the murine male germline, where H3K4me3 is strongly anti-correlated while H3K36me3 correlates with accelerated DNA methylation. These results show the importance of H3K36 methylation for gene-body DNA methylation in vivo.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Marco Morselli

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    mmorselli@ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. William A Pastor

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Barbara Montanini

    Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Parma, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kevin Nee

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Roberto Ferrari

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kai Fu

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Giancarlo Bonora

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Liudmilla Rubbi

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Amander T Clark

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Simone Ottonello

    Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Parma, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Steven E Jacobsen

    Department of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matteo Pellegrini

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experimentation was conducted with the highest ethical standards in accordance with UCLA policy and procedures (DHHS OLAW A3196-01, AAALAC #000408 and protocol # 2008-070), and applicable provisions of the USDA Animal Welfare Act Regulations, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Copyright

© 2015, Morselli 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

  • 7,215
    views
  • 1,449
    downloads
  • 148
    citations

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

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06205

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Bin Zhu, Rui Wei ... Pei Liang
    Research Article

    Wing dimorphism is a common phenomenon that plays key roles in the environmental adaptation of aphid; however, the signal transduction in response to environmental cues and the regulation mechanism related to this event remain unknown. Adenosine (A) to inosine (I) RNA editing is a post-transcriptional modification that extends transcriptome variety without altering the genome, playing essential roles in numerous biological and physiological processes. Here, we present a chromosome-level genome assembly of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum by using PacBio long HiFi reads and Hi-C technology. The final genome assembly for M. dirhodum is 447.8 Mb, with 98.50% of the assembled sequences anchored to nine chromosomes. The contig and scaffold N50 values are 7.82 and 37.54 Mb, respectively. A total of 18,003 protein-coding genes were predicted, of which 92.05% were functionally annotated. In addition, 11,678 A-to-I RNA-editing sites were systematically identified based on this assembled M. dirhodum genome, and two synonymous A-to-I RNA-editing sites on CYP18A1 were closely associated with transgenerational wing dimorphism induced by crowding. One of these A-to-I RNA-editing sites may prevent the binding of miR-3036-5p to CYP18A1, thus elevating CYP18A1 expression, decreasing 20E titer, and finally regulating the wing dimorphism of offspring. Meanwhile, crowding can also inhibit miR-3036-5p expression and further increase CYP18A1 abundance, resulting in winged offspring. These findings support that A-to-I RNA editing is a dynamic mechanism in the regulation of transgenerational wing dimorphism in aphids and would advance our understanding of the roles of RNA editing in environmental adaptability and phenotypic plasticity.