Genomic DNA transposition induced by human PGBD5

  1. Anton G Henssen
  2. Elizabeth Henaff
  3. Eileen Jiang
  4. Amy R Eisenberg
  5. Julianne R Carson
  6. Camila M Villasante
  7. Mondira Ray
  8. Eric Still
  9. Melissa Burns
  10. Jorge Gandara
  11. Cedric Feschotte
  12. Christopher E Mason
  13. Alex Kentsis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  2. Weill Cornell Medical College, United States
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States
  4. University of Utah School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Transposons are mobile genetic elements that are found in nearly all organisms, including humans. Mobilization of DNA transposons by transposase enzymes can cause genomic rearrangements, but our knowledge of human genes derived from transposases is limited. Here, we find that the protein encoded by human PGBD5, the most evolutionarily conserved transposable element-derived gene in vertebrates, can induce stereotypical cut-and-paste DNA transposition in human cells. Genomic integration activity of PGBD5 requires distinct aspartic acid residues in its transposase domain, and specific DNA sequences containing inverted terminal repeats with similarity to piggyBac transposons. DNA transposition catalyzed by PGBD5 in human cells occurs genome-wide, with precise transposon excision and preference for insertion at TTAA sites. The apparent conservation of DNA transposition activity by PGBD5 suggests that genomic remodeling contributes to its biological function.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anton G Henssen

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Elizabeth Henaff

    Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Eileen Jiang

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Amy R Eisenberg

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julianne R Carson

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Camila M Villasante

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Mondira Ray

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Eric Still

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Melissa Burns

    Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jorge Gandara

    Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Cedric Feschotte

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Christopher E Mason

    Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Alex Kentsis

    Molecular Pharmacology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    kentsisresearchgroup@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Henssen 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

  • 6,769
    views
  • 1,002
    downloads
  • 67
    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. Anton G Henssen
  2. Elizabeth Henaff
  3. Eileen Jiang
  4. Amy R Eisenberg
  5. Julianne R Carson
  6. Camila M Villasante
  7. Mondira Ray
  8. Eric Still
  9. Melissa Burns
  10. Jorge Gandara
  11. Cedric Feschotte
  12. Christopher E Mason
  13. Alex Kentsis
(2015)
Genomic DNA transposition induced by human PGBD5
eLife 4:e10565.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10565

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10565

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Marius Regin, Yingnan Lei ... Claudia Spits
    Research Article

    About 70% of human cleavage stage embryos show chromosomal mosaicism, falling to 20% in blastocysts. Chromosomally mosaic human blastocysts can implant and lead to healthy new-borns with normal karyotypes. Studies in mouse embryos and human gastruloids showed that aneuploid cells are eliminated from the epiblast by p53-mediated apoptosis while being tolerated in the trophectoderm. These observations suggest a selective loss of aneuploid cells from human embryos, but the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Here, we investigated the cellular consequences of aneuploidy in a total of 125 human blastocysts. RNA-sequencing of trophectoderm cells showed activated p53 pathway and apoptosis proportionate to the level of chromosomal imbalance. Immunostaining corroborated that aneuploidy triggers proteotoxic stress, autophagy, p53-signaling, and apoptosis independent from DNA damage. Total cell numbers were lower in aneuploid embryos, due to a decline both in trophectoderm and in epiblast/primitive endoderm cell numbers. While lower cell numbers in trophectoderm may be attributed to apoptosis, aneuploidy impaired the second lineage segregation, particularly primitive endoderm formation. This might be reinforced by retention of NANOG. Our findings might explain why fully aneuploid embryos fail to further develop and we hypothesize that the same mechanisms lead to the removal of aneuploid cells from mosaic embryos.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Augusto Berrocal, Nicholas C Lammers ... Michael B Eisen
    Research Advance

    Transcription often occurs in bursts as gene promoters switch stochastically between active and inactive states. Enhancers can dictate transcriptional activity in animal development through the modulation of burst frequency, duration, or amplitude. Previous studies observed that different enhancers can achieve a wide range of transcriptional outputs through the same strategies of bursting control. For example, in Berrocal et al., 2020, we showed that despite responding to different transcription factors, all even-skipped enhancers increase transcription by upregulating burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. These shared bursting strategies suggest that a unified molecular mechanism constraints how enhancers modulate transcriptional output. Alternatively, different enhancers could have converged on the same bursting control strategy because of natural selection favoring one of these particular strategies. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we compared transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. Because enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopic patterns, dissimilar bursting control strategies between endogenous and ectopic patterns would suggest that enhancers adapted their bursting strategies to their trans-regulatory environment. Here, we generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos and discovered that bursting strategies remain consistent in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. These results provide evidence for a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies and serve as a starting point to uncover the realm of strategies employed by other enhancers.