PHF13 is a molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator of H3K4me2/3

  1. Ho-Ryun Chung
  2. Chao Xu
  3. Alisa Fuchs
  4. Andreas Mund
  5. Martin Lange
  6. Hannah Staege
  7. Tobias Schubert
  8. Chuanbing Bian
  9. Ilona Dunkel
  10. Anton Eberharter
  11. Catherine Regnard
  12. Henrike Klinker
  13. David Meierhofer
  14. Luca Cozzuto
  15. Andreas Winterpacht
  16. Luciano Di Croce
  17. Jinrong Min
  18. Hans Will
  19. Sarah Kinkley  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Germany
  2. Structural Genomics Consortium, Canada
  3. Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Germany
  4. Bayer Pharma AG, Germany
  5. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
  6. Centre for Genomic Regulation, Spain
  7. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany

Abstract

PHF13 is a chromatin affiliated protein with a functional role in differentiation, cell division, DNA damage response and higher chromatin order. To gain insight into PHF13's ability to modulate these processes, we elucidate the mechanisms targeting PHF13 to chromatin, its genome wide localization and its molecular chromatin context. Size exclusion chromatography, mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography and ChIP sequencing demonstrate that PHF13 binds chromatin in a multivalent fashion via direct interactions with H3K4me2/3 and DNA, and indirectly via interactions with PRC2 and RNA PolII. Furthermore, PHF13 depletion disrupted the interactions between PRC2, RNA PolII S5P, H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 and resulted in the up and down regulation of genes functionally enriched in transcriptional regulation, DNA binding, cell cycle, differentiation and chromatin organization. Together our findings argue that PHF13 is an H3K4me2/3 molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator, affording it the ability to impact different chromatin processes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ho-Ryun Chung

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chao Xu

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alisa Fuchs

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andreas Mund

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Martin Lange

    TRG-ONCI, Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hannah Staege

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tobias Schubert

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Chuanbing Bian

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ilona Dunkel

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anton Eberharter

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Catherine Regnard

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Henrike Klinker

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. David Meierhofer

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Luca Cozzuto

    Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Andreas Winterpacht

    Human Genetics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Luciano Di Croce

    Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jinrong Min

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Hans Will

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Sarah Kinkley

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    kinkley@molgen.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Ho-Ryun 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

  • 2,544
    views
  • 677
    downloads
  • 23
    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. Ho-Ryun Chung
  2. Chao Xu
  3. Alisa Fuchs
  4. Andreas Mund
  5. Martin Lange
  6. Hannah Staege
  7. Tobias Schubert
  8. Chuanbing Bian
  9. Ilona Dunkel
  10. Anton Eberharter
  11. Catherine Regnard
  12. Henrike Klinker
  13. David Meierhofer
  14. Luca Cozzuto
  15. Andreas Winterpacht
  16. Luciano Di Croce
  17. Jinrong Min
  18. Hans Will
  19. Sarah Kinkley
(2016)
PHF13 is a molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator of H3K4me2/3
eLife 5:e10607.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10607

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10607

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Bradley P Clarke, Alexia E Angelos ... Yi Ren
    Research Article

    In eukaryotes, RNAs transcribed by RNA Pol II are modified at the 5′ end with a 7-methylguanosine (m7G) cap, which is recognized by the nuclear cap binding complex (CBC). The CBC plays multiple important roles in mRNA metabolism, including transcription, splicing, polyadenylation, and export. It promotes mRNA export through direct interaction with a key mRNA export factor, ALYREF, which in turn links the TRanscription and EXport (TREX) complex to the 5′ end of mRNA. However, the molecular mechanism for CBC-mediated recruitment of the mRNA export machinery is not well understood. Here, we present the first structure of the CBC in complex with an mRNA export factor, ALYREF. The cryo-EM structure of CBC-ALYREF reveals that the RRM domain of ALYREF makes direct contact with both the NCBP1 and NCBP2 subunits of the CBC. Comparing CBC-ALYREF with other cellular complexes containing CBC and/or ALYREF components provides insights into the coordinated events during mRNA transcription, splicing, and export.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Julia Belyaeva, Matthias Elgeti
    Review Article

    Under physiological conditions, proteins continuously undergo structural fluctuations on different timescales. Some conformations are only sparsely populated, but still play a key role in protein function. Thus, meaningful structure–function frameworks must include structural ensembles rather than only the most populated protein conformations. To detail protein plasticity, modern structural biology combines complementary experimental and computational approaches. In this review, we survey available computational approaches that integrate sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling techniques to derive all-atom structural models of rare protein conformations. We also propose strategies to increase the reliability and improve efficiency using deep learning approaches, thus advancing the field of integrative structural biology.