Aurora-A mediated histone H3 phosphorylation of threonine 118 controls condensin I and cohesin occupancy in mitosis

  1. Candice L Wike
  2. Hillary K Graves
  3. Reva Hawkins
  4. Matthew D Gibson
  5. Michelle B Ferdinand
  6. Tao Zhang
  7. Zhihong Chen
  8. Damien F Hudson
  9. Jennifer J Ottesen
  10. Michael G Poirier
  11. Jill Schumacher
  12. Jessica K Tyler  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States
  2. The Ohio State University, United States
  3. Royal Children's Hospital, Australia
  4. Ohio State University, United States
  5. University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center, United States
  6. Weill Cornell Medicine, United States

Abstract

Phosphorylation of histone H3 threonine 118 (H3 T118ph) weakens histone DNA-contacts, disrupting the nucleosome structure. We show that Aurora-A mediated H3 T118ph occurs at pericentromeres and chromosome arms during prophase and is lost upon chromosome alignment. Expression of H3 T118E or H3 T118I (a SIN mutation that bypasses the need for the ATP-dependent nucleosome remodeler SWI/SNF) leads to mitotic problems including defects in spindle attachment, delayed cytokinesis, reduced chromatin packaging, cohesion loss, cohesin and condensin I loss in human cells. In agreement, overexpression of Aurora-A leads to increased H3 T118ph levels, causing cohesion loss, and reduced levels of cohesin and condensin I on chromatin. Normal levels of H3 T118ph are important because it is required for development in fruit flies. We propose that H3 T118ph alters the chromatin structure during specific phases of mitosis to promote timely condensin I and cohesin disassociation, which is essential for effective chromosome segregation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Candice L Wike

    Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Hillary K Graves

    Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Reva Hawkins

    Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Matthew D Gibson

    Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Michelle B Ferdinand

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Tao Zhang

    Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Zhihong Chen

    Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Damien F Hudson

    Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Jennifer J Ottesen

    Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Michael G Poirier

    Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Jill Schumacher

    Department of Genetics, University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Jessica K Tyler

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    jet2021@med.cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    Jessica K Tyler, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Copyright

© 2016, Wike 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

  • 3,240
    views
  • 881
    downloads
  • 24
    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. Candice L Wike
  2. Hillary K Graves
  3. Reva Hawkins
  4. Matthew D Gibson
  5. Michelle B Ferdinand
  6. Tao Zhang
  7. Zhihong Chen
  8. Damien F Hudson
  9. Jennifer J Ottesen
  10. Michael G Poirier
  11. Jill Schumacher
  12. Jessica K Tyler
(2016)
Aurora-A mediated histone H3 phosphorylation of threonine 118 controls condensin I and cohesin occupancy in mitosis
eLife 5:e11402.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11402

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11402

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bethany M Bartlett, Yatendra Kumar ... Wendy A Bickmore
    Research Article Updated

    During oncogene-induced senescence there are striking changes in the organisation of heterochromatin in the nucleus. This is accompanied by activation of a pro-inflammatory gene expression programme – the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) – driven by transcription factors such as NF-κB. The relationship between heterochromatin re-organisation and the SASP has been unclear. Here, we show that TPR, a protein of the nuclear pore complex basket required for heterochromatin re-organisation during senescence, is also required for the very early activation of NF-κB signalling during the stress-response phase of oncogene-induced senescence. This is prior to activation of the SASP and occurs without affecting NF-κB nuclear import. We show that TPR is required for the activation of innate immune signalling at these early stages of senescence and we link this to the formation of heterochromatin-enriched cytoplasmic chromatin fragments thought to bleb off from the nuclear periphery. We show that HMGA1 is also required for cytoplasmic chromatin fragment formation. Together these data suggest that re-organisation of heterochromatin is involved in altered structural integrity of the nuclear periphery during senescence, and that this can lead to activation of cytoplasmic nucleic acid sensing, NF-κB signalling, and activation of the SASP.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.