1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

RNA Polymerase II cluster dynamics predict mRNA output in living cells

  1. Won-Ki Cho
  2. Namrata Jayanth
  3. Brian P English
  4. Takuma Inoue
  5. J Owen Andrews
  6. William Conway
  7. Jonathan B Grimm
  8. Jan-Hendrik Spille
  9. Luke D Lavis
  10. Timothée Lionnet
  11. Ibrahim I Cisse  Is a corresponding author
  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 100
  • Views 8,645
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e13617 doi: 10.7554/eLife.13617

Abstract

Protein clustering is a hallmark of genome regulation in mammalian cells. However, the dynamic molecular processes involved make it difficult to correlate clustering with functional consequences in vivo. We developed a live-cell super-resolution approach to uncover the correlation between mRNA synthesis and the dynamics of RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) clusters at a gene locus. For endogenous β-actin genes in mouse embryonic fibroblasts, we observe that short-lived (~8 s) Pol II clusters correlate with basal mRNA output. During serum stimulation, a stereotyped increase in Pol II cluster lifetime correlates with a proportionate increase in the number of mRNAs synthesized. Our findings suggest that transient clustering of Pol II may constitute a pre-transcriptional regulatory event that predictably modulates nascent mRNA output.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Won-Ki Cho

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Namrata Jayanth

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Brian P English

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Takuma Inoue

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. J Owen Andrews

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. William Conway

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Jonathan B Grimm

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Jan-Hendrik Spille

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Luke D Lavis

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Timothée Lionnet

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  11. Ibrahim I Cisse

    Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    icisse@mit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Xiaowei Zhuang, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 8, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 2, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 3, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 30, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Cho 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

  • 8,645
    Page views
  • 2,590
    Downloads
  • 100
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    Heterochromatin-dependent transcription of satellite DNAs in the Drosophila melanogaster female germline

    Xiaolu Wei et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Large blocks of tandemly repeated DNAs—satellite DNAs (satDNAs)—play important roles in heterochromatin formation and chromosome segregation. We know little about how satDNAs are regulated; however, their misregulation is associated with genomic instability and human diseases. We use the Drosophila melanogaster germline as a model to study the regulation of satDNA transcription and chromatin. Here we show that complex satDNAs (>100-bp repeat units) are transcribed into long noncoding RNAs and processed into piRNAs (PIWI interacting RNAs). This satDNA piRNA production depends on the Rhino-Deadlock-Cutoff complex and the transcription factor Moonshiner—a previously described non-canonical pathway that licenses heterochromatin-dependent transcription of dual-strand piRNA clusters. We show that this pathway is important for establishing heterochromatin at satDNAs. Therefore, satDNAs are regulated by piRNAs originating from their own genomic loci. This novel mechanism of satDNA regulation provides insight into the role of piRNA pathways in heterochromatin formation and genome stability.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

    Analysis of the PcrA-RNA polymerase complex reveals a helicase interaction motif and a role for PcrA/UvrD helicase in the suppression of R-loops

    Inigo Urrutia-Irazabal et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The PcrA/UvrD helicase binds directly to RNA polymerase (RNAP) but the structural basis for this interaction and its functional significance have remained unclear. In this work, we used biochemical assays and hydrogen-deuterium exchange coupled to mass spectrometry to study the PcrA-RNAP complex. We find that PcrA binds tightly to a transcription elongation complex in a manner dependent on protein:protein interaction with the conserved PcrA C-terminal Tudor domain. The helicase binds predominantly to two positions on the surface of RNAP. The PcrA C-terminal domain engages a conserved region in a lineage-specific insert within the β subunit which we identify as a helicase interaction motif present in many other PcrA partner proteins, including the nucleotide excision repair factor UvrB. The catalytic core of the helicase binds near the RNA and DNA exit channels and blocking PcrA activity in vivo leads to the accumulation of R-loops. We propose a role for PcrA as an R-loop suppression factor that helps to minimize conflicts between transcription and other processes on DNA including replication.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

    Non-canonical H3K79me2-dependent pathways promote the survival of MLL-rearranged leukemia

    William F Richter et al.
    Research Article Updated

    MLL-rearranged leukemia depends on H3K79 methylation. Depletion of this transcriptionally activating mark by DOT1L deletion or high concentrations of the inhibitor pinometostat downregulates HOXA9 and MEIS1, and consequently reduces leukemia survival. Yet, some MLL-rearranged leukemias are inexplicably susceptible to low-dose pinometostat, far below concentrations that downregulate this canonical proliferation pathway. In this context, we define alternative proliferation pathways that more directly derive from H3K79me2 loss. By ICeChIP-seq, H3K79me2 is markedly depleted at pinometostat-downregulated and MLL-fusion targets, with paradoxical increases of H3K4me3 and loss of H3K27me3. Although downregulation of polycomb components accounts for some of the proliferation defect, transcriptional downregulation of FLT3 is the major pathway. Loss-of-FLT3-function recapitulates the cytotoxicity and gene expression consequences of low-dose pinometostat, whereas overexpression of constitutively active STAT5A, a target of FLT3-ITD-signaling, largely rescues these defects. This pathway also depends on MLL1, indicating combinations of DOT1L, MLL1 and FLT3 inhibitors should be explored for treating FLT3-mutant leukemia.