1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13617
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
(2016)
RNA Polymerase II cluster dynamics predict mRNA output in living cells
eLife 5:e13617.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13617
  2. Download BibTex
  3. Download .RIS

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

  • 9,451
    Page views
  • 2,688
    Downloads
  • 125
    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)

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. 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
(2016)
RNA Polymerase II cluster dynamics predict mRNA output in living cells
eLife 5:e13617.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13617

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    A transcriptomic atlas of Aedes aegypti reveals detailed functional organization of major body parts and gut regional specializations in sugar-fed and blood-fed adult females

    Bretta Hixson et al.
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Mosquitoes transmit numerous pathogens, but large gaps remain in our understanding of their physiology. To facilitate explorations of mosquito biology, we have created Aegypti-Atlas (http://aegyptiatlas.buchonlab.com/), an online resource hosting RNAseq profiles of Ae. aegypti body parts (head, thorax, abdomen, gut, Malpighian tubules, ovaries), gut regions (crop, proventriculus, anterior and posterior midgut, hindgut), and a gut time course of blood meal digestion. Using Aegypti-Atlas, we provide insights into regionalization of gut function, blood feeding response, and immune defenses. We find that the anterior and posterior midgut possess digestive specializations which are preserved in the blood-fed state. Blood feeding initiates the sequential induction and repression/depletion of multiple cohorts of peptidases. With respect to defense, immune signaling components, but not recognition or effector molecules, show enrichment in ovaries. Basal expression of antimicrobial peptides is dominated by holotricin and gambicin, which are expressed in carcass and digestive tissues, respectively, in a mutually exclusive manner. In the midgut, gambicin and other effectors are almost exclusively expressed in the anterior regions, while the posterior midgut exhibits hallmarks of immune tolerance. Finally, in a cross-species comparison between Ae. aegypti and Anopheles gambiae midguts, we observe that regional digestive and immune specializations are conserved, indicating that our dataset may be broadly relevant to multiple mosquito species. We demonstrate that the expression of orthologous genes is highly correlated, with the exception of a ‘species signature’ comprising a few highly/disparately expressed genes. With this work, we show the potential of Aegypti-Atlas to unlock a more complete understanding of mosquito biology.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    Mitotically heritable, RNA polymerase II-independent H3K4 dimethylation stimulates INO1 transcriptional memory

    Bethany Sump et al.
    Research Article

    For some inducible genes, the rate and molecular mechanism of transcriptional activation depends on the prior experiences of the cell. This phenomenon, called epigenetic transcriptional memory, accelerates reactivation and requires both changes in chromatin structure and recruitment of poised RNA Polymerase II (RNAPII) to the promoter. Memory of inositol starvation in budding yeast involves a positive feedback loop between transcription factor-dependent interaction with the nuclear pore complex and histone H3 lysine 4 dimethylation (H3K4me2). While H3K4me2 is essential for recruitment of RNAPII and faster reactivation, RNAPII is not required for H3K4me2. Unlike RNAPII-dependent H3K4me2 associated with transcription, RNAPII-independent H3K4me2 requires Nup100, SET3C, the Leo1 subunit of the Paf1 complex and, upon degradation of an essential transcription factor, is inherited through multiple cell cycles. The writer of this mark (COMPASS) physically interacts with the potential reader (SET3C), suggesting a molecular mechanism for the spreading and re-incorporation of H3K4me2 following DNA replication.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

    DNA-PK promotes DNA end resection at DNA double strand breaks in G0 cells

    Faith C Fowler et al.
    Research Article

    DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair by homologous recombination is confined to the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle partly due to 53BP1 antagonizing DNA end resection in G1 phase and non-cycling quiescent (G0) cells where DSBs are predominately repaired by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). Unexpectedly, we uncovered extensive MRE11- and CtIP-dependent DNA end resection at DSBs in G0 murine and human cells. A whole genome CRISPR/Cas9 screen revealed the DNA-dependent kinase (DNA-PK) complex as a key factor in promoting DNA end resection in G0 cells. In agreement, depletion of FBXL12, which promotes ubiquitylation and removal of the KU70/KU80 subunits of DNA-PK from DSBs, promotes even more extensive resection in G0 cells. In contrast, a requirement for DNA-PK in promoting DNA end resection in proliferating cells at the G1 or G2 phase of the cell cycle was not observed. Our findings establish that DNA-PK uniquely promotes DNA end resection in G0, but not in G1 or G2 phase cells, which has important implications for DNA DSB repair in quiescent cells.