Activation of individual L1 retrotransposon instances is restricted to cell-type dependent permissive loci

  1. Claude Philippe
  2. Dulce B Vargas-Landin
  3. Aurelien J Doucet
  4. Dominic van Essen
  5. Jorge Vera-Otarola
  6. Monika Kuciak
  7. Antoine Corbin
  8. Pilvi Nigumann
  9. Gaël Cristofari  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, France
  2. Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, France
  3. 1Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, France
  4. Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France

Abstract

LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposons represent approximately one sixth of the human genome, but only the human-specific L1HS-Ta subfamily acts as an endogenous mutagen in modern humans, reshaping both somatic and germline genomes. Due to their high levels of sequence identity and the existence of many polymorphic insertions absent from the reference genome, the transcriptional activation of individual genomic L1HS-Ta copies remains poorly understood. Here we comprehensively mapped fixed and polymorphic L1HS-Ta copies in 12 commonly-used somatic cell lines, and identified transcriptional and epigenetic signatures allowing the unambiguous identification of active L1HS-Ta copies in their genomic context. Strikingly, only a very restricted subset of L1HS-Ta loci - some being polymorphic among individuals - significantly contributes to the bulk of L1 expression, and these loci are differentially regulated among distinct cell lines. Thus, our data support a local model of L1 transcriptional activation in somatic cells, governed by individual-, locus-, and cell-type-specific determinants.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Claude Philippe

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Dulce B Vargas-Landin

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aurelien J Doucet

    Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dominic van Essen

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jorge Vera-Otarola

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, 1Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Monika Kuciak

    Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Antoine Corbin

    Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pilvi Nigumann

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Gaël Cristofari

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    For correspondence
    Gael.Cristofari@unice.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Philippe 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

  • 7,965
    views
  • 1,281
    downloads
  • 138
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13926

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Shihui Chen, Carolyn Marie Phillips
    Research Article

    RNA interference (RNAi) is a conserved pathway that utilizes Argonaute proteins and their associated small RNAs to exert gene regulatory function on complementary transcripts. While the majority of germline-expressed RNAi proteins reside in perinuclear germ granules, it is unknown whether and how RNAi pathways are spatially organized in other cell types. Here, we find that the small RNA biogenesis machinery is spatially and temporally organized during Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis. Specifically, the RNAi factor, SIMR-1, forms visible concentrates during mid-embryogenesis that contain an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, a poly-UG polymerase, and the unloaded nuclear Argonaute protein, NRDE-3. Curiously, coincident with the appearance of the SIMR granules, the small RNAs bound to NRDE-3 switch from predominantly CSR-class 22G-RNAs to ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs. NRDE-3 binds ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs in the somatic cells of larvae and adults to silence ERGO-target genes; here we further demonstrate that NRDE-3-bound, CSR-class 22G-RNAs repress transcription in oocytes. Thus, our study defines two separable roles for NRDE-3, targeting germline-expressed genes during oogenesis to promote global transcriptional repression, and switching during embryogenesis to repress recently duplicated genes and retrotransposons in somatic cells, highlighting the plasticity of Argonaute proteins and the need for more precise temporal characterization of Argonaute-small RNA interactions.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Steven Henikoff, David L Levens
    Insight

    A new method for mapping torsion provides insights into the ways that the genome responds to the torsion generated by RNA polymerase II.