Enhancer regions show high histone H3.3 turnover that changes during differentiation

  1. Aimee M Deaton
  2. Mariluz Gómez-Rodríguez
  3. Jakub Mieczkowski
  4. Michael Y Tolstorukov
  5. Sharmistha Kundu
  6. Ruslan I Sadreyev
  7. Lars ET Jansen
  8. Robert E Kingston  Is a corresponding author
  1. Massachusetts General Hospital, United States
  2. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia, Portugal
  3. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Portugal

Abstract

The organization of DNA into chromatin is dynamic; nucleosomes are frequently displaced to facilitate the ability of regulatory proteins to access specific DNA elements. To gain insight into nucleosome dynamics, and to follow how dynamics change during differentiation, we used a technique called time-ChIP to quantitatively assess histone H3.3 turnover genome-wide during differentiation of mouse ESCs. We found that, without prior assumptions, high turnover could be used to identify regions involved in gene regulation. High turnover was seen at enhancers, as observed previously, with particularly high turnover at super-enhancers. In contrast, regions associated with the repressive Polycomb-Group showed low turnover in ESCs. Turnover correlated with DNA accessibility. Upon differentiation, numerous changes in H3.3 turnover rates were observed, the majority of which occurred at enhancers. Thus, time-ChIP measurement of histone turnover shows that active enhancers are unusually dynamic in ESCs and changes in highly dynamic nucleosomes predominate at enhancers during differentiation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Aimee M Deaton

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mariluz Gómez-Rodríguez

    Laboratory for Epigenetic Mechanisms, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jakub Mieczkowski

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michael Y Tolstorukov

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sharmistha Kundu

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ruslan I Sadreyev

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lars ET Jansen

    Laboratory for Epigenetic Mechanisms, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Robert E Kingston

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    kingston@molbio.mgh.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jerry L Workman, Stowers Institute for Medical Research, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 17, 2016
  2. Accepted: June 14, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 15, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 28, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Deaton 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

  • 4,778
    Page views
  • 1,230
    Downloads
  • 67
    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. Aimee M Deaton
  2. Mariluz Gómez-Rodríguez
  3. Jakub Mieczkowski
  4. Michael Y Tolstorukov
  5. Sharmistha Kundu
  6. Ruslan I Sadreyev
  7. Lars ET Jansen
  8. Robert E Kingston
(2016)
Enhancer regions show high histone H3.3 turnover that changes during differentiation
eLife 5:e15316.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15316

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15316

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.