1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
  2. Plant Biology
Download icon

The MBD7 complex promotes expression of methylated transgenes without significantly altering their methylation status

  1. Dongming Li
  2. Ana Marie S Palanca
  3. So Youn Won
  4. Lei Gao
  5. Ying Feng
  6. Ajay A Vashisht
  7. Li Liu
  8. Yuanyuan Zhao
  9. Xigang Liu
  10. Xiuyun Wu
  11. Shaofang Li
  12. Brandon Le
  13. Yun Ju Kim
  14. Guodong Yang
  15. Shengben Li
  16. Jinyuan Liu
  17. James A Wohlschlegel
  18. Hongwei Guo
  19. Beixin Mo
  20. Xuemei Chen  Is a corresponding author
  21. Julie A Law  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Riverside, United States
  2. Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States
  3. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea
  4. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, United States
  5. Tsinghua University, China
  6. Peking University, China
  7. Shenzhen University, China
Research Article
  • Cited 9
  • Views 2,412
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e19893 doi: 10.7554/eLife.19893

Abstract

DNA methylation is associated with gene silencing in eukaryotic organisms. Although pathways controlling the establishment, maintenance and removal of DNA methylation are known, relatively little is understood about how DNA methylation influences gene expression. Here we identified a METHYL-CpG-BINDING DOMAIN 7 (MBD7) complex in Arabidopsis thaliana that suppresses the transcriptional silencing of two LUCIFERASE (LUC) reporters via a mechanism that is largely downstream of DNA methylation. Although mutations in components of the MBD7 complex resulted in modest increases in DNA methylation concomitant with decreased LUC expression, we found that these hyper-methylation and gene expression phenotypes can be genetically uncoupled. This finding, along with genome-wide profiling experiments showing minimal changes in DNA methylation upon disruption of the MBD7 complex, places the MBD7 complex amongst a small number of factors acting downstream of DNA methylation. This complex, however, is unique as it functions to suppress, rather than enforce, DNA methylation-mediated gene silencing.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Dongming Li

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Ana Marie S Palanca

    Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. So Youn Won

    National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Republic of Korea
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Lei Gao

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Ying Feng

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Ajay A Vashisht

    Department of Biological Chemistry, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Li Liu

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Yuanyuan Zhao

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Xigang Liu

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Xiuyun Wu

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  11. Shaofang Li

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  12. Brandon Le

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  13. Yun Ju Kim

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  14. Guodong Yang

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  15. Shengben Li

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  16. Jinyuan Liu

    Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Protein Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  17. James A Wohlschlegel

    Department of Biological Chemistry, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  18. Hongwei Guo

    State Key Laboratory of Protein and Plant Gene research, Peking University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  19. Beixin Mo

    College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  20. Xuemei Chen

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    For correspondence
    xuemei.chen@ucr.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5209-1157

  21. Julie A Law

    Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    jlaw@salk.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7472-7753

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF3046)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Science Foundation of China (91440105)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Science Foundation of China (30970265)

  • Beixin Mo

National Science Foundation of China (31210103901)

  • Beixin Mo

Guangdong Innovation Research Team Fund (2014ZT05S078)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Institutes of Health (GM061146)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Academy of Agricultural Science (PJ008725)

  • So Youn Won

China Scholarship Council

  • Dongming Li

Glenn Center for Aging Research at the Salk Institute

  • Ana Marie S Palanca

Helmsley Charitable Trust

  • Ana Marie S Palanca
  • Julie A Law

National Institutes of Health (GM112966)

  • Julie A Law

National Institutes of Health (GM089778)

  • James A Wohlschlegel

National Institutes of Health (P30 014195)

  • Ana Marie S Palanca
  • Julie A Law

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Steven Henikoff, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: July 25, 2016
  2. Accepted: April 24, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 28, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 7, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Li 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

  • 2,412
    Page views
  • 694
    Downloads
  • 9
    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

    SUV39 SET domains mediate crosstalk of heterochromatic histone marks

    Alessandro Stirpe et al.
    Research Article

    The SUV39 class of methyltransferase enzymes deposits histone H3 lysine 9 di- and trimethylation (H3K9me2/3), the hallmark of constitutive heterochromatin. How these enzymes are regulated to mark specific genomic regions as heterochromatic is poorly understood. Clr4 is the sole H3K9me2/3 methyltransferase in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, and recent evidence suggests that ubiquitination of lysine 14 on histone H3 (H3K14ub) plays a key role in H3K9 methylation. However, the molecular mechanism of this regulation and its role in heterochromatin formation remain to be determined. Our structure-function approach shows that the H3K14ub substrate binds specifically and tightly to the catalytic domain of Clr4, and thereby stimulates the enzyme by over 250-fold. Mutations that disrupt this mechanism lead to a loss of H3K9me2/3 and abolish heterochromatin silencing similar to clr4 deletion. Comparison with mammalian SET domain proteins suggests that the Clr4 SET domain harbors a conserved sensor for H3K14ub, which mediates licensing of heterochromatin formation.

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

    A nascent polypeptide sequence modulates DnaA translation elongation in response to nutrient availability

    Michele Felletti et al.
    Research Article

    The ability to regulate DNA replication initiation in response to changing nutrient conditions is an important feature of most cell types. In bacteria, DNA replication is triggered by the initiator protein DnaA, which has long been suggested to respond to nutritional changes; nevertheless, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Here, we report a novel mechanism that adjusts DnaA synthesis in response to nutrient availability in Caulobacter crescentus. By performing a detailed biochemical and genetic analysis of the dnaA mRNA, we identified a sequence downstream of the dnaA start codon that inhibits DnaA translation elongation upon carbon exhaustion. Our data show that the corresponding peptide sequence, but not the mRNA secondary structure or the codon choice, is critical for this response, suggesting that specific amino acids in the growing DnaA nascent chain tune translational efficiency. Our study provides new insights into DnaA regulation and highlights the importance of translation elongation as a regulatory target. We propose that translation regulation by nascent chain sequences, like the one described, might constitute a general strategy for modulating the synthesis rate of specific proteins under changing conditions.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology

    A XRCC4 mutant mouse, a model for human X4 syndrome, reveals interplays with Xlf, PAXX, and ATM in lymphoid development

    Benoit Roch et al.
    Research Article

    We developed a Xrcc4M61R separation of function mouse line to overcome the embryonic lethality of Xrcc4 deficient mice. XRCC4M61R protein does not interact with Xlf, thus obliterating XRCC4-Xlf filament formation while preserving the ability to stabilize DNA Ligase IV. X4M61R mice, which are DNA repair deficient, phenocopy the Nhej1-/- (known as Xlf -/-) setting with a minor impact on the development of the adaptive immune system. The core NHEJ DNA repair factor XRCC4 is therefore not mandatory for V(D)J recombination aside from its role in stabilizing DNA ligase IV. In contrast, Xrcc4M61R mice crossed on Paxx-/-, Nhej1-/-, or Atm-/- backgrounds are severely immunocompromised, owing to aborted V(D)J recombination as in Xlf-Paxx and Xlf-Atm double KO settings. Furthermore, massive apoptosis of post-mitotic neurons causes embryonic lethality of Xrcc4M61R -Nhej1-/- double mutants. These in vivo results reveal new functional interplays between XRCC4 and PAXX, ATM and Xlf in mouse development and provide new insights in the understanding of the clinical manifestations of human XRCC4 deficient condition, in particular its absence of immune deficiency.