Abstract

Repetitive sequences derived from transposons make up a large fraction of eukaryotic genomes and must be silenced to protect genome integrity. Repetitive elements are often found in heterochromatin; however, the roles and interactions of heterochromatin proteins in repeat regulation are poorly understood. Here we show that a diverse set of C. elegans heterochromatin proteins act together with the piRNA and nuclear RNAi pathways to silence repetitive elements and prevent genotoxic stress in the germ line. Mutants in genes encoding HPL-2/HP1, LIN-13, LIN-61, LET-418/Mi-2, and H3K9me2 histone methyltransferase MET-2/SETDB1 also show functionally redundant sterility, increased germline apoptosis, DNA repair defects, and interactions with small RNA pathways. Remarkably, fertility of heterochromatin mutants could be partially restored by inhibiting cep-1/p53, endogenous meiotic double strand breaks, or the expression of MIRAGE1 DNA transposons. Functional redundancy among these factors and pathways underlies the importance of safeguarding the genome through multiple means.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alicia N McMurchy

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7033-8790
  2. Przemyslaw Stempor

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Tessa Gaarenstroom

    Department of Genetics, The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Brian Wysolmerski

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Yan Dong

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Darya Aussianikava

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Alex Appert

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Ni Huang

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8849-038X
  9. Paulina Kolasinska-Zwierz

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Alexandra Sapetschnig

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Eric A Miska

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4450-576X
  12. Julie Ahringer

    The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    ja219@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Julie Ahringer, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7074-4051

Funding

Wellcome (54523)

  • Julie Ahringer

Wellcome (101863)

  • Julie Ahringer

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  • Alicia N McMurchy

Cancer Research UK (C13474/A18583)

  • Eric A Miska

Human Frontier Science Program

  • Alexandra Sapetschnig

Wellcome (104640/Z/14/Z)

  • Eric A Miska

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

Copyright

© 2017, McMurchy 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

  • 5,807
    views
  • 1,135
    downloads
  • 77
    citations

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

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. Alicia N McMurchy
  2. Przemyslaw Stempor
  3. Tessa Gaarenstroom
  4. Brian Wysolmerski
  5. Yan Dong
  6. Darya Aussianikava
  7. Alex Appert
  8. Ni Huang
  9. Paulina Kolasinska-Zwierz
  10. Alexandra Sapetschnig
  11. Eric A Miska
  12. Julie Ahringer
(2017)
A team of heterochromatin factors collaborates with small RNA pathways to combat repetitive elements and germline stress
eLife 6:e21666.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21666

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21666

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Miguel Martinez-Ara, Federico Comoglio, Bas van Steensel
    Research Article

    Genes are often regulated by multiple enhancers. It is poorly understood how the individual enhancer activities are combined to control promoter activity. Anecdotal evidence has shown that enhancers can combine sub-additively, additively, synergistically, or redundantly. However, it is not clear which of these modes are more frequent in mammalian genomes. Here, we systematically tested how pairs of enhancers activate promoters using a three-way combinatorial reporter assay in mouse embryonic stem cells. By assaying about 69,000 enhancer-enhancer-promoter combinations we found that enhancer pairs generally combine near-additively. This behaviour was conserved across seven developmental promoters tested. Surprisingly, these promoters scale the enhancer signals in a non-linear manner that depends on promoter strength. A housekeeping promoter showed an overall different response to enhancer pairs, and a smaller dynamic range. Thus, our data indicate that enhancers mostly act additively, but promoters transform their collective effect non-linearly.