Gene-specific mechanisms direct Glucocorticoid Receptor-driven repression of inflammatory response genes in macrophages

  1. Maria A Sacta
  2. Bowranigan Tharmalingam
  3. Maddalena Coppo
  4. David A Rollins
  5. Dinesh K Deochand
  6. Bradley Benjamin
  7. Li Yu
  8. Bin Zhang
  9. Xiaoyu Hu
  10. Rong Li
  11. Yurii Chinenov
  12. Inez Rogatsky  Is a corresponding author
  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, United States
  2. Hospital For Special Surgery, United States
  3. Tsinghua University, China
  4. The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, United States

Abstract

The Glucocorticoid Receptor (GR) potently represses macrophage-elicited inflammation, however, the underlying mechanisms remain obscure. Our genome-wide analysis in mouse macrophages reveals that pro-inflammatory paused genes, activated via global negative elongation factor (NELF) dissociation and RNA Polymerase (Pol)2 release from early elongation arrest, and non-paused genes, induced by de novo Pol2 recruitment, are equally susceptible to acute glucocorticoid repression. Moreover, in both cases the dominant mechanism involves rapid GR tethering to p65 at NF-kB binding sites. Yet, specifically at paused genes, GR activation triggers widespread promoter accumulation of NELF, with myeloid cell-specific NELF deletion conferring glucocorticoid resistance. Conversely, at non-paused genes, GR attenuates the recruitment of p300 and histone acetylation, leading to a failure to assemble BRD4 and Mediator at promoters and enhancers, ultimately blocking Pol2 initiation. Thus, GR displays no preference for a specific pro-inflammatory gene class, however, it effects repression by targeting distinct temporal events and components of transcriptional machinery.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Maria A Sacta

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bowranigan Tharmalingam

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Maddalena Coppo

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David A Rollins

    Research Institute, Hospital For Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dinesh K Deochand

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Bradley Benjamin

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Li Yu

    Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bin Zhang

    Institute for Immunology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6232-6768
  9. Xiaoyu Hu

    Research InstituteInstitute for Immunology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rong Li

    Department of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6471-6580
  11. Yurii Chinenov

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Inez Rogatsky

    Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    rogatskyi@hss.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3514-5077

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01DK099087)

  • Maria A Sacta
  • Bowranigan Tharmalingam
  • Maddalena Coppo
  • David A Rollins
  • Dinesh K Deochand
  • Bradley Benjamin
  • Yurii Chinenov
  • Inez Rogatsky

National Natural Science Foundation of China (91642115)

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

National Natural Science Foundation of China (8151101184)

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

U.S. Department of Defense (PR130049)

  • Bowranigan Tharmalingam
  • Maddalena Coppo
  • Yurii Chinenov
  • Inez Rogatsky

Rheumatology Research Foundation

  • David A Rollins
  • Yurii Chinenov
  • Inez Rogatsky

Hospital for Special Surgery David Rosensweig Genomic Center

  • Maddalena Coppo
  • Yurii Chinenov
  • Inez Rogatsky

Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

National Natural Science Foundation of China (81422019)

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

Tsinghua University

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

National Institutes of Health (R01 CA220578)

  • Rong Li

National Natural Science Foundation of China (81571580)

  • Li Yu
  • Bin Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Hu

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. Mice were maintained in the Weill Cornell Animal Facility in compliance with guidelines from the Weill Cornell Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol approval # 2015-0050).

Copyright

© 2018, Sacta 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

  • 3,561
    views
  • 557
    downloads
  • 57
    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. Maria A Sacta
  2. Bowranigan Tharmalingam
  3. Maddalena Coppo
  4. David A Rollins
  5. Dinesh K Deochand
  6. Bradley Benjamin
  7. Li Yu
  8. Bin Zhang
  9. Xiaoyu Hu
  10. Rong Li
  11. Yurii Chinenov
  12. Inez Rogatsky
(2018)
Gene-specific mechanisms direct Glucocorticoid Receptor-driven repression of inflammatory response genes in macrophages
eLife 7:e34864.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34864

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34864

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Leif Benner, Savannah Muron ... Brian Oliver
    Research Article

    Differentiation of female germline stem cells into a mature oocyte includes the expression of RNAs and proteins that drive early embryonic development in Drosophila. We have little insight into what activates the expression of these maternal factors. One candidate is the zinc-finger protein OVO. OVO is required for female germline viability and has been shown to positively regulate its own expression, as well as a downstream target, ovarian tumor, by binding to the transcriptional start site (TSS). To find additional OVO targets in the female germline and further elucidate OVO’s role in oocyte development, we performed ChIP-seq to determine genome-wide OVO occupancy, as well as RNA-seq comparing hypomorphic and wild type rescue ovo alleles. OVO preferentially binds in close proximity to target TSSs genome-wide, is associated with open chromatin, transcriptionally active histone marks, and OVO-dependent expression. Motif enrichment analysis on OVO ChIP peaks identified a 5’-TAACNGT-3’ OVO DNA binding motif spatially enriched near TSSs. However, the OVO DNA binding motif does not exhibit precise motif spacing relative to the TSS characteristic of RNA polymerase II complex binding core promoter elements. Integrated genomics analysis showed that 525 genes that are bound and increase in expression downstream of OVO are known to be essential maternally expressed genes. These include genes involved in anterior/posterior/germ plasm specification (bcd, exu, swa, osk, nos, aub, pgc, gcl), egg activation (png, plu, gnu, wisp, C(3)g, mtrm), translational regulation (cup, orb, bru1, me31B), and vitelline membrane formation (fs(1)N, fs(1)M3, clos). This suggests that OVO is a master transcriptional regulator of oocyte development and is responsible for the expression of structural components of the egg as well as maternally provided RNAs that are required for early embryonic development.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article Updated

    The preservation of genome integrity during sperm and egg development is vital for reproductive success. During meiosis, the tumor suppressor BRCA1/BRC-1 and structural maintenance of chromosomes 5/6 (SMC-5/6) complex genetically interact to promote high fidelity DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, but the specific DSB repair outcomes these proteins regulate remain unknown. Using genetic and cytological methods to monitor resolution of DSBs with different repair partners in Caenorhabditis elegans, we demonstrate that both BRC-1 and SMC-5 repress intersister crossover recombination events. Sequencing analysis of conversion tracts from homolog-independent DSB repair events further indicates that BRC-1 regulates intersister/intrachromatid noncrossover conversion tract length. Moreover, we find that BRC-1 specifically inhibits error prone repair of DSBs induced at mid-pachytene. Finally, we reveal functional interactions of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 in regulating repair pathway engagement: BRC-1 is required for localization of recombinase proteins to DSBs in smc-5 mutants and enhances DSB repair defects in smc-5 mutants by repressing theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). These results are consistent with a model in which some functions of BRC-1 act upstream of SMC-5/6 to promote recombination and inhibit error-prone DSB repair, while SMC-5/6 acts downstream of BRC-1 to regulate the formation or resolution of recombination intermediates. Taken together, our study illuminates the coordinated interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.