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

Chromocenters: Bundling up DNA

  1. Susan A Gerbi  Is a corresponding author
  1. Brown University, United States
  • Cited 1
  • Views 5,094
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e37234 doi: 10.7554/eLife.37234


Structures known as chromocenters, comprising satellite DNA and proteins such as D1 or HMGA1, help to contain DNA inside the nucleus between cell divisions.

Main text

A distinctive key feature of all eukaryotes – a large group of organisms that includes fungi, plants and animals – is that their genetic material is packaged within the nucleus, a cellular compartment delimited by a double membrane. This ‘nuclear envelope’ physically separates transcription and translation, the two genetic steps needed to make new proteins (Dahlberg and Lund, 2012; Pederson, 2013).

When cells divide, the chromosomes inside the nucleus condense and the nuclear envelope breaks down so that the genetic material can move to the daughter cells. When cell division is complete, the nuclear envelope forms again. During the ensuing interphase (the period between two cell divisions), the chromosomes decondense, the genome can be duplicated and the genes expressed. However, a single human cell contains up to two meters of DNA: is the nuclear envelope on its own sufficient to contain the genome inside the nucleus during interphase? Now, in eLife, Yukiko Yamashita and her group at the University of Michigan – including Madhav Jagannathan as first author – report how structures known as chromocenters help to keep the genome within its nuclear casing between cell divisions (Jagannathan et al., 2018).

Found in a wide range of organisms, chromocenters are masses of heterochromatin – densely packed DNA and proteins – that come together during interphase (Figure 1AJones, 1970; Fransz et al., 2002). Yet, despite their widespread occurrence, the role of the chromocenters remains enigmatic. Here, Jagannathan et al. explore their function by studying a group of molecules called multi-AT-hook proteins, with a focus on the protein D1 in fruit flies and HMGA1 in mice.

Relationships between chromocenters and multi-AT-hook proteins.

The figure shows how structures known as chromocenters (red circles) form in the nucleus (blue) of a cell (yellow). (A) During interphase, the period between two cell divisions, certain regions called satellite DNA come together in the nucleus to form chromocenters. The work by Jagannathan et al. explores the role of multi-AT-hook proteins in the creation of these structures. (B) When multi-AT-hook proteins are depleted from the cell, the chromocenters are disrupted (hollow red circle), and structures (little blue circle) bud off from the nuclei, forming small independent ‘micronuclei’ that contain portions of the genome. (C) When multi-AT-hook proteins are overexpressed, the chromocenters coalesce. (D) Magnified image of one chromocenter: multi-AT-hook proteins (green ovals) bundle up satellite DNA (blue and red strands of the DNA double helix) from three different interphase chromosomes.

Chromocenters contain ‘pericentromeric regions’ of DNA, comprising highly repetitive, non-coding ‘satellite’ DNA sequences (Botchan et al., 1971; Gall et al., 1971; Peacock et al., 1974; Guenatri et al., 2004). These sequences evolve rapidly, and without any apparent selection. The multi-AT-hook proteins can bind to pericentromeric satellite DNA, and these proteins are present in chromocenters during interphase. Jagannathan et al. conducted experiments in fruit flies and in mouse cells, and showed that when these proteins were absent, the chromocenters were disrupted. Removing D1 and HMGA1 also led to the formation of micronuclei, small structures composed of DNA enclosed in nuclear membranes (Figure 1B).

One possibility is that micronuclei appeared because chromosomes had lagged during cell division and were not included in the nuclei. However, Jagannathan et al. showed that, rather than being due to lagging chromosomes, micronuclei formed during interphase and budded off from nuclei in a process known as blebbing. Indeed, when micronuclei were present, the cells showed defects in their nuclear envelope and holes in their nuclear lamina, a network of fibers that lines the inside of the membrane of the nucleus. In turn, micronuclei formation can lead to DNA breakage and even cell death.

When the fruit fly D1 protein was artificially overexpressed in mouse cells, fewer chromocenters were observed. This suggests that more clustering had occurred (Figure 1C), and also demonstrated that D1 could bind to pericentromeric regions in mice. This is surprising because D1 and HMGA1 attach to different DNA sequences. However, the DNA sequences recognized by D1 and HMGA1 are both AT-rich and hence can both bind to AT-hook proteins. Moreover, when D1 was artificially tethered to DNA at sites it does not normally bind to, these regions were brought to the chromocenters. Jagannathan et al. concluded that in both mice and fruit flies, multi-AT-hook proteins attach to satellite DNA on different chromosomes, thereby bundling the DNA sequences together and bringing them to the chromocenters (Figure 1D).

Using high-resolution microscopy, Jagannathan et al. also observed chromatin fibers that contain satellite DNA and the proteins D1 (in fruit flies) or HMGA1 (in mice). These fibers connected different chromosomes. This suggests that during interphase, the chromocenters keep the genome within the nucleus by gathering pericentromeric DNA from different chromosomes. Evolution would select for satellite DNA that binds a bundling protein, but not for the satellite sequence itself, which can rapidly diverge between species (Jagannathan and Yamashita, 2018; Jagannathan et al., 2018).

The study by Jagannathan et al. is a starting point to explore the formation of micronuclei and the loss of some genomic DNA. In that regard, investigating the similarities between micronuclei and structures known as karyomeres could be enlightening. Karyomeres are single or groups of a few chromosomes that become enclosed by the nuclear envelope at the end of mitosis. Subsequently, the karyomeres fuse and form a single, large nucleus. An intriguing hypothesis would be that micronuclei form by reversing the pathway of karyomere fusion.

Blebbing leads to the formation of micronuclei, but the details of this process are still unclear. When does blebbing take place during interphase – before, during or after DNA replication, or at any point before cell division? Are the observed defects of the nuclear membrane the cause or the result of formation of micronuclei? Also, little is known about the genetic material inside the micronuclei, such as whether it consists of entire chromosomes or only fragments, and whether certain DNA sequences are more likely to be present.

There are a few cases where chromosomes are discarded as a normal part of development. For example, both male and female fungus gnats dispose of one paternal X chromosome during interphase of embryonic germ cells. These insects also remove all their ‘germ-line limited chromosomes’, chromosomes which only exist in the reproductive cell lineage (Berry, 1939; Berry, 1941; Rieffel and Crouse, 1966). Perhaps micronuclei could be a way for these organisms to perform such key genetic processes. The work reported by Jagannathan et al. establishes the foundation on which to address these fascinating biological questions.


Article and author information

Author details

  1. Susan A Gerbi

    Susan A Gerbi is in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, United States

    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2148-7180

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: May 17, 2018 (version 1)


© 2018, Gerbi

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.


  • 5,094
    Page views
  • 246
  • 1

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)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Jacopo Di Russo et al.
    Research Article

    Nanometer-scale properties of the extracellular matrix influence many biological processes, including cell motility. While much information is available for single-cell migration, to date, no knowledge exists on how the nanoscale presentation of extracellular matrix receptors influences collective cell migration. In wound healing, basal keratinocytes collectively migrate on a fibronectin-rich provisional basement membrane to re-epithelialize the injured skin. Among other receptors, the fibronectin receptor integrin α5β1 plays a pivotal role in this process. Using a highly specific integrin α5β1 peptidomimetic combined with nanopatterned hydrogels, we show that keratinocyte sheets regulate their migration ability at an optimal integrin α5β1 nanospacing. This efficiency relies on the effective propagation of stresses within the cell monolayer independent of substrate stiffness. For the first time, this work highlights the importance of extracellular matrix receptor nanoscale organization required for efficient tissue regeneration.

    1. Cell Biology
    Lisa M Strong et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Autophagy is a cellular process that degrades cytoplasmic cargo by engulfing it in a double-membrane vesicle, known as the autophagosome, and delivering it to the lysosome. The ATG12–5–16L1 complex is responsible for conjugating members of the ubiquitin-like ATG8 protein family to phosphatidylethanolamine in the growing autophagosomal membrane, known as the phagophore. ATG12–5–16L1 is recruited to the phagophore by a subset of the phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate-binding seven-bladedß -propeller WIPI proteins. We determined the crystal structure of WIPI2d in complex with the WIPI2 interacting region (W2IR) of ATG16L1 comprising residues 207–230 at 1.85 Å resolution. The structure shows that the ATG16L1 W2IR adopts an alpha helical conformation and binds in an electropositive and hydrophobic groove between WIPI2 ß-propeller blades 2 and 3. Mutation of residues at the interface reduces or blocks the recruitment of ATG12–5–16 L1 and the conjugation of the ATG8 protein LC3B to synthetic membranes. Interface mutants show a decrease in starvation-induced autophagy. Comparisons across the four human WIPIs suggest that WIPI1 and 2 belong to a W2IR-binding subclass responsible for localizing ATG12–5–16 L1 and driving ATG8 lipidation, whilst WIPI3 and 4 belong to a second W34IR-binding subclass responsible for localizing ATG2, and so directing lipid supply to the nascent phagophore. The structure provides a framework for understanding the regulatory node connecting two central events in autophagy initiation, the action of the autophagic PI 3-kinase complex on the one hand and ATG8 lipidation on the other.