1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

Gene Expression: Transposons take remote control

  1. Julius Judd
  2. Cédric Feschotte  Is a corresponding author
  1. Cornell University, United States
Insight
  • Cited 4
  • Views 2,450
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e40921 doi: 10.7554/eLife.40921

Abstract

A family of retroviral-like elements in the human genome has a pervasive influence on gene expression.

Main text

Transcriptional enhancers are regions of DNA to which regulatory proteins can bind in order to increase the transcription – and hence expression – of a particular gene. The enhancers form a dense network that acts at many genomic locations. As a result, even subtle changes to the cocktail of regulatory proteins can produce massive changes in transcription.

But where do enhancers come from? How do sequences that respond to the same regulatory proteins become associated with genes scattered across different chromosomes? A typical mammalian genome contains hundreds of thousands of potential enhancers, but the majority are unique to the species they are found in (Long et al., 2016). So what mechanisms drive their repeated emergence?

Barbara McClintock provided evidence of a potent mechanism in her seminal discovery of what she presciently dubbed ‘controlling elements’ – sequences of DNA that can move across the genome. Building on this, in the late 1960s Roy Britten and Eric Davidson proposed a model in which these elements – subsequently renamed transposons – could provide the raw material for complex regulatory networks (Britten and Davidson, 1969).

Evidence in support of the Britten–Davidson model has grown steadily over the last decade (reviewed in Chuong et al., 2017). First, numerous examples of regulatory sequences derived from individual transposons have been documented in a variety of organisms. Furthermore, genomics has made it apparent that distinct suites of regulatory proteins bind to different transposon families. This binding allows groups of transposons to be activated en masse in certain cell types and during certain developmental stages. Now, in eLife, Daniel Fuentes, Tomek Swigut and Joanna Wysocka of Stanford University report that simultaneous perturbation of a family of retroviral-like transposons called LTR5HS produces profound transcriptional changes in human embryonic-like cells (Fuentes et al., 2018). These findings provide the strongest evidence thus far in support of the Britten–Davidson model as a genome-wide paradigm.

While CRISPR/Cas9 is often used for genome editing, the inactive Cas9 enzyme can also work with specific guide RNAs to tether protein domains to a precise location in the genome. The Wysocka lab recently developed a method called CARGO (chimeric array of guide RNA oligonucleotides) that can deliver tens of guide RNAs to a cell, allowing multiple locations to be targeted (Gu et al., 2018). Fuentes et al. have now exploited the CARGO system to activate or repress LTR5HS elements en masse in cultured cells that behave like human embryonic stem cells.

About 15 million years ago the family of retroviruses that gave rise to LTR5HS spread in the germline of ancestral hominids. Because this family has expanded recently in the genome, all LTR5HS elements are very similar in sequence. As a result, Fuentes et al. were able to target around 90% of all the elements with only 12 guide RNAs.

Fuentes et al. coupled this CARGO array with Cas9 fused to protein domains that either activate or inhibit transcription. In response, 275 human genes were reciprocally up- or down-regulated (Figure 1). These genes were often located relatively far from the nearest LTR5HS element, suggesting that the elements acted as transcriptional enhancers. Further support came from looking at chromatin – the structure formed by DNA and proteins to package the DNA into cells. Fuentes et al. show that activating LTR5HS elements causes both the elements and their target genes to acquire marks that open up chromatin – meaning that they can be transcribed more easily. This is despite there being no detectable binding of Cas9 to the target genes. Furthermore, repression of LTR5HS elements leads to repressive chromatin at the elements themselves, but not at the genes they appear to regulate.

Identification of genes controlled by LRT5HS elements.

Fuentes et al. used inactive Cas9 (red or green circles), guided by short RNAs (black hairpins), to deliver either repressive proteins (red crabs) to silence LTR5HS elements (left; CRISPRi), or activating proteins (green rockets) to activate LTR5HS elements (right; CRISPRa). Silencing the elements (represented by cyan boxes) repressed the expression of remote genes (white boxes), while activating the elements enhanced the expression of these genes: the level of expression associated with each gene is shown by a dark blue histogram, and the genome is represented by the black line. The Venn diagram shows that 275 genes (highlighted in pink) are both repressed by CRISPRi and activated by CRISPRa, while another 143 are repressed but not activated, and another 1886 are activated but not repressed.

Fuentes et al. also validate their observations for six separate genes by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete individual LTR5HS elements. In each case, the deletions led to a significant decrease in the expression of a nearby gene. This is particularly striking because multiple enhancers often act redundantly on the same gene (Osterwalder et al., 2018).

Together, the results of Fuentes et al. suggest that in human embryonic-like cells, a potentially large subset of LTR5HS elements work as enhancers to control the activity of remote genes. However, it remains to be seen whether any of these regulatory activities have provided adaptive benefits during primate evolution. Intriguingly, many of the LTR5HS elements with enhancer activity are human-specific and some are not even fixed in the human population (Wildschutte et al., 2016). This raises the possibility that they contributed to recent adaptations. With CARGO in hand, the answers to these and other outstanding questions shall be delivered.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Julius Judd

    Julius Judd is in the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4602-0205
  2. Cédric Feschotte

    Cédric Feschotte is in the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States

    For correspondence
    cf458@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8772-6976

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: September 26, 2018 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2018, Judd et al.

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.

Metrics

  • 2,450
    Page views
  • 370
    Downloads
  • 4
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Juliane Glaser et al.
    Research Article

    Genomic imprinting refers to the mono-allelic and parent-specific expression of a subset of genes. While long recognized for their role in embryonic development, imprinted genes have recently emerged as important modulators of postnatal physiology, notably through hypothalamus-driven functions. Here, using mouse models of loss, gain and parental inversion of expression, we report that the paternally expressed Zdbf2 gene controls neonatal growth in mice, in a dose-sensitive but parent-of-origin-independent manner. We further found that Zdbf2-KO neonates failed to fully activate hypothalamic circuits that stimulate appetite, and suffered milk deprivation and diminished circulating Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1). Consequently, only half of Zdbf2-KO pups survived the first days after birth and those surviving were smaller. This study demonstrates that precise imprinted gene dosage is essential for vital physiological functions at the transition from intra- to extra-uterine life, here the adaptation to oral feeding and optimized body weight gain.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Zeyang Shen et al.
    Research Article

    Regulation of gene expression requires the combinatorial binding of sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs) at promoters and enhancers. Prior studies showed that alterations in the spacing between TF binding sites can influence promoter and enhancer activity. However, the relative importance of TF spacing alterations resulting from naturally occurring insertions and deletions (InDels) has not been systematically analyzed. To address this question, we first characterized the genome-wide spacing relationships of 73 TFs in human K562 cells as determined by ChIP-seq. We found a dominant pattern of a relaxed range of spacing between collaborative factors, including 45 TFs exclusively exhibiting relaxed spacing with their binding partners. Next, we exploited millions of InDels provided by genetically diverse mouse strains and human individuals to investigate the effects of altered spacing on TF binding and local histone acetylation. These analyses suggested that spacing alterations resulting from naturally occurring InDels are generally tolerated in comparison to genetic variants directly affecting TF binding sites. To experimentally validate this prediction, we introduced synthetic spacing alterations between PU.1 and C/EBPβ binding sites at six endogenous genomic loci in a macrophage cell line. Remarkably, collaborative binding of PU.1 and C/EBPβ at these locations tolerated changes in spacing ranging from 5-bp increase to >30-bp decrease. Collectively, these findings have implications for understanding mechanisms underlying enhancer selection and for the interpretation of non-coding genetic variation.