Gene Expression: Transposons take remote control
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
-
Regulatory activities of transposable elements: from conflicts to benefitsNature Reviews Genetics 18:71–86.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.139
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
- 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
-
- 2,517
- Page views
-
- 381
- Downloads
-
- 4
- Citations
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
- Plant Biology
To synchronize flowering time with spring, many plants undergo vernalization, a floral-promotion process triggered by exposure to long-term winter cold. In Arabidopsis thaliana, this is achieved through cold-mediated epigenetic silencing of the floral repressor, FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). COOLAIR, a cold-induced antisense RNA transcribed from the FLC locus, has been proposed to facilitate FLC silencing. Here, we show that C-repeat (CRT)/dehydration-responsive elements (DREs) at the 3′-end of FLC and CRT/DRE-binding factors (CBFs) are required for cold-mediated expression of COOLAIR. CBFs bind to CRT/DREs at the 3′-end of FLC, both in vitro and in vivo, and CBF levels increase gradually during vernalization. Cold-induced COOLAIR expression is severely impaired in cbfs mutants in which all CBF genes are knocked-out. Conversely, CBF-overexpressing plants show increased COOLAIR levels even at warm temperatures. We show that COOLAIR is induced by CBFs during early stages of vernalization but COOLAIR levels decrease in later phases as FLC chromatin transitions to an inactive state to which CBFs can no longer bind. We also demonstrate that cbfs and FLCΔCOOLAIR mutants exhibit a normal vernalization response despite their inability to activate COOLAIR expression during cold, revealing that COOLAIR is not required for the vernalization process.
-
- Chromosomes and Gene Expression
An evolutionary perspective enhances our understanding of biological mechanisms. Comparison of sex determination and X-chromosome dosage compensation mechanisms between the closely related nematode species C. briggsae (Cbr) and C. elegans (Cel) revealed that the genetic regulatory hierarchy controlling both processes is conserved, but the X-chromosome target specificity and mode of binding for the specialized condensin dosage compensation complex (DCC) controlling X expression have diverged. We identified two motifs within Cbr DCC recruitment sites that are highly enriched on X: 13-bp MEX and 30-bp MEX II. Mutating either MEX or MEX II in an endogenous recruitment site with multiple copies of one or both motifs reduced binding, but only removing all motifs eliminated binding in vivo. Hence, DCC binding to Cbr recruitment sites appears additive. In contrast, DCC binding to Cel recruitment sites is synergistic: mutating even one motif in vivo eliminated binding. Although all X-chromosome motifs share the sequence CAGGG, they have otherwise diverged so that a motif from one species cannot function in the other. Functional divergence was demonstrated in vivo and in vitro. A single nucleotide position in Cbr MEX can determine whether Cel DCC binds. This rapid divergence of DCC target specificity could have been an important factor in establishing reproductive isolation between nematode species and contrasts dramatically with conservation of target specificity for X-chromosome dosage compensation across Drosophila species and for transcription factors controlling developmental processes such as body-plan specification from fruit flies to mice.