Abstract

Previously we described a novel alternative to Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, CUT&RUN, in which unfixed permeabilized cells are incubated with antibody, followed by binding of a Protein A-Micrococcal Nuclease (pA/MNase) fusion protein (Skene and Henikoff, 2017). Here we introduce three enhancements to CUT&RUN: A hybrid Protein A-Protein G-MNase construct that expands antibody compatibility and simplifies purification, a modified digestion protocol that inhibits premature release of the nuclease-bound complex, and a calibration strategy based on carry-over of E. coli DNA introduced with the fusion protein. These new features, coupled with the previously described low-cost, high efficiency, high reproducibility and high-throughput capability of CUT&RUN make it the method of choice for routine epigenomic profiling.

Data availability

The plasmid pAG-ERH-MNase-6xHIS-HA is available from Addgene. Sequencing datasets are available from GEO (GSE126612).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Michael P Meers

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Terri D Bryson

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jorja G Henikoff

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Steven Henikoff

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    steveh@fhcrc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7621-8685

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Michael P Meers

National Institutes of Health (4DN TCPA A093)

  • Terri D Bryson

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

Copyright

© 2019, Meers 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

  • 51,097
    views
  • 5,165
    downloads
  • 364
    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. Michael P Meers
  2. Terri D Bryson
  3. Jorja G Henikoff
  4. Steven Henikoff
(2019)
Improved CUT&RUN chromatin profiling tools
eLife 8:e46314.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46314

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46314

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Felix Y Zhou, David P Waterman ... James E Haber
    Research Article

    Cells evoke the DNA damage checkpoint (DDC) to inhibit mitosis in the presence of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) to allow more time for DNA repair. In budding yeast, a single irreparable DSB is sufficient to activate the DDC and induce cell cycle arrest prior to anaphase for about 12–15 hr, after which cells ‘adapt’ to the damage by extinguishing the DDC and resuming the cell cycle. While activation of the DNA damage-dependent cell cycle arrest is well understood, how it is maintained remains unclear. To address this, we conditionally depleted key DDC proteins after the DDC was fully activated and monitored changes in the maintenance of cell cycle arrest. Degradation of Ddc2ATRIP, Rad9, Rad24, or Rad53CHK2 results in premature resumption of the cell cycle, indicating that these DDC factors are required both to establish and maintain the arrest. Dun1 is required for the establishment, but not the maintenance, of arrest, whereas Chk1 is required for prolonged maintenance but not for initial establishment of the mitotic arrest. When the cells are challenged with two persistent DSBs, they remain permanently arrested. This permanent arrest is initially dependent on the continuous presence of Ddc2, Rad9, and Rad53; however, after 15 hr these proteins become dispensable. Instead, the continued mitotic arrest is sustained by spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) proteins Mad1, Mad2, and Bub2 but not by Bub2’s binding partner Bfa1. These data suggest that prolonged cell cycle arrest in response to 2 DSBs is achieved by a handoff from the DDC to specific components of the SAC. Furthermore, the establishment and maintenance of DNA damage-induced cell cycle arrest require overlapping but different sets of factors.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Augusto Berrocal, Nicholas C Lammers ... Michael B Eisen
    Research Advance

    Transcription often occurs in bursts as gene promoters switch stochastically between active and inactive states. Enhancers can dictate transcriptional activity in animal development through the modulation of burst frequency, duration, or amplitude. Previous studies observed that different enhancers can achieve a wide range of transcriptional outputs through the same strategies of bursting control. For example, in Berrocal et al., 2020, we showed that despite responding to different transcription factors, all even-skipped enhancers increase transcription by upregulating burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. These shared bursting strategies suggest that a unified molecular mechanism constraints how enhancers modulate transcriptional output. Alternatively, different enhancers could have converged on the same bursting control strategy because of natural selection favoring one of these particular strategies. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we compared transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. Because enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopic patterns, dissimilar bursting control strategies between endogenous and ectopic patterns would suggest that enhancers adapted their bursting strategies to their trans-regulatory environment. Here, we generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos and discovered that bursting strategies remain consistent in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. These results provide evidence for a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies and serve as a starting point to uncover the realm of strategies employed by other enhancers.