Abstract

The central regulator of the ethylene (ET) signaling pathway, which controls a plethora of developmental programs and responses to environmental cues in plants, is ETHYLENE-INSENSITIVE2 (EIN2). Here we identify a chromatin-dependent regulatory mechanism at EIN2 requiring two genes: ETHYLENE-INSENSITIVE6 (EIN6), which is a H3K27me3 demethylase also known as RELATIVE OF EARLY FLOWERING6 (REF6), and EIN6 ENHANCER (EEN), the Arabidopsis homolog of the yeast INO80 chromatin remodeling complex subunit IES6 (INO EIGHTY SUBUNIT). Strikingly, EIN6 (REF6) and the INO80 complex redundantly control the level and the localization of the repressive histone modification H3K27me3 and the histone variant H2A.Z at the 5' untranslated region (5'UTR) intron of EIN2. Concomitant loss of EIN6 (REF6) and the INO80 complex shifts the chromatin landscape at EIN2 to a repressive state causing a dramatic reduction of EIN2 expression. These results uncover a unique type of chromatin regulation which safeguards the expression of an essential multifunctional plant stress regulator.

Data availability

Sequence data have been deposited in GEO under accession GSE122314.An overview of all sequenced data is given in Supplementary File 2.Visualized sequencing data can be found under http://neomorph.salk.edu/ein6een.php

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mark Zander

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Björn C Willige

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yupeng He

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Thu A Nguyen

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Amber E Langford

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ramlah Nehring

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Elizabeth Howell

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Robert McGrath

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Anna Bartlett

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Rosa Castanon

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Joseph R Nery

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Huaming Chen

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Zhuzhu Zhang

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Florian Jupe

    Genomic Analysis Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Anna Stepanova

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Robert J Schmitz

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7538-6663
  17. Mathew Lewsey

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2631-4337
  18. Joanne Chory

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Joseph R Ecker

    Plant Biology Laboratory, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    ecker@salk.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5799-5895

Funding

National Science Foundation (MCB-1024999)

  • Joseph R Ecker

National Institutes of Health (5R35 GM122604)

  • Joanne Chory

Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (DE-FG02-04ER15517)

  • Joseph R Ecker

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF3034)

  • Joseph R Ecker

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Joseph R Ecker

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Za-730/1-1)

  • Mark Zander

Salk Pioneer Postdoctoral Endowment Fund

  • Mark Zander

Human Frontier Science Program (LT000222/2013-L)

  • Björn C Willige

EU Marie Curie FP7 International Outgoing Fellowship (252475)

  • Mathew Lewsey

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Joanne Chory

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Daniel Zilberman, John Innes Centre, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: April 20, 2019
  2. Accepted: August 15, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 16, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 10, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Zander 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

  • 4,444
    views
  • 946
    downloads
  • 32
    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. Mark Zander
  2. Björn C Willige
  3. Yupeng He
  4. Thu A Nguyen
  5. Amber E Langford
  6. Ramlah Nehring
  7. Elizabeth Howell
  8. Robert McGrath
  9. Anna Bartlett
  10. Rosa Castanon
  11. Joseph R Nery
  12. Huaming Chen
  13. Zhuzhu Zhang
  14. Florian Jupe
  15. Anna Stepanova
  16. Robert J Schmitz
  17. Mathew Lewsey
  18. Joanne Chory
  19. Joseph R Ecker
(2019)
Epigenetic silencing of a multifunctional plant stress regulator
eLife 8:e47835.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47835

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47835

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Céline Petitgas, Laurent Seugnet ... Serge Birman
    Research Article

    Adenine phosphoribosyltransferase (APRT) and hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT) are two structurally related enzymes involved in purine recycling in humans. Inherited mutations that suppress HGPRT activity are associated with Lesch–Nyhan disease (LND), a rare X-linked metabolic and neurological disorder in children, characterized by hyperuricemia, dystonia, and compulsive self-injury. To date, no treatment is available for these neurological defects and no animal model recapitulates all symptoms of LND patients. Here, we studied LND-related mechanisms in the fruit fly. By combining enzymatic assays and phylogenetic analysis, we confirm that no HGPRT activity is expressed in Drosophila melanogaster, making the APRT homolog (Aprt) the only purine-recycling enzyme in this organism. Whereas APRT deficiency does not trigger neurological defects in humans, we observed that Drosophila Aprt mutants show both metabolic and neurobehavioral disturbances, including increased uric acid levels, locomotor impairments, sleep alterations, seizure-like behavior, reduced lifespan, and reduction of adenosine signaling and content. Locomotor defects could be rescued by Aprt re-expression in neurons and reproduced by knocking down Aprt selectively in the protocerebral anterior medial (PAM) dopaminergic neurons, the mushroom bodies, or glia subsets. Ingestion of allopurinol rescued uric acid levels in Aprt-deficient mutants but not neurological defects, as is the case in LND patients, while feeding adenosine or N6-methyladenosine (m6A) during development fully rescued the epileptic behavior. Intriguingly, pan-neuronal expression of an LND-associated mutant form of human HGPRT (I42T), but not the wild-type enzyme, resulted in early locomotor defects and seizure in flies, similar to Aprt deficiency. Overall, our results suggest that Drosophila could be used in different ways to better understand LND and seek a cure for this dramatic disease.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Gbolahan Bamgbose, Guillaume Bordet ... Alexei Tulin
    Research Article

    PARP-1 is central to transcriptional regulation under both normal and stress conditions, with the governing mechanisms yet to be fully understood. Our biochemical and ChIP-seq-based analyses showed that PARP-1 binds specifically to active histone marks, particularly H4K20me1. We found that H4K20me1 plays a critical role in facilitating PARP-1 binding and the regulation of PARP-1-dependent loci during both development and heat shock stress. Here, we report that the sole H4K20 mono-methylase, pr-set7, and parp-1 Drosophila mutants undergo developmental arrest. RNA-seq analysis showed an absolute correlation between PR-SET7- and PARP-1-dependent loci expression, confirming co-regulation during developmental phases. PARP-1 and PR-SET7 are both essential for activating hsp70 and other heat shock genes during heat stress, with a notable increase of H4K20me1 at their gene body. Mutating pr-set7 disrupts monomethylation of H4K20 along heat shock loci and abolish PARP-1 binding there. These data strongly suggest that H4 monomethylation is a key triggering point in PARP-1 dependent processes in chromatin.