The CDK Pef1 and Protein Phosphatase 4 oppose each other for regulating cohesin binding to fission yeast chromosomes

Abstract

Cohesin has essential roles in chromosome structure, segregation and repair. Cohesin binding to chromosomes is catalyzed by the cohesin loader, Mis4 in fission yeast. How cells fine tune cohesin deposition is largely unknown. Here we provide evidence that Mis4 activity is regulated by phosphorylation of its cohesin substrate. A genetic screen for negative regulators of Mis4 yielded a CDK called Pef1, whose closest human homologue is CDK5. Inhibition of Pef1 kinase activity rescued cohesin loader deficiencies. In an otherwise wild-type background, Pef1 ablation stimulated cohesin binding to its regular sites along chromosomes while ablating Protein Phosphatase 4 had the opposite effect. Pef1 and PP4 control the phosphorylation state of the cohesin kleisin Rad21. The CDK phosphorylates Rad21 on Threonine 262. Pef1 ablation, non phosphorylatable Rad21-T262 or mutations within a Rad21 binding domain of Mis4 alleviated the effect of PP4 deficiency. Such a CDK/PP4 based regulation of cohesin loader activity could provide an efficient mechanism for translating cellular cues into a fast and accurate cohesin response.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figure 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Adrien Birot

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Marta Tormos-Pérez

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sabine Vaur

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Amélie Feytout

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julien Jaegy

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dácil Alonso Gil

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stéphanie Vazquez

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Karl Ekwall

    Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jean-Paul Javerzat

    Institut de Biochimie et Génétique Cellulaires, CNRS-Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    For correspondence
    jpaul.javerzat@ibgc.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9671-6753

Funding

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (PJA 2013 1200 205)

  • Jean-Paul Javerzat

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (PJA 20171206211)

  • Jean-Paul Javerzat

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-14-CE10-0020-01)

  • Jean-Paul Javerzat

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-IDEX-03-02)

  • Adrien Birot

Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (DOC20160603884)

  • Adrien Birot

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

Copyright

© 2020, Birot 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

  • 1,324
    views
  • 267
    downloads
  • 5
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50556

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Omid Gholamalamdari, Tom van Schaik ... Andrew S Belmont
    Research Article

    Models of nuclear genome organization often propose a binary division into active versus inactive compartments yet typically overlook nuclear bodies. Here, we integrated analysis of sequencing and image-based data to compare genome organization in four human cell types relative to three different nuclear locales: the nuclear lamina, nuclear speckles, and nucleoli. Although gene expression correlates mostly with nuclear speckle proximity, DNA replication timing correlates with proximity to multiple nuclear locales. Speckle attachment regions emerge as DNA replication initiation zones whose replication timing and gene composition vary with their attachment frequency. Most facultative LADs retain a partially repressed state as iLADs, despite their positioning in the nuclear interior. Knock out of two lamina proteins, Lamin A and LBR, causes a shift of H3K9me3-enriched LADs from lamina to nucleolus, and a reciprocal relocation of H3K27me3-enriched partially repressed iLADs from nucleolus to lamina. Thus, these partially repressed iLADs appear to compete with LADs for nuclear lamina attachment with consequences for replication timing. The nuclear organization in adherent cells is polarized with nuclear bodies and genomic regions segregating both radially and relative to the equatorial plane. Together, our results underscore the importance of considering genome organization relative to nuclear locales for a more complete understanding of the spatial and functional organization of the human genome.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ashwin Govindan, Nicholas K Conrad
    Research Article

    O-GlcNAcylation is the reversible post-translational addition of β-N-acetylglucosamine to serine and threonine residues of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins. It plays an important role in several cellular processes through the modification of thousands of protein substrates. O-GlcNAcylation in humans is mediated by a single essential enzyme, O-GlcNAc transferase (OGT). OGT, together with the sole O-GlcNAcase OGA, form an intricate feedback loop to maintain O-GlcNAc homeostasis in response to changes in cellular O-GlcNAc using a dynamic mechanism involving nuclear retention of its fourth intron. However, the molecular mechanism of this dynamic regulation remains unclear. Using an O-GlcNAc responsive GFP reporter cell line, we identify SFSWAP, a poorly characterized splicing factor, as a trans-acting factor regulating OGT intron detention. We show that SFSWAP is a global regulator of retained intron splicing and exon skipping that primarily acts as a negative regulator of splicing. In contrast, knockdown of SFSWAP leads to reduced inclusion of a ‘decoy exon’ present in the OGT retained intron which may mediate its role in OGT intron detention. Global analysis of decoy exon inclusion in SFSWAP and UPF1 double knockdown cells indicate altered patterns of decoy exon usage. Together, these data indicate a role for SFSWAP as a global negative regulator of pre-mRNA splicing and positive regulator of intron retention.