Live-cell single particle imaging reveals the role of RNA polymerase II in histone H2A.Z eviction

  1. Anand Ranjan
  2. Vu Q Nguyen
  3. Sheng Liu
  4. Jan Wisniewski
  5. Jee Min Kim
  6. Xiaona Tang
  7. Gaku Mizuguchi
  8. Ejlal Elalaoui
  9. Timothy J Nickels
  10. Vivian Jou
  11. Brian P English
  12. Qinsi Zheng
  13. Ed Luk
  14. Luke D Lavis
  15. Timothee Lionnet
  16. Carl Wu  Is a corresponding author
  1. Johns Hopkins University, United States
  2. National Cancer Institute, United States
  3. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
  4. Stony Brook University, United States
  5. New York University, United States

Abstract

The H2A.Z histone variant, a genome-wide hallmark of permissive chromatin, is enriched near transcription start sites in all eukaryotes. H2A.Z is deposited by the SWR1 chromatin remodeler and evicted by unclear mechanisms. We tracked H2A.Z in living yeast at single-molecule resolution, and found that H2A.Z eviction is dependent on RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) and the Kin28/Cdk7 kinase, which phosphorylates Serine 5 of heptapeptide repeats on the carboxy-terminal domain of the largest Pol II subunit Rpb1. These findings link H2A.Z eviction to transcription initiation, promoter escape and early elongation activities of Pol II. Because passage of Pol II through +1 nucleosomes genome-wide would obligate H2A.Z turnover, we propose that global transcription at yeast promoters is responsible for eviction of H2A.Z. Such usage of yeast Pol II suggests a general mechanism coupling eukaryotic transcription to erasure of the H2A.Z epigenetic signal.

Data availability

Imaging data have been deposited at Dryad and can be identified by doi:10.5061/dryad.43cp80c

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anand Ranjan

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Vu Q Nguyen

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sheng Liu

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jan Wisniewski

    Experimental Immunology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jee Min Kim

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Xiaona Tang

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gaku Mizuguchi

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ejlal Elalaoui

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Timothy J Nickels

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Vivian Jou

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Brian P English

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4037-6294
  12. Qinsi Zheng

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ed Luk

    Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6619-2258
  14. Luke D Lavis

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Timothee Lionnet

    Langone Medical Center, Institute of System Genetics, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Carl Wu

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    For correspondence
    wuc@jhu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6933-5763

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM125831)

  • Carl Wu

National Institutes of Health (GM127538)

  • Timothee Lionnet

National Institutes of Health (GM104111)

  • Ed Luk

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

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 5,251
    views
  • 870
    downloads
  • 56
    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. Anand Ranjan
  2. Vu Q Nguyen
  3. Sheng Liu
  4. Jan Wisniewski
  5. Jee Min Kim
  6. Xiaona Tang
  7. Gaku Mizuguchi
  8. Ejlal Elalaoui
  9. Timothy J Nickels
  10. Vivian Jou
  11. Brian P English
  12. Qinsi Zheng
  13. Ed Luk
  14. Luke D Lavis
  15. Timothee Lionnet
  16. Carl Wu
(2020)
Live-cell single particle imaging reveals the role of RNA polymerase II in histone H2A.Z eviction
eLife 9:e55667.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55667

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55667

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Daphne R Knudsen-Palmer, Pravrutha Raman ... Antony M Jose
    Research Article

    Since double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) is effective for silencing a wide variety of genes, all genes are typically considered equivalent targets for such RNA interference (RNAi). Yet, loss of some regulators of RNAi in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans can selectively impair the silencing of some genes. Here, we show that such selective requirements can be explained by an intersecting network of regulators acting on genes with differences in their RNA metabolism. In this network, the Maelstrom domain-containing protein RDE-10, the intrinsically disordered protein MUT-16, and the Argonaute protein NRDE-3 work together so that any two are required for silencing one somatic gene, but each is singly required for silencing another somatic gene, where only the requirement for NRDE-3 can be overcome by enhanced dsRNA processing. Quantitative models and their exploratory simulations led us to find that (1) changing cis-regulatory elements of the target gene can reduce the dependence on NRDE-3, (2) animals can recover from silencing in non-dividing cells, and (3) cleavage and tailing of mRNAs with UG dinucleotides, which makes them templates for amplifying small RNAs, are enriched within ‘pUG zones’ matching the dsRNA. Similar crosstalk between pathways and restricted amplification could result in apparently selective silencing by endogenous RNAs.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Shuvra Shekhar Roy, Sulochana Bagri ... Shantanu Chowdhury
    Research Article

    Although the role of G-quadruplex (G4) DNA structures has been suggested in chromosomal looping this was not tested directly. Here, to test causal function, an array of G4s, or control sequence that does not form G4s, were inserted within chromatin in cells. In vivo G4 formation of the inserted G4 sequence array, and not the control sequence, was confirmed using G4-selective antibody. Compared to the control insert, we observed a remarkable increase in the number of 3D chromatin looping interactions from the inserted G4 array. This was evident within the immediate topologically associated domain (TAD) and throughout the genome. Locally, recruitment of enhancer histone marks and the transcriptional coactivator p300/Acetylated-p300 increased in the G4-array, but not in the control insertion. Resulting promoter-enhancer interactions and gene activation were clear up to 5 Mb away from the insertion site. Together, these show the causal role of G4s in enhancer function and long-range chromatin interactions. Mechanisms of 3D topology are primarily based on DNA-bound architectural proteins that induce/stabilize long-range interactions. Involvement of the underlying intrinsic DNA sequence/structure in 3D looping shown here therefore throws new light on how long-range chromosomal interactions might be induced or maintained.