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

  • 5,408
    views
  • 883
    downloads
  • 64
    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. Cancer Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ananda Kishore Mukherjee, Subhajit Dutta ... Shantanu Chowdhury
    Research Article

    Telomeres are crucial for cancer progression. Immune signalling in the tumour microenvironment has been shown to be very important in cancer prognosis. However, the mechanisms by which telomeres might affect tumour immune response remain poorly understood. Here, we observed that interleukin-1 signalling is telomere-length dependent in cancer cells. Mechanistically, non-telomeric TRF2 (telomeric repeat binding factor 2) binding at the IL-1-receptor type-1 (IL1R1) promoter was found to be affected by telomere length. Enhanced TRF2 binding at the IL1R1 promoter in cells with short telomeres directly recruited the histone-acetyl-transferase (HAT) p300, and consequent H3K27 acetylation activated IL1R1. This altered NF-kappa B signalling and affected downstream cytokines like IL6, IL8, and TNF. Further, IL1R1 expression was telomere-sensitive in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) clinical samples. Infiltration of tumour-associated macrophages (TAM) was also sensitive to the length of tumour cell telomeres and highly correlated with IL1R1 expression. The use of both IL1 Receptor antagonist (IL1RA) and IL1R1 targeting ligands could abrogate M2 macrophage infiltration in TNBC tumour organoids. In summary, using TNBC cancer tissue (>90 patients), tumour-derived organoids, cancer cells, and xenograft tumours with either long or short telomeres, we uncovered a heretofore undeciphered function of telomeres in modulating IL1 signalling and tumour immunity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bethany M Bartlett, Yatendra Kumar ... Wendy A Bickmore
    Research Article Updated

    During oncogene-induced senescence there are striking changes in the organisation of heterochromatin in the nucleus. This is accompanied by activation of a pro-inflammatory gene expression programme – the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) – driven by transcription factors such as NF-κB. The relationship between heterochromatin re-organisation and the SASP has been unclear. Here, we show that TPR, a protein of the nuclear pore complex basket required for heterochromatin re-organisation during senescence, is also required for the very early activation of NF-κB signalling during the stress-response phase of oncogene-induced senescence. This is prior to activation of the SASP and occurs without affecting NF-κB nuclear import. We show that TPR is required for the activation of innate immune signalling at these early stages of senescence and we link this to the formation of heterochromatin-enriched cytoplasmic chromatin fragments thought to bleb off from the nuclear periphery. We show that HMGA1 is also required for cytoplasmic chromatin fragment formation. Together these data suggest that re-organisation of heterochromatin is involved in altered structural integrity of the nuclear periphery during senescence, and that this can lead to activation of cytoplasmic nucleic acid sensing, NF-κB signalling, and activation of the SASP.