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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Geeta J Narlikar, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Version history

  1. Received: January 31, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 24, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 27, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 29, 2020 (version 2)

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

  • 5,108
    views
  • 857
    downloads
  • 35
    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
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.