Diverse nucleosome site-selectivity among histone deacetylase complexes

  1. Zhipeng A Wang
  2. Christopher J Millard
  3. Chia-Liang Lin
  4. Jennifer E Gurnett
  5. Mingxuan Wu
  6. Kwangwoon Lee
  7. Louise Fairall
  8. John W R Schwabe  Is a corresponding author
  9. Philip A Cole  Is a corresponding author
  1. Brigham and Women's Hospital, United States
  2. University of Leicester, United Kingdom
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States

Abstract

Histone acetylation regulates chromatin structure and gene expression and is removed by histone deacetylases (HDACs). HDACs are commonly found in various protein complexes to confer distinct cellular functions, but how the multi-subunit complexes influence deacetylase activities and site-selectivities in chromatin is poorly understood. Previously we reported the results of studies on the HDAC1 containing CoREST complex and acetylated nucleosome substrates which revealed a notable preference for deacetylation of histone H3 acetyl-Lys9 vs. acetyl-Lys14 (M. Wu et al, 2018). Here we analyze the enzymatic properties of five class I HDAC complexes: CoREST, NuRD, Sin3B, MiDAC and SMRT with site-specific acetylated nucleosome substrates. Our results demonstrate that these HDAC complexes show a wide variety of deacetylase rates in a site-selective manner. A Gly13 in the histone H3 tail is responsible for a sharp reduction in deacetylase activity of the CoREST complex for H3K14ac. These studies provide a framework for connecting enzymatic and biological functions of specific HDAC complexes.

Data availability

Data has been uploaded to Dryad under the doi:10.5061/dryad.x0k6djhgc

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zhipeng A Wang

    Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5693-7359
  2. Christopher J Millard

    Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Chia-Liang Lin

    Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Jennifer E Gurnett

    Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Mingxuan Wu

    Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Kwangwoon Lee

    Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Louise Fairall

    Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. John W R Schwabe

    Leicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    john.schwabe@le.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2865-4383
  9. Philip A Cole

    Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    pacole@bwh.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    Philip A Cole, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6873-7824

Funding

NIH (GM62437)

  • Philip A Cole

Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (SCOR)

  • Philip A Cole

Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award (100237/Z/12/Z)

  • John W R Schwabe

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

Copyright

© 2020, Wang 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

  • 3,932
    views
  • 654
    downloads
  • 42
    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. Zhipeng A Wang
  2. Christopher J Millard
  3. Chia-Liang Lin
  4. Jennifer E Gurnett
  5. Mingxuan Wu
  6. Kwangwoon Lee
  7. Louise Fairall
  8. John W R Schwabe
  9. Philip A Cole
(2020)
Diverse nucleosome site-selectivity among histone deacetylase complexes
eLife 9:e57663.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57663

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57663

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Gabriella O Estevam, Edmond Linossi ... James S Fraser
    Research Article

    Mutations in the kinase and juxtamembrane domains of the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase are responsible for oncogenesis in various cancers and can drive resistance to MET-directed treatments. Determining the most effective inhibitor for each mutational profile is a major challenge for MET-driven cancer treatment in precision medicine. Here, we used a deep mutational scan (DMS) of ~5764 MET kinase domain variants to profile the growth of each mutation against a panel of 11 inhibitors that are reported to target the MET kinase domain. We validate previously identified resistance mutations, pinpoint common resistance sites across type I, type II, and type I ½ inhibitors, unveil unique resistance and sensitizing mutations for each inhibitor, and verify non-cross-resistant sensitivities for type I and type II inhibitor pairs. We augment a protein language model with biophysical and chemical features to improve the predictive performance for inhibitor-treated datasets. Together, our study demonstrates a pooled experimental pipeline for identifying resistance mutations, provides a reference dictionary for mutations that are sensitized to specific therapies, and offers insights for future drug development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.