Histone deposition pathways determine the chromatin landscapes of H3.1 and H3.3 K27M oncohistones

  1. Jay F Sarthy
  2. Michael P Meers
  3. Derek H Janssens
  4. Jorja G Henikoff
  5. Heather Feldman
  6. Patrick J Paddison
  7. Christina M Lockwood
  8. Nicholas A Vitanza
  9. James M Olson
  10. Kami Ahmad  Is a corresponding author
  11. Steven Henikoff  Is a corresponding author
  1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States
  3. Seattle Childrens Hospital, United States

Abstract

Lysine 27-to-methionine (K27M) mutations in the H3.1 or H3.3 histone genes are characteristic of pediatric diffuse midline gliomas (DMGs). These oncohistone mutations dominantly inhibit histone H3K27 trimethylation and silencing, but it is unknown how oncohistone type affects gliomagenesis. We show that the genomic distributions of H3.1 and H3.3 oncohistones in human patient-derived DMG cells are consistent with the DNA replication-coupled deposition of histone H3.1 and the predominant replication-independent deposition of histone H3.3. Although H3K27 trimethylation is reduced for both oncohistone types, H3.3K27M-bearing cells retain some domains, and only H3.1K27M-bearing cells lack H3K27 trimethylation. Neither oncohistone interferes with PRC2 binding. Using Drosophila as a model, we demonstrate that inhibition of H3K27 trimethylation occurs only when H3K27M oncohistones are deposited into chromatin and only when expressed in cycling cells. We propose that oncohistones inhibit the H3K27 methyltransferase as chromatin patterns are being duplicated in proliferating cells, predisposing them to tumorigenesis.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE118099

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jay F Sarthy

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Michael P Meers

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Derek H Janssens

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jorja G Henikoff

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Heather Feldman

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Patrick J Paddison

    Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christina M Lockwood

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nicholas A Vitanza

    Cancer and Blood Disorders, Seattle Childrens Hospital, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. James M Olson

    Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kami Ahmad

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    kahmad@fredhutch.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Steven Henikoff

    Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    steveh@fhcrc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7621-8685

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Henikoff)

  • Steven Henikoff

National Institutes of Health (R01GM108699)

  • Kami Ahmad

Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer (Sarthy)

  • Jay F Sarthy

Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (Sarthy)

  • Jay F Sarthy

National Institutes of Health (T32 CA009351)

  • Jay F Sarthy

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jerry L Workman, Stowers Institute for Medical Research, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 15, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 8, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 9, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 25, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Sarthy 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

  • 4,637
    views
  • 651
    downloads
  • 45
    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. Jay F Sarthy
  2. Michael P Meers
  3. Derek H Janssens
  4. Jorja G Henikoff
  5. Heather Feldman
  6. Patrick J Paddison
  7. Christina M Lockwood
  8. Nicholas A Vitanza
  9. James M Olson
  10. Kami Ahmad
  11. Steven Henikoff
(2020)
Histone deposition pathways determine the chromatin landscapes of H3.1 and H3.3 K27M oncohistones
eLife 9:e61090.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61090

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61090

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Camille Dantzer, Justine Vaché ... Violaine Moreau
    Research Article

    Immune checkpoint inhibitors have produced encouraging results in cancer patients. However, the majority of ß-catenin-mutated tumors have been described as lacking immune infiltrates and resistant to immunotherapy. The mechanisms by which oncogenic ß-catenin affects immune surveillance remain unclear. Herein, we highlighted the involvement of ß-catenin in the regulation of the exosomal pathway and, by extension, in immune/cancer cell communication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We showed that mutated ß-catenin represses expression of SDC4 and RAB27A, two main actors in exosome biogenesis, in both liver cancer cell lines and HCC patient samples. Using nanoparticle tracking analysis and live-cell imaging, we further demonstrated that activated ß-catenin represses exosome release. Then, we demonstrated in 3D spheroid models that activation of β-catenin promotes a decrease in immune cell infiltration through a defect in exosome secretion. Taken together, our results provide the first evidence that oncogenic ß-catenin plays a key role in exosome biogenesis. Our study gives new insight into the impact of ß-catenin mutations on tumor microenvironment remodeling, which could lead to the development of new strategies to enhance immunotherapeutic response.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Fang Huang, Zhenwei Dai ... Yang Wang
    Research Article

    Aberrant alternative splicing is well-known to be closely associated with tumorigenesis of various cancers. However, the intricate mechanisms underlying breast cancer metastasis driven by deregulated splicing events remain largely unexplored. Here, we unveiled that RBM7 is decreased in lymph node and distant organ metastases of breast cancer as compared to primary lesions and low expression of RBM7 is correlated with the reduced disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Breast cancer cells with RBM7 depletion exhibited an increased potential for lung metastasis compared to scramble control cells. The absence of RBM7 stimulated breast cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. Mechanistically, RBM7 controlled the splicing switch of MFGE8, favoring the production of the predominant isoform of MFGE8, MFGE8-L. This resulted in the attenuation of STAT1 phosphorylation and alterations in cell adhesion molecules. MFGE8-L exerted an inhibitory effect on the migratory and invasive capability of breast cancer cells, while the truncated isoform MFGE8-S, which lack the second F5/8 type C domain had the opposite effect. In addition, RBM7 negatively regulates the NF-κB cascade and an NF-κB inhibitor could obstruct the increase in HUVEC tube formation caused by RBM7 silencing. Clinically, we noticed a positive correlation between RBM7 expression and MFGE8 exon7 inclusion in breast cancer tissues, providing new mechanistic insights for molecular-targeted therapy in combating breast cancer.