Structural basis for PRC2 decoding of active histone methylation marks H3K36me2/3

  1. Ksenia Finogenova
  2. Jacques Bonnet
  3. Simon Poepsel
  4. Ingmar B Schäfer
  5. Katja Finkl
  6. Katharina Schmid
  7. Claudia Litz
  8. Mike Strauss
  9. Christian Benda
  10. Jürg Müller  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  2. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  3. McGill University, Canada

Abstract

Repression of genes by Polycomb requires that PRC2 modifies their chromatin by trimethylating lysine 27 on histone H3 (H3K27me3). At transcriptionally active genes, di- and trimethylated H3K36 inhibit PRC2. Here, the cryo-EM structure of PRC2 on dinucleosomes reveals how binding of its catalytic subunit EZH2 to nucleosomal DNA orients the H3 N-terminus via an extended network of interactions to place H3K27 into the active site. Unmodified H3K36 occupies a critical position in the EZH2-DNA interface. Mutation of H3K36 to arginine or alanine inhibits H3K27 methylation by PRC2 on nucleosomes in vitro. Accordingly, Drosophila H3K36A and H3K36R mutants show reduced levels of H3K27me3 and defective Polycomb repression of HOX genes. The relay of interactions between EZH2, the nucleosomal DNA and the H3 N-terminus therefore creates the geometry that permits allosteric inhibition of PRC2 by methylated H3K36 in transcriptionally active chromatin.

Data availability

The sequence datasets generated in this study have been deposited in GEO (accession number: GSE148254). The protein structure data reported in this study have been deposited in PDB under the accession code 7AT8 and in the EMDB under the accession codes EMD-11910 and EMD-11912

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ksenia Finogenova

    Laboratory of Chromatin Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jacques Bonnet

    Laboratory of Chromatin Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Simon Poepsel

    California Institute for Quantitative Biology (QB3), Molecular Biophysics and Integrative Bio-Imaging Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ingmar B Schäfer

    Department of Structural Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Katja Finkl

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Katharina Schmid

    Laboratory of Chromatin Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Claudia Litz

    Laboratory of Chromatin Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mike Strauss

    Anatomy and Cell Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Christian Benda

    Department of Structural Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jürg Müller

    Laboratory of Chromatin Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    muellerj@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2391-4641

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB1064)

  • Jürg Müller

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

  • Jürg Müller

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: August 10, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 18, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 19, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 9, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: December 11, 2020 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2020, Finogenova 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

  • 4,738
    views
  • 790
    downloads
  • 52
    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. Ksenia Finogenova
  2. Jacques Bonnet
  3. Simon Poepsel
  4. Ingmar B Schäfer
  5. Katja Finkl
  6. Katharina Schmid
  7. Claudia Litz
  8. Mike Strauss
  9. Christian Benda
  10. Jürg Müller
(2020)
Structural basis for PRC2 decoding of active histone methylation marks H3K36me2/3
eLife 9:e61964.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61964

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61964

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.