1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
  2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61964
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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

Publication 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

  • 3,917
    Page views
  • 699
    Downloads
  • 36
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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

Categories and tags

Research organisms

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Plant Biology

    Vernalization-triggered expression of the antisense transcript COOLAIR is mediated by CBF genes

    Myeongjune Jeon, Goowon Jeong ... Ilha Lee
    Research Article Updated

    To synchronize flowering time with spring, many plants undergo vernalization, a floral-promotion process triggered by exposure to long-term winter cold. In Arabidopsis thaliana, this is achieved through cold-mediated epigenetic silencing of the floral repressor, FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). COOLAIR, a cold-induced antisense RNA transcribed from the FLC locus, has been proposed to facilitate FLC silencing. Here, we show that C-repeat (CRT)/dehydration-responsive elements (DREs) at the 3′-end of FLC and CRT/DRE-binding factors (CBFs) are required for cold-mediated expression of COOLAIR. CBFs bind to CRT/DREs at the 3′-end of FLC, both in vitro and in vivo, and CBF levels increase gradually during vernalization. Cold-induced COOLAIR expression is severely impaired in cbfs mutants in which all CBF genes are knocked-out. Conversely, CBF-overexpressing plants show increased COOLAIR levels even at warm temperatures. We show that COOLAIR is induced by CBFs during early stages of vernalization but COOLAIR levels decrease in later phases as FLC chromatin transitions to an inactive state to which CBFs can no longer bind. We also demonstrate that cbfs and FLCΔCOOLAIR mutants exhibit a normal vernalization response despite their inability to activate COOLAIR expression during cold, revealing that COOLAIR is not required for the vernalization process.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression

    X-chromosome target specificity diverged between dosage compensation mechanisms of two closely related Caenorhabditis species

    Qiming Yang, Te-Wen Lo ... Barbara J Meyer
    Research Article

    An evolutionary perspective enhances our understanding of biological mechanisms. Comparison of sex determination and X-chromosome dosage compensation mechanisms between the closely related nematode species C. briggsae (Cbr) and C. elegans (Cel) revealed that the genetic regulatory hierarchy controlling both processes is conserved, but the X-chromosome target specificity and mode of binding for the specialized condensin dosage compensation complex (DCC) controlling X expression have diverged. We identified two motifs within Cbr DCC recruitment sites that are highly enriched on X: 13-bp MEX and 30-bp MEX II. Mutating either MEX or MEX II in an endogenous recruitment site with multiple copies of one or both motifs reduced binding, but only removing all motifs eliminated binding in vivo. Hence, DCC binding to Cbr recruitment sites appears additive. In contrast, DCC binding to Cel recruitment sites is synergistic: mutating even one motif in vivo eliminated binding. Although all X-chromosome motifs share the sequence CAGGG, they have otherwise diverged so that a motif from one species cannot function in the other. Functional divergence was demonstrated in vivo and in vitro. A single nucleotide position in Cbr MEX can determine whether Cel DCC binds. This rapid divergence of DCC target specificity could have been an important factor in establishing reproductive isolation between nematode species and contrasts dramatically with conservation of target specificity for X-chromosome dosage compensation across Drosophila species and for transcription factors controlling developmental processes such as body-plan specification from fruit flies to mice.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Plant Biology

    Flowering: Keeping it cool

    Vy Nguyen, Iain Searle
    Insight

    A well-established model for how plants start the process of flowering in periods of cold weather may need revisiting.