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

  • 4,907
    views
  • 808
    downloads
  • 78
    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
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article

    The preservation of genome integrity during sperm and egg development is vital for reproductive success. During meiosis, the tumor suppressor BRCA1/BRC-1 and structural maintenance of chromosomes 5/6 (SMC-5/6) complex genetically interact to promote high fidelity DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, but the specific DSB repair outcomes these proteins regulate remain unknown. Using genetic and cytological methods to monitor resolution of DSBs with different repair partners in Caenorhabditis elegans, we demonstrate that both BRC-1 and SMC-5 repress intersister crossover recombination events. Sequencing analysis of conversion tracts from homolog-independent DSB repair events further indicates that BRC-1 regulates intersister/intrachromatid noncrossover conversion tract length. Moreover, we find that BRC-1 specifically inhibits error prone repair of DSBs induced at mid-pachytene. Finally, we reveal functional interactions of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 in regulating repair pathway engagement: BRC-1 is required for localization of recombinase proteins to DSBs in smc-5 mutants and enhances DSB repair defects in smc-5 mutants by repressing theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). These results are consistent with a model in which some functions of BRC-1 act upstream of SMC-5/6 to promote recombination and inhibit error-prone DSB repair, while SMC-5/6 acts downstream of BRC-1 to regulate the formation or resolution of recombination intermediates. Taken together, our study illuminates the coordinate interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Xinyang Bing, Wenfan Ke ... James B Jaynes
    Research Article

    Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (‘TADs’) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first, a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop. In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of MicroC to analyze how TADs are organized, and experimental manipulations of the even skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the ‘loop-extrusion’ and the ‘boundary-pairing’ models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model, and instead suggest that the endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their partners, either head-to-head or head-to-tail, with varying degrees of specificity. Although our experiments do not address how partners find each other, the mechanism is unlikely to require loop extrusion.