Ageing is a natural process resulting in progressive changes of most, if not all, cellular components. Ageing is generally associated with declining biological performance and increased incidence of disease (Oberdoerffer and Sinclair, 2007). The gene expression apparatus, comprising the DNA itself, the chromatin environment it is housed in, and the machinery of transcription and translation, is profoundly affected by ageing (Busuttil et al., 2007; Edifizi and Schumacher, 2015). Models of ageing often display similar phenotypes to those undergoing senescence or genome instability, highlighting how integrated the ageing process is with these phenomena (Oberdoerffer and Sinclair, 2007). Diseases that mimic or accelerate the ageing process, including Hutchinson–Gilford progeria and Werner syndromes, result in molecular changes in nucleosomes and chromatin (Arancio et al., 2014; Burtner and Kennedy, 2010; Feser and Tyler, 2011).

In eukaryotes, chromatin includes histone molecules that package the DNA, locally controlling access to the underlying genes by facilitating ‘open’ or ‘closed’ states associated with transcriptional activation or repression, respectively (Laugesen and Helin, 2014). In this way, transcription of individual gene products may be regulated in temporal or location-specific manners.

One of the main routes of proteome expansion is dedicated to enzymes that carry out post-translational modifications (PTMs) of proteins. Enzyme-catalysed PTMs at distinct amino acid residues regulate or modulate protein structure, interactions, and functions (Santos and Lindner, 2017).

The mouse, Mus musculus, is the most commonly used experimental animal in biomedical research and serves as a model system for studying human health and disease (Phifer-Rixey and Nachman, 2015; Fontana and Partridge, 2015). Mice have a relatively short lifespan, with one adult mouse month equivalent to approximately three human years (Sengupta, 2013; Dutta and Sengupta, 2016). This allows for maximum lifespan studies to proceed within the timelines of typical research projects, while environmental factors that affect ageing can be controlled (Shoji and Miyakawa, 2019; Delgado-Morales, 2017; Shoji et al., 2016). Lifespan and health span are mutually influenced by many genes that can either predispose to age-related diseases or slow the ageing process itself (Murabito et al., 2012).

We recently applied a middle-down proteomics strategy to demonstrate that mouse chromatin undergoes major changes during ageing, specifically that histone H3.3 replaces H3.1 and that the extent of H3 methylation marks at multiple sites is profoundly altered during ageing (Tvardovskiy et al., 2017). We here extend these proteomics studies of mouse chromatin to investigate the protein composition of chromatin in multiple mouse organs during ageing.

We hypothesised that a time-course investigation of the dynamic chromatin proteome could reveal distinct molecular differences of mammalian organs and provide new insights into the regulatory mechanisms in different organs during ageing.

We studied the progressive chromatin protein expression changes in six mouse organs during ageing by quantitative proteomics by mass spectrometry (graphical abstract).

Among almost 6000 proteins identified, organ-specific patterns predominated, with age-responsive subsets identified for each organ. We mapped pathway-level molecular changes specific to individual organ over time.

Our results demonstrate that the ageing process affects each mouse organ in a distinct manner illustrated by the diversity and heterogeneity of the temporal chromatin proteomes of each organ.

We implemented a comprehensive high-mass-accuracy mass spectrometry-based proteomics strategy to monitor changes in the chromatin-enriched proteomes of six mouse organs over a time course that mimics adult development and ageing, from the early adult to the mature adult stage.

Many age-related diseases are linked to changes in the transcriptional and epigenetic machinery that regulate gene expression.

We focused on the changes in the expression of proteins that mediate transcription, including DNA-binding proteins and chromatin modifiers such as ‘writers’, ‘erasers’, and ‘readers’ (Signolet and Hendrich, 2015; Hyun et al., 2017). Chromatin modifiers add, remove, or recognise particular PTMs of proteins associated with the alteration of chromatin architecture, and ultimately involved in the regulation of gene expression (Santos and Lindner, 2017).

Over 2000 proteins were quantified in each organ, generating a useful resource for researchers investigating mammalian development and ageing.

We identified distinct and organ-specific unique ageing features associated with each organ. We observed unique chromatin modifiers that were expressed and accumulated differently during ageing, leading to changes in the chromatin architecture, including changes in the expression of heterochromatin markers, histone deacetylases, ubiquitin-protein ligase, histone acetylation enzymes, and myosin complex in the brain, heart, kidney, liver, and lung, respectively.

Brain and spleen displayed the largest and most diverse and heterogenous chromatin proteomes. The brain is arguably the most complex organ of a mammal. Brain chromatin structure and function is sustained by a large set of chromatin-associated and nuclear proteins, which also exhibit temporal dynamics of expression during the mouse lifespan as demonstrated here. The spleen chromatin proteome was rather constant during the lifespan whilst large and diverse, which may reflect the physiological role of the spleen for continuous maintenance of important immune and defence activities of the organism.

We demonstrated progressive changes of chromatin-associated protein expression in response to ageing. Also, the specific nature of the organ was more of a significant discrimination factor, and subsequently distinct proteome profiles in response to ageing were observed. For instance, we noticed over the mouse lifespan strongly upregulated chromatin-associated proteins relate to distinctive pathways involved in ‘oxidation-reduction response’, ‘response to oxidation stress’ and ‘nucleosome assembly’, as well as signals that promote apoptosis processes. Conversely, chromatin-associated proteins strongly downregulated are related to “muscle organisation and reassembly” and “histone-modifying enzymes” associated with chromatin assembly and organisation.

Our study of chromatin-enriched proteomes demonstrated that macro-H2A2 accumulates in the mouse brain during ageing. The epigenetic regulator HP1BP3 accumulates at a similar rate and very likely interacts with macro-H2A2. Both macro-H2A2 and HP1BP3 are highly expressed in the adult mouse brain, and we suggest that a complex involving these two proteins is implicated in maintaining heterochromatin integrity and promote gene silencing during the mouse lifespan.

Reversible acetylation of histones plays a critical role in transcriptional regulation in eukaryotic cells. We detected reduced levels of histone H3 acetylation during ageing in mouse liver. The opposite trend was observed in ageing heart, that is, an increase in histone H3 acetylation. Two families of deacylase enzymes were identified: the histone deacetylases, HDACs, and the Sir family protein (Silent Information Regulator)-like family of NAD-dependent deacylases, or sirtuins (Grozinger et al., 2002). Both enzyme families play a major role in gene regulation by modifying the histone acetylation/acylation landscape in response to external stimuli and specific environmental stress conditions, such as oxidative stress (Drazic et al., 2016). In mammals, the brain and heart have the greatest oxygen demand for their ATP-dependent processes. Nearly all cellular processes of cardiomyocytes are driven by ATP-dependent pathways (Hu et al., 2016). SIRT3 plays an important role in maintaining basal ATP levels and regulated energy production in mouse embryonic fibroblasts (Hu et al., 2016; Ahn et al., 2008).

Sirtuin proteins are mostly annotated as mitochondrial proteins, but they can translocate into the nucleus or other cell compartments (Kupis et al., 2016; Vaquero, 2009; Li et al., 2013). The translocation of sirtuins through different cellular compartments is poorly described. Here, we speculate that the roles of SIRT3 and SIRT5 in the heart are essential as they compensate for age-related cellular dysfunction by controlling the levels of histone acylation marks. They may thereby promote the expression of proteins required for DNA repair to prevent cardiac hypertrophy in response to oxidative stress (Hu et al., 2016).

The SAGA complex is a multi-subunit histone-modifying complex. KAT2A is a SAGA component in mammals, containing both a HAT domain and a bromodomain and extended N-terminal domain which confers the ability to acetylate mononucleosomal H3 (Gamper et al., 2009). KAT2A is required for normal development in mice (Xu et al., 2000; Lin et al., 2007). Furthermore, KAT2A-level expression decreases during cell differentiation (Xu et al., 2000), suggesting that the downregulation of histone acetylation is connected with reducing activation of gene expression of target genes which promote self-renewal and pluripotency state during ageing. Overall, our experiments suggest a connection between the roles of two epigenetic enzymes CHD2 and KAT2A, whereby their mutual protein expression is associated with liver differentiation during the mouse lifespan.

The proteasome is a complex proteolytic machine formed by the assembly of several subunits (Finley, 2009). The ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) is the primary selective degradation system in eukaryotic cells, localised both in the nuclei and cytoplasm compartment, which is required for the turnover of soluble proteins (Schmidt and Finley, 2014). The UPS is mainly implicated in protein degradation in response to the regulation of several processes, including the maintenance of cellular quality control, transcription, cell cycle progression, DNA repair, receptor-mediated endocytosis, cell stress response, and apoptosis (Lecker et al., 2006). Before a protein is degraded, it is first flagged for destruction by the ubiquitin conjugation system, which ultimately results in the attachment of a polyubiquitin chain on the target protein (Tanaka, 2009; Adams, 2003).

Ubiquitin and the proteasome have been implicated in processes as diverse as the control of transcription, the response to DNA damage, the regulation of chromatin structure and function, and the export of RNAs from the nucleus (McCann and Tansey, 2014).

We found an increase in the levels of two proteasome subunits in ageing kidney organ consistent with increased E3-ubiquitin ligase activity. Increased expression of FBXO41, a subunit of the SCF E3 ubiquitin ligase complex, correlates with NEDD4 expression. Recent reports suggested a decline of proteasome function related to senescence observed in several mammalian tissues and human cells (Bulteau et al., 2000; Carrard et al., 2003; Petropoulos et al., 2000; Bardag-Gorce et al., 1999). During the ageing process, dysfunction of the ubiquitination machinery or the proteolytic activity may occur, leading to proteasome failure, which is linked to several age-related human diseases (Schmidt and Finley, 2014; Chondrogianni and Gonos, 2010). We, therefore, speculate that an increased expression of E3-ubiquitination ligase activity may compensate for the proteasome activity during ageing in the kidneys.

Not all functions of actin and actin-related proteins in complexes are yet clear: it is known that they play important roles in maintaining the stability of the proteins, possibly by bridging subunits and recruiting the complexes to chromatin (Farrants, 2008). In line with previous analysis, the majority of downregulated ‘chromatin-associated proteins’ in lung tissue were assigned to the categories ‘myosin complex’, ‘chromatin organisation’ and ‘histone modification’. The most significant subnetwork corresponds to the ‘muscle organisation and reassembly’ category and is related to the myosin family. This is in accordance with recent reports where the change of protein expression of particular myosin subsets implied a human ageing response (Murgia et al., 2017; Lang et al., 2018) The presence of actomyosin-like protein in the chromatin environment raises questions about the role of actin-like protein such as myosin in nuclear and chromatin processes (Walther and Mann, 2011).

In the spleen, we detected a large number of chromatin-associated proteins but only a fraction of these proteins were differentially regulated during ageing. Thus, the spleen chromatin proteome exhibits a ‘young’ or ‘age-less’ phenotype. Consequently, only a few pathway-level changes were observed, possibly indicating the important role of this organ in maintaining immune functions, removing old red blood cells and microbes which seem, from our data, to be not affected by ageing and consistent with our hypothesis that the time-course changes in protein expression distinctly affect each organ. We observed the largest numbers of chromatin remodelling proteins in the spleen, which suggests that this organ is may provide a good model for epigenetic studies.

Overall, our findings using high mass resolution LC-MS/MS suggest a new approach to investigate the dynamic chromatin protein environment during the lifespan of an organism. We provide a high-quality and robust dataset of protein expression changes in mouse organs during the ageing process. The dataset shows that in vivo models can describe how the dynamic changes of chromatin-associated protein may alternatively promote or repress gene expression during ageing, also reflecting some physiological features of the organ.

Our study adds novel details to mouse biology and chromatin dynamics of organs, and it complements previous attempts to identify biomarkers for mouse lifespan (Shavlakadze et al., 2019; Rappsilber et al., 2003). Walther et al. reported that the bulk proteins’ abundance is less prone to changes in organs such as the brain, heart, and kidney obtained from mice aged 5 or 26 months. They reported only a few proteins that exhibited statistically significant expression changes during ageing (Shavlakadze et al., 2019). Thus, bulk proteome analysis of mammalian organs has limitations, whereas organelle-specific proteomics, as presented here for chromatin, is a more viable strategy to reveal the molecular details of important biological processes, such as ageing and chromatin regulation.

Using a rat model (Rappsilber et al., 2003), Glass et al. studied the alterations of gene expression to identify a putative mammalian ageing signature. Unfortunately, our chromatin proteomics strategy does not readily compare to the study by Glass et al. as only three out of the seven time points are in common between the studies. We observed common ageing signatures (trends) such as cell stress response and transcriptional alterations changing at the late stage of adult rodent lifespan.

We see a consistent overlap between our results and a list of human ageing-related biomarker candidates of the ‘Human Ageing Genomic Resources’ and ‘GenAge machine learning databank’ (Figure 5; Tacutu et al., 2013; Kerepesi et al., 2018). Our differentially expressed candidate mouse proteins behaved just as human ageing biomarkers or ageing-related human proteins that promote disease.

Whereas our study provides novel features and details of molecular ageing processes in mammals, it does not provide the mechanistic details of the protein-mediated ageing process in chromatin. Quantitative proteomics is an important tool for further studies of chromatin dynamics, and the emerging field of high-sensitivity single-cell proteomics will assist in revealing the features of organ function in health, ageing, and disease using limited sample amounts. The experimental protocols used in this study provide a foundation for a more detailed interrogation of chromatin biology by functional proteomics. The data resource associated with this study provides a framework for generating novel hypotheses aimed at revealing the molecular features of ageing and developing novel approaches to mitigate age-related ailments.

Proteomics data is deposited in public repository as specified in manuscript.

1. 1. Oliviero G
   2. Kovalchuk S
   3. Rogowska-Wrzesinska A
   4. Schwämmle V
   5. Jensen ON

   (2021) MSV000084270

   ID MSV000084270. Enrichment of chromatin associated protein in mESC using LC-MS/MS.

   https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp
2. 1. Oliviero G
   2. Kovalchuk S
   3. Rogowska-Wrzesinska A
   4. Schwämmle V
   5. Jensen ON

   (2021) MSV000084279

   ID MSV000084279. Shotgun proteomics deciphered age pathways in mammalian organisms. BRAIN,TOTAL LYSATE, AGING.

   https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp/MSV000084279
3. 1. Oliviero G
   2. Kovalchuk S
   3. Rogowska-Wrzesinska A
   4. Schwämmle V
   5. Jensen ON

   (2021) MSV000084375

   ID MSV000084375. Shotgun proteomics all mouse tissues.

   https://massive.ucsd.edu/ProteoSAFe/static/massive.jsp/MSV000084375

1. 1. Adams J

   (2003) The proteasome: structure, function, and role in the cell

   Cancer Treatment Reviews 29:3–9.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-7372(03)00081-1

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ahn BH
   2. Kim HS
   3. Song S
   4. Lee IH
   5. Liu J
   6. Vassilopoulos A
   7. Deng CX
   8. Finkel T

   (2008) A role for the mitochondrial deacetylase Sirt3 in regulating energy homeostasis

   PNAS 105:14447–14452.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803790105

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Arancio W
   2. Pizzolanti G
   3. Genovese SI
   4. Pitrone M
   5. Giordano C

   (2014) Epigenetic Involvement in Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: A Mini-Review

   Gerontology 60:197–203.

   https://doi.org/10.1159/000357206

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bardag-Gorce F
   2. Farout L
   3. Veyrat-Durebex C
   4. Briand Y
   5. Briand M

   (1999) Changes in 20S proteasome activity during ageing of the LOU rat

   Molecular Biology Reports 26:89–93.

   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006968208077

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barrero MJ
   2. Sese B
   3. Martí M
   4. Izpisua Belmonte JC

   (2013) Macro histone variants are critical for the differentiation of human pluripotent cells

   The Journal of Biological Chemistry 288:16110–16116.

   https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.466144

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Breitling R
   2. Armengaud P
   3. Amtmann A
   4. Herzyk P

   (2004) Rank products: a simple, yet powerful, new method to detect differentially regulated genes in replicated microarray experiments (2004)

   FEBS Letters 573:83–92.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2004.07.055

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bulteau AL
   2. Petropoulos I
   3. Friguet B

   (2000) Age-related alterations of proteasome structure and function in aging epidermis

   Experimental Gerontology 35:767–777.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5565(00)00136-4

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Burtner CR
   2. Kennedy BK

   (2010) Progeria syndromes and ageing: what is the connection

   Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 11:567–578.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2944

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Busuttil R
   2. Bahar R
   3. Vijg J

   (2007) Genome dynamics and transcriptional deregulation in aging

   Neuroscience 145:1341–1347.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.09.060

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Carrard G
    2. Dieu M
    3. Raes M
    4. Toussaint O
    5. Friguet B

    (2003) Impact of ageing on proteasome structure and function in human lymphocytes

    The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 35:728–739.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1357-2725(02)00356-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Chandler H
    2. Peters G

    (2013) Stressing the cell cycle in senescence and aging

    Current Opinion in Cell Biology 25:765–771.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2013.07.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chondrogianni N
    2. Gonos ES

    (2010) Proteasome function determines cellular homeostasis and the rate of aging

    Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 694:38–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7002-2_4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Christoforou A
    2. Mulvey CM
    3. Breckels LM
    4. Geladaki A
    5. Hurrell T
    6. Hayward PC
    7. Naake T
    8. Gatto L
    9. Viner R
    10. Martinez Arias A
    11. Lilley KS

    (2016) A draft map of the mouse pluripotent stem cell spatial proteome

    Nature Communications 7:9992.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9992

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Conway JR
    2. Lex A
    3. Gehlenborg N

    (2017) UpSetR: an R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties

    Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 33:2938–2940.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx364

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. Book

    1. Delgado-Morales R

    (2017) Neuroepigenomics in Aging and Disease

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53889-1

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Douet J
    2. Corujo D
    3. Malinverni R
    4. Renauld J
    5. Sansoni V
    6. Posavec Marjanović M
    7. Cantariño N
    8. Valero V
    9. Mongelard F
    10. Bouvet P
    11. Imhof A
    12. Thiry M
    13. Buschbeck M

    (2017) MacroH2A histone variants maintain nuclear organization and heterochromatin architecture

    Journal of Cell Science 130:1570–1582.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.199216

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Drazic A
    2. Myklebust LM
    3. Ree R
    4. Arnesen T

    (2016) The world of protein acetylation

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1864:1372–1401.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2016.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Dutta S
    2. Sengupta P

    (2016) Men and mice: Relating their ages

    Life Sciences 152:244–248.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2015.10.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Edifizi D
    2. Schumacher B

    (2015) Genome Instability in Development and Aging: Insights from Nucleotide Excision Repair in Humans, Mice, and Worms

    Biomolecules 5:1855–1869.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biom5031855

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Epel ES
    2. Lithgow GJ

    (2014) Stress biology and aging mechanisms: toward understanding the deep connection between adaptation to stress and longevity

    The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 69 Suppl 1:S10–S16.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Farrants A-KO

    (2008) Chromatin remodelling and actin organisation

    FEBS Letters 582:2041–2050.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2008.04.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Ferguson RE
    2. Carroll HP
    3. Harris A
    4. Maher ER
    5. Selby PJ
    6. Banks RE

    (2005) Housekeeping proteins: A preliminary study illustrating some limitations as useful references in protein expression studies

    Proteomics 5:566–571.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200400941

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Feser J
    2. Tyler J

    (2011) Chromatin structure as a mediator of aging

    FEBS Letters 585:2041–2048.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2010.11.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Finley D

    (2009) Recognition and Processing of Ubiquitin-Protein Conjugates by the Proteasome

    Annual Review of Biochemistry 78:477–513.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.78.081507.101607

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fontana L
    2. Partridge L

    (2015) Promoting Health and Longevity through Diet: From Model Organisms to Humans

    Cell 161:106–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gamper AM
    2. Kim J
    3. Roeder RG

    (2009) The STAGA Subunit ADA2b Is an Important Regulator of Human GCN5 Catalysis

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 29:266–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00315-08

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Garfinkel BP
    2. Melamed-Book N
    3. Anuka E
    4. Bustin M
    5. Orly J

    (2015) HP1BP3 is a novel histone H1 related protein with essential roles in viability and growth

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:2074–2090.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv089

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Garfinkel BP
    2. Arad S
    3. Neuner SM
    4. Netser S
    5. Wagner S
    6. Kaczorowski CC
    7. Rosen CJ
    8. Gal M
    9. Soreq H
    10. Orly J

    (2016) HP1BP3 expression determines maternal behavior and offspring survival

    Genes, Brain, and Behavior 15:678–688.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12312

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gillette TG
    2. Hill JA

    (2015) Readers, writers, and erasers: chromatin as the whiteboard of heart disease

    Circulation Research 116:1245–1253.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303630

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Go YM
    2. Jones DP

    (2017) Redox theory of aging: implications for health and disease

    Clinical Science (London, England 131:1669–1688.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20160897

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Grozinger CM
    2. Schreiber SL
    3. Sternglanz R
    4. Xu RL
    5. Broach JR
    6. Starai VJ
    7. Avalos JL
    8. Escalante-Semerena JC
    9. Grubmeyer C
    10. Wolberger C
    11. al. et

    (2002) Deacetylase enzymes: biological functions and the use of small-molecule inhibitors

    Chemistry & Biology 9:3–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-5521(02)00092-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Haigis MC
    2. Yankner BA

    (2010) The aging stress response

    Molecular Cell 40:333–344.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.10.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Herrmann C
    2. Avgousti DC
    3. Weitzman MD

    (2017) Differential Salt Fractionation of Nuclei to Analyze Chromatin-associated Proteins from Cultured Mammalian Cells

    Bio-Protocol 7:e2175.

    https://doi.org/10.21769/BioProtoc.2175

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Holdsworth RJ

    (1991) Regeneration of the spleen and splenic autotransplantation

    The British Journal of Surgery 78:270–278.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800780305

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hu DX
    2. Liu XB
    3. Song WC
    4. Wang JA

    (2016) Roles of SIRT3 in heart failure: from bench to bedside

    Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B 17:821–830.

    https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1600253

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hyun K
    2. Jeon J
    3. Park K
    4. Kim J

    (2017) Writing, erasing and reading histone lysine methylations

    Experimental & Molecular Medicine 49:e324.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/emm.2017.11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kerepesi C
    2. Daróczy B
    3. Sturm Á
    4. Vellai T
    5. Benczúr A

    (2018) Prediction and characterization of human ageing-related proteins by using machine learning

    Scientific Reports 8:1–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22240-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kim J
    2. Hake SB
    3. Roeder RG

    (2005) The Human Homolog of Yeast BRE1 Functions as a Transcriptional Coactivator through Direct Activator Interactions

    Molecular Cell 20:759–770.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.11.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Korthauer K
    2. Kimes PK
    3. Duvallet C
    4. Reyes A
    5. Subramanian A
    6. Teng M
    7. Shukla C
    8. Alm EJ
    9. Hicks SC

    (2019) A practical guide to methods controlling false discoveries in computational biology

    Genome Biology 20:118.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1716-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Koziol JA

    (2010) Comments on the Rank Product Method for Analyzing Replicated Experiments

    FEBS Letters 584:941–944.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2010.01.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kupis W
    2. Pałyga J
    3. Tomal E
    4. Niewiadomska E

    (2016) The role of sirtuins in cellular homeostasis

    Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry 72:371–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13105-016-0492-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lang F
    2. Khaghani S
    3. Türk C
    4. Wiederstein JL
    5. Hölper S
    6. Piller T
    7. Nogara L
    8. Blaauw B
    9. Günther S
    10. Müller S
    11. Braun T
    12. Krüger M

    (2018) Single Muscle Fiber Proteomics Reveals Distinct Protein Changes in Slow and Fast Fibers during Muscle Atrophy

    Journal of Proteome Research 17:3333–3347.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00093

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Laugesen A
    2. Helin K

    (2014) Chromatin Repressive Complexes in Stem Cells, Development, and Cancer

    Cell Stem Cell 14:735–751.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.05.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Lecker SH
    2. Goldberg AL
    3. Mitch WE

    (2006) Protein degradation by the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway in normal and disease states

    Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 17:1807–1819.

    https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006010083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Li M
    2. Valsakumar V
    3. Poorey K
    4. Bekiranov S
    5. Smith JS

    (2013) Genome-wide analysis of functional sirtuin chromatin targets in yeast

    Genome Biology 14:R48.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-5-r48

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Lin W
    2. Srajer G
    3. Evrard YA
    4. Phan HM
    5. Furuta Y
    6. Dent SYR

    (2007) Developmental potential of Gcn5−/− embryonic stem cells in vivo and in vitro

    Developmental Dynamics 236:1547–1557.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.21160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Masse S
    2. Sevaptsidis E
    3. Parson ID
    4. Downar E

    (1991) A Three‐Dimensional Display for Cardiac Activation Mapping

    Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 14:538–545.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1991.tb02826.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. McCann TS
    2. Tansey WP

    (2014) Functions of the proteasome on chromatin

    Biomolecules 4:1026–1044.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biom4041026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Medvedeva YA
    2. Lennartsson A
    3. Ehsani R
    4. Kulakovskiy IV
    5. Vorontsov IE
    6. Panahandeh P
    7. Khimulya G
    8. Kasukawa T
    9. FANTOM Consortium
    10. Drabløs F

    (2015) EpiFactors: A comprehensive database of human epigenetic factors and complexes

    Database 2015:bav067.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bav067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Mei Z
    2. Zhang X
    3. Yi J
    4. Huang J
    5. He J
    6. Tao Y

    (2016) Sirtuins in metabolism, DNA repair and cancer

    Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 35:1–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-016-0461-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Murabito JM
    2. Yuan R
    3. Lunetta KL

    (2012) The Search for Longevity and Healthy Aging Genes: Insights From Epidemiological Studies and Samples of Long-Lived Individuals

    The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 67:470–479.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls089

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Murgia M
    2. Toniolo L
    3. Nagaraj N
    4. Ciciliot S
    5. Vindigni V
    6. Schiaffino S
    7. Reggiani C
    8. Mann M

    (2017) Single Muscle Fiber Proteomics Reveals Fiber-Type-Specific Features of Human Muscle Aging

    Cell Reports 19:2396–2409.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.05.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Oberdoerffer P
    2. Sinclair DA

    (2007) The role of nuclear architecture in genomic instability and ageing

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 8:692–702.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Oliviero G
    2. Brien GL
    3. Waston A
    4. Streubel G
    5. Jerman E
    6. Andrews D
    7. Doyle B
    8. Munawar N
    9. Wynne K
    10. Crean J
    11. Bracken AP
    12. Cagney G

    (2016) Dynamic protein interactions of the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 during differentiation of pluripotent cells

    Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 15:3450–3460.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M116.062240

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Petropoulos I
    2. Conconi M
    3. Wang X
    4. Hoenel B
    5. Bregegere F
    6. Milner Y
    7. Friguet B

    (2000) Increase of Oxidatively Modified Protein Is Associated With a Decrease of Proteasome Activity and Content in Aging Epidermal Cells

    The Journals of Gerontology Series A 55:B220–B227.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/55.5.B220

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Phifer-Rixey M
    2. Nachman MW

    (2015) Insights into mammalian biology from the wild house mouse Mus musculus

    eLife 4:e05959.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05959

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Postnikoff SDL
    2. Harkness TAA

    (2012) Mechanistic insights into aging, cell-cycle progression, and stress response

    Frontiers in Physiology 3:183.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00183

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Rajendran R
    2. Garva R
    3. Krstic-Demonacos M
    4. Demonacos C

    (2011) Sirtuins: Molecular traffic lights in the crossroad of oxidative stress, chromatin remodeling, and transcription

    Journal of Biomedicine & Biotechnology 2011:368276.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/368276

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Rappsilber J
    2. Ishihama Y
    3. Mann M

    (2003) Stop and Go Extraction Tips for Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization, Nanoelectrospray, and LC/MS Sample Pretreatment in Proteomics

    Analytical Chemistry 75:663–670.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/ac026117i

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Saez I
    2. Vilchez D

    (2014) The Mechanistic Links Between Proteasome Activity, Aging and Agerelated Diseases

    Current Genomics 15:38–51.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/138920291501140306113344

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Saksouk N
    2. Simboeck E
    3. Déjardin J
    4. Song I
    5. Sullivan B
    6. Plotnikova O

    (2015) Constitutive heterochromatin formation and transcription in mammals

    Epigenetics & Chromatin 8:3.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8935-8-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Santos AL
    2. Lindner AB

    (2017) Protein Posttranslational Modifications: Roles in Aging and Age-Related Disease

    Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2017:5716409.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5716409

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Schmidt M
    2. Finley D

    (2014) Regulation of proteasome activity in health and disease

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research 1843:13–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.08.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Sengupta P

    (2013)

    The Laboratory Rat: Relating Its Age With Human’s

    International Journal of Preventive Medicine 4:624–630.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Shavlakadze T
    2. Morris M
    3. Fang J
    4. Wang SX
    5. Zhu J
    6. Zhou W
    7. Tse HW
    8. Mondragon-Gonzalez R
    9. Roma G
    10. Glass DJ

    (2019) Age-Related Gene Expression Signature in Rats Demonstrate Early, Late, and Linear Transcriptional Changes from Multiple Tissues

    Cell Reports 28:3263–3273.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.08.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Shoji H
    2. Takao K
    3. Hattori S
    4. Miyakawa T

    (2016) Age-related changes in behavior in C57BL/6J mice from young adulthood to middle age

    Molecular Brain 9:11.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-016-0191-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Shoji H
    2. Miyakawa T

    (2019) Age‐related behavioral changes from young to old age in male mice of a C57BL/6J strain maintained under a genetic stability program

    Neuropsychopharmacology Reports 39:100–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.12052

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Signolet J
    2. Hendrich B

    (2015) The function of chromatin modifiers in lineage commitment and cell fate specification

    The FEBS Journal 282:1692–1702.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Silva JC
    2. Gorenstein MV
    3. Li GZ
    4. Vissers JPC
    5. Geromanos SJ

    (2006) Absolute Quantification of Proteins by LCMS E

    Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 5:144–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M500230-MCP200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Spruijt CG
    2. Luijsterburg MS
    3. Menafra R
    4. Lindeboom RGH
    5. Jansen PWTC
    6. Edupuganti RR
    7. Baltissen MP
    8. Wiegant WW
    9. Voelker-Albert MC
    10. Matarese F
    11. Mensinga A
    12. Poser I
    13. Vos HR
    14. Stunnenberg HG
    15. van Attikum H
    16. Vermeulen M

    (2016) ZMYND8 Co-localizes with NuRD on Target Genes and Regulates Poly(ADP-Ribose)-Dependent Recruitment of GATAD2A/NuRD to Sites of DNA Damage

    Cell Reports 17:783–798.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Streubel G
    2. Fitzpatrick DJ
    3. Oliviero G
    4. Scelfo A
    5. Moran B
    6. Das S
    7. Munawar N
    8. Watson A
    9. Wynne K
    10. Negri GL
    11. Dillon ET
    12. Jammula S
    13. Hokamp K
    14. O’Connor DP
    15. Pasini D
    16. Cagney G
    17. Bracken AP

    (2017) Fam60a defines a variant Sin3a-Hdac complex in embryonic stem cells required for self-renewal

    The EMBO Journal 36:2216–2232.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201696307

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Szklarczyk D
    2. Franceschini A
    3. Wyder S
    4. Forslund K
    5. Heller D
    6. Huerta-Cepas J
    7. Simonovic M
    8. Roth A
    9. Santos A
    10. Tsafou KP
    11. Kuhn M
    12. Bork P
    13. Jensen LJ
    14. von Mering C

    (2015) STRING v10: protein–protein interaction networks, integrated over the tree of life

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:D447–D452.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Szklarczyk D
    2. Morris JH
    3. Cook H
    4. Kuhn M
    5. Wyder S
    6. Simonovic M
    7. Santos A
    8. Doncheva NT
    9. Roth A
    10. Bork P
    11. Jensen LJ
    12. von Mering C

    (2017) The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein-protein association networks, made broadly accessible

    Nucleic Acids Research 45:D362–D368.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw937

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Tacutu R
    2. Craig T
    3. Budovsky A
    4. Wuttke D
    5. Lehmann G
    6. Taranukha D
    7. Costa J
    8. Fraifeld VE
    9. de Magalhães JP

    (2013) Human Ageing Genomic Resources: Integrated databases and tools for the biology and genetics of ageing

    Nucleic Acids Research 41:D1027–D1033.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1155

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Takahashi S
    2. Kobayashi S
    3. Hiratani I

    (2018) Epigenetic differences between naïve and primed pluripotent stem cells

    Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 75:1191–1203.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-017-2703-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Tan JKH
    2. Watanabe T

    (2018) Determinants of postnatal spleen tissue regeneration and organogenesis

    NPJ Regenerative Medicine 3:39.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-018-0039-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Tanaka K

    (2009) The proteasome: overview of structure and functions

    Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B 85:12–36.

    https://doi.org/10.2183/pjab.85.12

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Tobin SC
    2. Kim K

    (2012) Generating pluripotent stem cells: differential epigenetic changes during cellular reprogramming

    FEBS Letters 586:2874–2881.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2012.07.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Turner VM
    2. Mabbott NA

    (2017) Influence of ageing on the microarchitecture of the spleen and lymph nodes

    Biogerontology 18:723–738.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10522-017-9707-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Tvardovskiy A
    2. Schwämmle V
    3. Kempf SJ
    4. Rogowska-Wrzesinska A
    5. Jensen ON

    (2017) Accumulation of histone variant H3.3 with age is associated with profound changes in the histone methylation landscape

    Nucleic Acids Research 45:9272–9289.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx696

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Tyanova S
    2. Temu T
    3. Sinitcyn P
    4. Carlson A
    5. Hein MY
    6. Geiger T
    7. Mann M
    8. Cox J

    (2016) The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of proteomics data

    Nature Methods 13:731–740.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3901

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. van Mierlo G
    2. Wester RA
    3. Marks H

    (2019) A Mass Spectrometry Survey of Chromatin‐Associated Proteins in Pluripotency and Early Lineage Commitment

    Proteomics 19:e1900047.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201900047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Vaquero A

    (2009) The conserved role of sirtuins in chromatin regulation

    The International Journal of Developmental Biology 53:303–322.

    https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.082675av

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Varier RA
    2. Carrillo de Santa Pau E
    3. van der Groep P
    4. Lindeboom RGH
    5. Matarese F
    6. Mensinga A
    7. Smits AH
    8. Edupuganti RR
    9. Baltissen MP
    10. Jansen PWTC
    11. Ter Hoeve N
    12. van Weely DR
    13. Poser I
    14. van Diest PJ
    15. Stunnenberg HG
    16. Vermeulen M

    (2016) Recruitment of the Mammalian Histone-modifying EMSY Complex to Target Genes Is Regulated by ZNF131

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 291:7313–7324.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M115.701227

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Walther DM
    2. Mann M

    (2011) Accurate quantification of more than 4000 mouse tissue proteins reveals minimal proteome changes during aging

    Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 10:M110.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M110.004523

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Xu W
    2. Edmondson DG
    3. Evrard YA
    4. Wakamiya M
    5. Behringer RR
    6. Roth SY

    (2000) Loss of Gcn5l2 leads to increased apoptosis and mesodermal defects during mouse development

    Nature Genetics 26:229–232.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/79973

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Xu Y
    2. Zhang S
    3. Lin S
    4. Guo Y
    5. Deng W
    6. Zhang Y
    7. Xue Y

    (2016)

    OUP accepted manuscript

    Nucleic Acids Research 45:D264–D270.

    • Google Scholar

[Editors' note: this paper was reviewed by Review Commons.]

Reviewer 1

1. The supplementary data was missing, so it is difficult to look at the quality of the data itself.

We apologize for this oversight. We shared with the reviewers the mass spectrometry RAW data deposited on MassIVE:

LINK-1- mESC: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084270/

LINK-2- Tissue Brain Total Lysate: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084279/

LINK-3- Tissue six organs Chromatin Lysate: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084375/

We also attach the large dataset from the ProteinGroup file of our mass spectrometry analysis to the manuscript.

In the supplementary material we updated all the ProteinGroup.file (Proteome Tables) in excel format. They correspond to:

1. Proteome of mouse embryonic stem cell obtained from whole cell lysate and chromatin enriched lysate.

File name: Supplementary material, Table S1

2. Brain proteome whole cell lysate during adult mouse lifespan

File name: Supplementary material, Table S2

3. proteomics of six mouse organs over time

File name: Supplementary material, Table S3

4. Uniquely regulated proteins organ-specific during ageing.

File name: Supplementary material, Table S4

2. Table 2: please remove the sum of all proteins which is not helpful. The combined number (currently in parentheses) is all we need. Please add the number of unique proteins for each organ.

We adjusted Table 2 as suggested.

3. It is interesting that the spleen has less changes over age than other organs. the authors may want to discuss this considering the differences in longevity of cell types.

We agree. We included a more detailed presentation of the spleen results in the manuscript and made this observation more prominent in the abstract, results and Discussion sections.

4. Generally, there is quite a bit of information missing in many figure legends or the figures themselves. Some examples are below. Please check carefully.

Thanks for this important comment. We have revised the legends and figures accordingly.

5. Please provide details about statistical analysis of proteomics data. Was ANOVA used? Was data FDR controlled?

We revised the description of data analysis (material and method section), line 843

The proteome dataset was obtained from organ samples harvested during adult mice lifespans. We focused on proteins that changed in one direction during the ageing of the organ, or linearly throughout the lifespan of the animal. A statistical strategy was applied to detect the most significant chromatin proteome changes associated with ageing. We used rank product tests to identify proteins that exhibited significant abundance changes during ageing (supplementary material, Figure 5, Panel D). We called these “differentially regulated proteins”. Depending on the experiment’s intrinsic data structures and variations, rank product tests was applied (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA119.001777). Significance thresholds were then calculated via a permutation-based false discovery rate using adjusted q-values calculated to correct for multiple testing (-log10 qValue < 0.1 cutoff)

6. I am not aware how Progenesis works. Is there some form of imputation when there are missing values?

We revised the description of data analysis (material and method section):

A combination of Progenesis QI v2.2 (Waters) and Proteome Discoverer v2.1.0.81 was used to estimate the relative protein abundance of protein and peptide using in label-free approach. For a better estimation and comparison of protein expression across different biological conditions, the Progenesis QI v2.2 integrated the MS files according to m/z and retention time features (Peak Peaking Strategy). The outcome increased the reliability and precision of peptide abundance measurements. After a Peak Peaking strategy was applied, no further imputation analysis was performed. The aligned ion intensity map was exported in.pepXml files and imported into Proteome Discoverer v2.1.0.81 (Thermo Scientific) for further protein and peptide identification.

By, Progenesis QI peptide ion abundance was normalised using the default method (Ferguson et al., 2005: "Housekeeping proteins: a preliminary study illustrating some limitations as useful references in protein expression studies", DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200400941). Progenesis QI for proteomics uses ratiometric data in log space, along with a median and mean absolute deviation outlier filtering approach, to calculate the scalar factor. This is a more robust approach, which is less influenced by noise in the data and any biases owing to abundant species, as the absolute values of abundance are disregarded.

7. Please explain better the heatmap/clustering. I assume the data represents z-scores? What are the colours to the right of the heatmaps?

We revised the heatmaps and clustering in Figure 5 and revised the description of data analysis line 848.

Hierarchical heatmap clustering based on Euclidean distance was performed using Perseus software (1.6.0) (100). Z-scores were calculated by subtracting the mean of protein abundance values in all samples and dividing by the deviation.

The colours on the right of side of the heatmaps indicate blue chromatin associated protein, green nuclear protein, and yellow protein associated with other cellular components. Description present in the figure legend.

8. Figure 5c, please provide the individual months in the bar graphs. To what has the data been normalised?

Figure 5c was adjusted following reviewer’s suggestions.

Reviewer 2

1. The link to the "mass spectrometry raw data" just has "XXX" as the location of the data. The processed data table is also not shared; what are the peptide and protein quantifications for every gene at every timepoint? The value of this study is largely because it will serve as a useful reference for future studies, but the data are obscured; figure 5C is the only place we actually see the fold changes across age for any named proteins. Or did I miss this somewhere? I looked through twice as I was surprised such a critical piece of information was missing.

We apologize for this omission.

We share the mass spectrometry RAW data deposited on MassIVE:

LINK-1- mESC: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084270/

LINK-2- Tissue Brain Total Lysate: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084279/

LINK-3- Tissue six organs Chromatin Lysate: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084375/

We also attach the large dataset from the ProteinGroup file of our mass spectrometry analysis to the manuscript.

In the supplementary material we updated all the ProteinGroup.file (Proteome Tables) in excel format. They correspond to:

1. Proteome of mouse embryonic stem cell obtained from whole cell lysate and chromatin enriched lysate.

File name: Supplementary material, Table S1

2. Brain proteome whole cell lysate during adult mouse lifespan

File name: Supplementary material, Table S2

3. Chromatin proteomics of six mouse organs over time

File name: Supplementary material, Table S3

4. Uniquely regulated proteins Organ-specific during ageing.

File name: Supplementary material, Table S4

2. In the introduction, the authors state that "one adult mouse month equivalent to approximately three human years".

At note (2) the reviewer points out the lack of reference in the following sentence from the Introduction paragraph: “Mice have a relatively short lifespan, with one adult mouse month equivalent to approximately three human years”. We agree with the reviewer and we have added the relevant reference.

The two articles from Pallav Sengupta and co-authors attempt to compare rodent and human age at different phases of their life. The precise correlation between the age of laboratory rodents and humans is still a subject of debate. Both articles try to fill this gap between approximation and accuracy, and they suggest a precise relation between murine and human age using multiple assessments central to a comparison of phenotypes and physiology features.

3. Figure 2C – can you also add a histogram for "intersect of all six tissues"? A Venn diagram would be overly complex here but you can use the "UpSetR" R package to make a comprehensible histogram showing overlap. Ok, I wrote this comment before reading the rest of the paper – I see you already did that. I think Figure 4A can already go directly here in Figure 2C? We don't really need to go through the analysis of Figure 3 to get here.

(5) Table 2 and Figure 2C are redundant; just color Figure 2C the same way with the blue/green/yellow and then the ratios will be clear without the need for the table. Table 3 is similarly redundant with Figure 4A.

Reviewer #2 suggested some editing of Figure 2 and Table 2 to avoid redundancy between tables and figures in the manuscript. We thank Reviewer #2 for the advice, but we are also aware that those changes may affect the meaning of Figure 2. We therefore maintain Figure 2 and Table 2 in order to maintain consistency in the manuscript. We rephrased the manuscript text in order to avoid any redundancy or misleading information between Figure 2C and Table2. In the paragraph “Quantitative chromatin proteomics of ageing mouse organs”, Figure 2 showed the overall number of proteins identified across six organs over time, while Table 2 highlighted a more in-depth meaning to Figure 2. Table 2 showed the proteins detected in six mouse organs across time and displayed the number of annotated proteins associated with their subcellular location. Table 2 also showed the number of unique proteins in each organ for each subcellular location, suggesting a difference at the protein level appearing across all organs.

4. Why does Figure 3B only show one square per condition? Is this the average of the three replicates per time? Are these biological replicates in Figure 3A, or technical? (I assume biological, but I don't see it unambiguously stated.)

We adjusted Figure 3 Panel B by introducing the biological replicates per time point in the Pearson correlation coefficients cluster, line: 238. Previously the average of each biological replicate across each time point was included in the analysis. Reviewer #2 pointed out an interesting observation and we adjusted the figure by introducing all the biological replicates for all samples across all time points. We demonstrated reproducibility of each biological replicate and confirmed the robustness of our biochemical and proteomics methodology. We observed that this round of analysis did not differ from the previous analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients Cluster (figure 3B) showed the consistency and reproducibility of analysis of three biological replicates at all time points and revealed distinct organ proteome profiles. We thank Reviewer #2 for the suggestions which improves the quality of Figure 3B.

Notes (6), (7), (8) and (13) from Reviewer #2 focused on the GO term analysis. Notes (6), (7) and (8) corresponded to Figure 4C and note (13) related to Figure 6. We thank Reviewer #2 for the constructive feedback providing useful insights that contributes to the GO term analysis in the manuscript.

6. The authors mention that "the core chromatin proteome contained proteins associated with the major transcriptional/epigenetic chromatin complexes such as…" which I don't doubt, but the way it is presented it could also just be cherry-picking. Please run the protein composition through DAVID to show whether those categories of proteins are enriched. Make sure to also upload a specific "Background" list to DAVID that includes only the proteins measured, as by default it will compare your uploaded list against all genes, which is not accurate for proteomics since the 863 measured proteins are going to be a biased sample. Please do the same thing for every subsequent list of genes that is listed, e.g. the "they included the histone binding protein of the methyltransferase category…" for brain in the following paragraph, spleen in the following paragraph, etc. For each, please include a supplemental table with the genes uploaded for each DAVID analysis as well as the different background list for each analysis. OK, I'm reading sequentially while I write this review, and I see such a GO analysis was done later on the page, but the analysis should be included directly with the first time the list of proteins are mentioned (e.g. lines 280-288 should go directly after line 252).

We re-edited the manuscript in order to avoid any confusion about the GO term analysis performance, line: 835. In the “Material and Method” section, <>.

7. The GO analysis results don't always agree with the earlier text. For instance Figure 4B agrees with the text (i.e. that translation genes are enriched in the common 863), but figure 4C with the brain proteins does not list any methyltransferase or histone deacetylase category-or indeed anything related to translation. Thus it seems from the GO analysis that the genes selected in lines 259-260 were cherry picked rather than representatives of a statistically significant cluster.

In order to investigate a comprehensive functional analysis of the proteomics datasets across all the organs during ageing we applied an UpSetR plot cluster analysis. We first observed a shared proteome, with 863 proteins present across all organs over time (Figure 4, Panel A, Table 3). We labeled the 863 shared proteins as the “Core” proteome. As expected from the overlapping of six proteome organs across time, functional analysis of the “Core” proteome anticipated the presence of categories associated with aging response, such as “response to stress”, “system development”, “cell cycle”, and “regulation of cell death”. Since our strategy was performed in the chromatin and nuclear environment the resulting GO term categories matched with chromatin cellular environments, such as “nucleosome assembly”, “chromatin remodeling”, and “covalent chromatin modification”.

From UpSetR plot cluster analysis (Figure 4A) we observed that relatively large numbers of unique proteins in each organ likely reflected the inherent features of the individual organs and the diversity of cell types and physiology.

As we observed in previous analysis the largest proteomes were observed in mouse brains (3110) and spleens (3125). Consequently, the two organs exhibited a large number of unique proteins suggesting a distinctive chromatin proteome profile. As expected, due to the chromatin enrichment, we listed the unique epigenetic enzymes relative to brain and spleen. We detected protein associated with transcriptional gene regulation, included histone binding protein of the methyltransferase enzymes and several epigenetic complexes.

8. * "We observed distinctive organ-specific categories, "age-classes and age-development" and categories that reflected their organ source". OK, certainly proteins like "nervous system development" are clearly brain related and "liver development" clearly liver related, so it's nice that those categories are enriched but this isn't really very interesting… it just means the samples are not mislabeled. Regarding the more interesting distinctive "age-classes" and "agedevelopment" that I do not see. What are the "age-classes"? And "age-development" seems vague. True developmental genes will not be especially important at any timepoint the authors' selected, as the first age selected (3 months) is already full adulthood and beyond puberty.

We rephrased this sentence, line 314:

We observed distinctive organ-specific categories (“age-classes and age-development”) and categories that reflected their organ source (Figure 4, Panel C). For instance, unique Go term categories were associated with each organ:

• “Nervous system development” and “chemical synaptic transmission” related to the brain;

• “Cardiac myofibril assembly” and “adult heart development” were attributed to the heart;

• “Steroid metabolic process” and “liver development” were distinctive to the liver;

• “Transport” and “sodium ion transport” categories related to the kidney, and;

• “Angiogenesis” and “respiratory gaseous exchange” were present in the lung.

These results confirmed that many proteins found in individual organs are likely to confer organspecific functions (Figure 4, Panel C). Our strategy showed that a robust enrichment of the chromatin-associated protein in mouse organs was obtained by using GO term analysis.

We reported a significant enrichment of annotated categories listed as age-related, including a large class of molecular features associated with the “core” chromatin environment present in all organs. Our analyses ensured the success of our strategy and confirmed the hypothesis that mammalian organs have ageing-dependent signatures and unique chromatin-associated proteins.

9. * In Figure 5B, the authors find a number of genes that change with age and that are mostly tissue-specific. That's fine, but due to the relatively small sample size and unique tissue signatures, it is hard to be confident in really any of these findings. The authors findings would benefit tremendously with a meta-analysis. For instance, David Glass's lab has a 2019 transcriptional study on liver and kidney gene expression across aging in a conceptually similar study; the hits should be compared. (They also checked hippocampus and skeletal muscle, which may be a worse comparison with brain and heart-but possibly worth checking anyway.) PMID 31533046. This is mRNA and in rats, so much may be different, but when there are overlapping results, that would raise confidence. There are other conceptually-similar studies to compare to as well; off the top of my head there is a 2011 Matthias Mann paper (PMC3033683) that looks at proteome in heart, kidney, and brain. It does not have as many timepoints as yours or the Glass paper, but in other ways is similar.

Glass and Co-authors (PMID 31533046) produced a multi-time point age-related gene expression signature (AGES) from liver, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hippocampus from rats, comparing 6, 9, 12, 18, 21, 24, and 27month old animals. Glass and Co-authors focus on genes that changed in one direction throughout the lifespan of the animal, either early in life (early logistic changes), at middle-age (mid-logistic), late in life (late logistic), or linearly throughout the lifespan of the animal.

The overlap between our proteomic strategy and the transcriptome analysis from Glass and Coauthors may reveal a universal aging signature across mammalians, more specifically across murine. However, there are substantial differences between our strategy and Glass and Coauthors’ approach which may need to be discussed before any meta-analysis is carried out.

Glass and Co-authors used a different murine ageing model in the rat. Rats were chosen because previously studies showed that rats are an excellent model for sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of skeletal muscle. However, no mention of rat gender was described in the article. Our ageing model was male mouse C57BL/6J. There is extensive literature documenting the moderating effects of healthy aging and gender on cognition in humans (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181676/) and aging-related gender differences at a bio-psycho-social level (https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/323154). It may be risky to compare data through meta-analysis if the animal models have different genders.

Another critical point is the lack of overlapping between the murine lifespans. Glass and Coauthors harvested organs from 6, 9, 12, 18, 21, 24, and 27 month old animals, which corresponds to middle‐aged, mature adult and old adult mice. We expected a drastic change near where mortality occurs. Our strategy does not completely overlap with the Glass and Coauthors’ rodent lifespan analysis, as only 3 out of the 7 time points are related between the two studies. To exclude any age-related changes due to the alteration of social behavior, including physical characteristics such as motor function and locomotor activity affecting the in vivo dynamics of chromatin changes during ageing, we exclude from our analysis late-stage adult mice in the 18‐24 month old age bracket. Our strategy monitors changes in the chromatinenriched proteomes of mouse organs over a time course that mimics adult development and ageing, from early adult stage upper to middle-aged adult, excluding the stages of lifespan where mortality occurs.

Lastly, Glass and Co-authors’ transcriptome analysis was measured using RNA sequencing technology. The RNA libraries were prepared using the Illumina TruSeq. For this reason, we do not know how large the RNA libraries are, how many gene were included in the custom library, or how many gene readings were performed. The custom gene library may lack of chromatin or nuclear proteins, thus limitation of the meta-analysis may occur during the comparison with our enriched chromatin study.

We found the suggestion from Reviewer #2 extremely interesting. The manuscript certainly contains a good meta-analysis. In the paragraph beginning “Distinct organ ageing profiles are defined by unique protein expression patterns”, line 391, we showed a consistent overlapping between our analysis and a series of human protein biomarker candidates for ageing obtained from the “Human Ageing Genomic Resources” and “GenAge machine learning databank” (supplementary material Figure 5, Panel F) (50) (51). In the brain protein IREB2 is associated with Alzheimer’s disease, whereas the brain protein MAOB is associated with both Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. The heart proteins ADD3, PTGIS and COL1A2 are candidates for hypertension and myocardial infarction. The liver proteins INSR, PTPN1 and ENPP1 are associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 and obesity. Lung protein CYP2E1 is related to lung adenocarcinoma and MMP9 is associated with lung neoplasms. In the spleen, the KLK1 protein is a biomarker candidate for hypertension (supplementary material Figure 5, Panel F). In summary, we observed how differentially regulated proteins changed in mice during ageing just like those found in humans.

We inserted the Reviewer #2 suggestion in the discussion, line: 663

10. * Generally, there are a lot of examples picked out for which it is impossible to determine the significance. The authors mention (line 342) that HDAC2 is downregulated in liver and that GATA2AD and TRIM28 are upregulated in kidney. Certainly this could be accurate and mechanistically meaningful, but there are a lot of genes here, we will see a lot of patterns coincidentally. No significance is shown on any of these plots. Based on the fold changes and error bars it looks like it's probably significant, but there's also a ton of multiple testing going on here, which is of course a common issue in exploratory omics analysis. Same concern for the "Reader" enzymes being upregulated in brain and others downregulated in liver. Is this noise? When you do have proteins that are significant in more than one tissue, what's the probability they go in tandem versus opposite? Is it 50/50?

Temporal analysis of the overall dataset, to quantify the protein expressions profile changes during ageing, was performed based on a rank product test. Adjusted q-values were calculated to correct for multiple testing (-log10 qValue < 0.1 cutoff). We used an original approach based on a PolySTest analysis (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA119.001777) from Veit Schwämmle and Co-authors were they developed a robust statistical toolbox to improve coverage and depth of large-scale proteomics analysis.

Regarding Figure 5, we observed protein belong to the same chromatin remodeling complex changed expression. For instance, "Reader" enzymes being upregulated in brain and others downregulated in liver. Recently, studies shown the alteration of chromatin complex assembly is largely dynamic. Depending to the cell fate state content the architecture of the chromatin remodelling complex is largely affected. This may explained why "Reader" enzymes being upregulated in brain (Glyr1, Baz1b) and others downregulated in liver (Dpf2, Brd2, Chd2). Also, another reason may the content of the tissue morphology and the diverse “reader” behavior to regulate the gene expression in different cellular contexts.

This result is consistent with the highly dynamic nature of chromatin remodelling complexes. Some protein subunits are only present in a complex at distinct time-points to provide a unique function or feature.

We address the Reviewer #2 suggestion in the manuscript line: 380. We also suggested relevant literature about the alteration of chromatin remodelling assembly

References

Dynamic Protein Interactions of the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 during Differentiation of Pluripotent Cells: doi: 10.1074/mcp.M116.062240

Dynamic Competition of Polycomb and Trithorax in Transcriptional Programming doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-120219-103641

A Family of Vertebrate-Specific Polycombs Encoded by the LCOR/LCORL Genes Balance PRC2 Subtype Activities doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.03.005

11. ** The shape of the volcano plot in Supplemental Figure 5D – an almost perfect U – indicates a rather aggressive normalization procedure that almost ties fold change to p-value. This is maybe unavoidable, but it's not ideal. The log2 fold changes are also very large – log2FCs of -5 and +7? So some proteins are upregulated 128-fold in the spleen across age? In general the log2FCs here are far larger than I've seen in any study. For instance, the Mann paper above (PMC3033683) finds only 1% of proteins that change by more than 2-fold between 5 and 26 months. My own studies (although not on aging) also find far smaller fold changes. I don't think I've ever seen a fold change of larger than 2³ unless the starting value was so low as to be essentially noise. That would be also my concern here; are the FCs that are like 2⁸ changing from say, 0.01 to 1.0? The aggressive normalization would do this kind of distortion. In my experience normally the very large FCs also have relatively low p-values for that exact reason.

While mouse strains should provide the lowest variance out of all appropriate model animals, often the variance between them is not as low as expected. Also, to avoid any strong bias towards both mouse organ and ageing, each organ has been normalised independently (supplementary figure S4, boxplot analysis)

Due to high complexity of the in vivo model we applied a powerful statistical tool using an original approach based on a PolySTest analysis (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA119.001777). PolySTest is a robust statistical toolbox to improve coverage and depth of large-scale proteomics analysis based on large numbers of different variables.

Temporal analysis of the overall dataset able to quantify the protein expressions profile changes during ageing was performed based on a rank product test. Adjusted q-values were calculated to correct for multiple testing (-log10 qValue < 0.1 cutoff).

The proteome dataset was obtained from organ samples harvested during adult mice lifespans. We focused on proteins that changed in one direction during the ageing of the organ, or linearly throughout the lifespan of the animal. We applied a novel statistical strategy to detect the most significant chromatin proteome changes associated with ageing. We used rank product tests to identify proteins that exhibited significant abundance changes during ageing (supplementary material, Figure 5, Panel D). We called these “differentially regulated proteins”.

We attached on supplementary material Figure S4 the brain chromatin enrichment undergo PolySTest analysis. We observed how the PolySTest analysis help our data interpretation and provide a robust strategy to identified significant and differentially regulated proteins over time.

12. * Are the tissues normalized together, or each separately? It does not seem like the values are ever directly compared, in which case normalizing separately would probably be better due to the relative paucity of common proteins across all six tissues, but I could see an argument made for either case. In the volcano plot for liver in Supplemental Figure 5D, why is the volcano not centered on FC=0? It is shifted dramatically to the right; this looks like a mistake in the drawing as the significance for minus log2FC starts at like FC=2¹ (red), but for positive log2FC it is only significant at like FC=2⁴ which doesn't make sense for the U shape.

The proteome dataset was obtained from organ samples harvested during adult mice lifespans. We focused on proteins that changed in one direction during the ageing of the organ, or linearly throughout the lifespan of the animal. A statistical strategy was applied to detect the most significant chromatin proteome changes associated with ageing.

First, to avoid any strong bias towards both mouse organ and ageing, each organ has been normalised separately (supplementary figure S4, boxplot analysis)

Subsequently, we used rank product tests to identify proteins that exhibited significant abundance changes during ageing (supplementary material, Figure 5, Panel D). We called these “differentially regulated proteins”.

Depending on the experiment’s intrinsic data structures and variations, rank product tests indicated where performance was required to improve in a complementary manner (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA119.001777). An example of this is where we showed a comparison of protein expression profiles in a mouse brain aged from 3 to 15 months using different statistical tests. By maintaining the same threshold cut-off across all tests, a different “V” Volcano shape was observed. We hypothesized the alteration of the canonical “V” shape due to:

a)Large differences in the protein expression profile from young adult mice (3 months) in comparison to “upper middle-aged” mice (15 months), possibly due to the label-free strategy;

b)The intrinsic biological differences present in the organ; for example, the large and different morphology and cell type compositions.

To avoid any strong bias towards both mouse organ and ageing, the rank product test method was selected. In common with Rainer Breitling and Co-author (DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.07.055), we observed that the rank product test performed well for our proteome strategy and it identified significant biological feature changes during time. Subsequently, we performed the same statistical analysis for the rest of the organs. We recommend the use of the PolySTest tool for future proteome analysis with a large number of variables. PolySTest tool is a free statistical analysis platform available on:

http://computproteomics.bmb.sdu.dk:8192/app_direct/PolySTest/

13. * Near line 381, the authors mention that" the highest unique changes were observed in brain, heart and kidney organs relative to.… "development/ageing"", but not for lung, liver, and spleen (I thought the authors said they removed spleen from future analyses in line 330 so I am surprised to see it in Figure 6, but I digress). What is this annotation of "gene expression" "ageing/development" etc from? Is it the authors or from GO? I have not seen it clustered like that in DAVID, but maybe it is a new feature. In any case, the categorization seems somewhat strange to me. For instance, "cellular respiration" is listed as "ageing / development" – but cellular respiration is involved in basically everything from "cellular metabolic process" to "gene expression" and more. This is even more confusing when "ATP metabolic process" is listed as "cellular metabolic process" but "cellular respiration" is listed as "ageing/development". Why would "ATP metabolic process" be separate from "cellular respiration"? I know these are not exactly the same, but they are so similar I would certainly cluster them together in terms of basic ontological function. Why is "heart contraction" listed as an "ageing/development" function? Some processes in "ageing/development" make sense (e.g. "double-strand break repair") but the four broad ontologies seem largely arbitrary.

We rephrased the sentence, Line 415:

“We reported a high proportion of uniquely annotated categories relative to each organ. For instance, the highest unique changes observed in the brain were relative to “gene expression”, “ageing/development”, and “structure organization and biogenesis”; in the heart and kidney significant changes were observed relative to “structure organization and biogenesis”; the liver showed changes across the “gene expression” and “structure organization and biogenesis” categories; the lung showed the highest unique changes in the “ageing/development” category, and; relative changes in the spleen were detected at the “gene expression” level”

Reviewer #2 pointed out that the four broad ontology groups in Figure 6 are largely arbitrary. In the paragraph “Functional analysis of ageing organ chromatin-enriched proteomes”, we applied an extensive Gene Ontology (GO) analysis to characterize the overall common and unique pathways differentially regulated during ageing across all the organs.

From Figure 5B we first extrapolated the “unique differentially regulated proteins” in each organ. Subsequently, we applied Gene Ontology (GO) analysis across all the “unique differentially regulated proteins” to list the overall common trends and processes being differentially regulated during ageing across all the organs. We sorted the annotated categories by their relative GO term category and separated them by their main family source.

Several pathways were observed to change the chromatin conformation induced by stress responses affected by ageing. We also detected categories associated with modification of the cell structure environment due to organ development. By listing each single category, we described a comprehensive biological profile and listed the main common pathways affected by age-responses present in all organs and related to differentially expressed proteins (Figure 6).

In line with the previous GO analysis (Figure 4B and 4C) we observed the most significant categories changed in chromatin conformation and cell development induced by stress responses affected by ageing. Therefore, we largely sorted four constitutive parts and labeled them as “Gene Expression”, “Ageing / Development”, “Cellular metabolic process”, and “Structure organization and biogenesis” to create a comprehensive cell biology profile during ageing for all organs. Subsequently, the differentially regulated proteins were sorted by their organ source and subjected to further GO analysis in order to distinguish unique organ pathway responses as distinct to those associated with ageing (Figure 6).

Overall, using GO term analysis we dissected the biology landscape aging-related through adult mouse lifespan. By breaking down common and unique regulated categories we aimed to address new biological avenues not yet assigned to be known as ageing-related pathways and improve gene-annotation enrichment analyses related to chromatin cell environment

15. ** The western blots in Figure 7 are a reasonable approach towards such validation, but without the raw data, I don't know what is exactly expected for each of these genes (although the green and red colors at top give me a clue, they are not precise). Is it expected that RNF20 goes down in the aging brain? This gene is not among those shown in Figure 5C. The upregulation of proteasome genes in kidney is surprising; proteasome normally declines with age. Why were these proteins selected? Did you select other proteins that you did not show because they did not validate? Are these measurements in the exact same tissues as the proteomics? That would be an OK validation but essentially just show that the digestion and mass spectrometry worked, rather than independently showing that these proteins change with age – rather like doing a qPCR to validate an mRNA change in the same samples that you ran RNA-seq. This is nice enough to do and appreciated, but it validates the technology and data measurement rather than the actual biology. Also how many gels am I looking at here? I see bactin and RING1b both at the same location in the brain, so where is the loading control for RING1b? I assume this was correctly done as the westerns look well done, but the authors should show the full gel and/or exact loading control. Similar concerns with all of the other tissues, e.g. SIRT3 and SIRT5 are the same molecular weight, so what was the loading control for those 8 lanes?

Following Reviewer #2’s Note (15), we have taken the comments on board to improve and clarify the manuscript. Figure 7 attempted to confirm independently, by a semi-quantitative approach (western blotting), the observations noted in our wider dataset, specifically the unique co-expression network generated. We looked in more detail at the most significant organspecific up-regulated and down-regulated biological processes during mouse ageing.

To avoid cherry-picking in the validation, we divided our strategy into two parts:

• Part A: We used a STRING database to investigate the protein/protein interaction (PPI) of chromatin associated proteins belonging to the most significant regulated organ-specific pathways (up-regulated and down-regulated) changes during mouse ageing;

• Part B: Integrating protein/protein interaction data with the quantitative protein expression profile.

By integrating protein/protein interactions and protein expression we derived co-interaction and co-expression networks to improve our understanding of the biological mechanisms involved in ageing. We attempted to confirm independently, by immunoblotting, the observations noted in our wider dataset, specifically the co-expression network (Figure 7, Panel B). We then attempted to validate the most significant organ-specific biological processes that are regulated during mouse ageing, particularly at the chromatin level, as we hypothesized that changes in protein expression affects each organ in a distinct manner.

We validated the protein up-regulation changes in the brain, heart, and kidney and conversely the down-regulation changes in the liver and kidney. As we explained in the manuscript, the spleen was not validated as only a few differentially expressed proteins were observed there, and they did not allow for useful GO and protein network analysis. In Figure 7B the biochemical validation of four proteins module responses to ageing were analyzed. Chromatin lysates (from the brain, heart, liver, and kidney) were immunoblotted with the indicated antibodies. Loading controls were used for the proper interpretation of the western blot results. Β-actin and Histone H3 confirmed that protein loading was the same across the samples during ageing.

To compare the trend change (up-regulated and down-regulated) in all four-protein modules further control validations were applied. We probed proteins which exhibited either smaller expression changes or opposite trends. For example, in the brain module, the RNF20 antibody was probe for antagonists in the up-regulation trend. RIG1B showed only minor protein expression changes. The same loading strategy was used with the rest of the organ modules. A useful tool for the analysis of all four protein modules was the integration of quantitative data: a bar above the blots corresponding to the quantitative protein expression levels determined in our proteomics experiments over time (green for up-regulated and red for down-regulated).

Reviewer 3

1. Regarding the preparation methods, I think it would be more accurate to label the proteome samples as "nuclear proteome" instead of "chromatin-enriched proteome".

We agree that the discrimination between nuclear and chromatin compartments is relatively small. This is in part due to the lack of protein databank cell localization data for the chromatin compartment. We demonstrate that our protein isolation protocol successfully enriches for chromatin. In Figure 1A, we demonstrated that the polycomb protein SUZ12 was detected in the chromatin enriched fraction but not in the nuclear fraction. In chromatin fractions isolated from mESC cells we demonstrated that many known chromatin-associated protein complexes (such as Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2), Nucleosome Remodeling and Deacetylase (NuRD), BRAF-HDAC complex (BHC), and mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) complex) were detected by mass spectrometry (Figure 1B). In the mouse brain we showed, using this protocol, that the chromatin marker histone H3 was present in the chromatin enriched fractions while the cytosolic marker GAPDH was reduced (Supplementary material, S2). We determined that these fractions, while they contained many nuclear components, are enriched chromatin-associated proteins in comparison to total brain lysate. The dynamic range plot was used to visualize the mESC chromatin fraction which was highly enriched for chromatin-associated proteins as compared to the whole cell lysate (Figure 1, panels B and C).

In conclusion we demonstrated that the chromatin enrichment protocol used for mESCs is applicable to mouse organs as shown in Supplementary Material Figure 2.

References

Sanders et al. 1978 (Sanders 1978)- original salt extraction protocol

Henikoff et al. 2009 (Henikoff et al. 2009)- updates the Sanders protocol and describes isolating different types of chromatin (and the associated proteins, but the focus is on the chromatin itself).

Teves & Henikoff 2012 (Teves and Henikoff 2012)- details the protocol used in their 2009 paper.

Herrmann et al. 2017 (Herrmann et al. 2017)- details a protocol focused on the isolation of chromatin-associated proteins from total chromatin (as opposed to isolating different types of chromatin).

2. Line 183: 15 months of age is not an old mouse and the time points do not actually probe the lifespan of a mouse. However, the selection of the time points is rational, and also justified in the changes that can be observed. It might be good to point out that the time point of 15 months is in mid-life before mortality begins to diminish a population.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We agree that 15 months represents the upper middle age rather than old age in mice. As the reviewer mentioned, after this time point mortality begins to diminish in the population and it is challenging to harvest enough mice for analysis after this time point. However, we do observe distinct ageing profiles across organs for the time points examined in our study which suggests that this time point is sufficient to observe age related changes. We revised the text in the section “Quantitative chromatin proteomics of ageing mouse organs” to make this more clear.

3. The nuclear enrichment ranges from 30% to 65% across tissues. It would be important to discuss how this difference might affect comparisons.

We thank the reviewer for sharing this observation. Differences in nuclear and chromatin enrichment across tissues are an important consideration. We added a sentence in the section “Quantitative chromatin proteomics of ageing mouse organs”, line 208 to discuss how the difference in enrichment ranges might affect the organ comparison.

4. In Lines 238 and below: for a better understanding of the experiment […]

We thank the reviewer for their helpful suggestion. We changed the section title to “Quantitative proteomics define biological changes in the ageing process” for a better overall meaning of the paragraph.

5. Table 3 it is not clear

We revised the text to convey the concept: line 253

To define ageing signatures across mouse lifespan in each organ, we performed a comprehensive functional analysis of the proteomics datasets using an UpSetR plot to investigate ageing markers.

To gather more information from the UpSetR plot, we retrieve the dataset to estimate the amount of protein shared or not in all mouse organs over time through to their cell compartments. In line with our results Spleen and Brain showed the highest number of unique chromatin associated protein. We also estimated a large number of proteins found in individual organs are likely to confer organ-specific functions.

6. With the collection of nuclear extracts from the various organs, the study results might be confounded by tissue heterogeneity and temporal changes in organ composition. At baseline, what are potential contributions from the various cell type in the organs? Considering the many cell types contributing, for example, to brain extracts, how should the results be interpreted for neurons, glia, etc.? What is the contribution of blood and blood vessels and immune cells? Finally, their relative contribution is likely to change with age, as for example inflammation increases with time. It would be great if the authors could discuss this in the manuscript.

We agree that our results observed in bulk tissues might not be reflective of the alteration of the chromatin landscape at the singular cell level. We address this in line 696.

We are aware that the nuclear and chromatin proteome analysis from the various organs may not be reflective of the overall cellular heterogeneity compositions of the tissues. Chromatin enrichment was, however, observed among each tissue demonstrating the high reproducibly and reliability of the experimental approach, with a coefficient variation estimated at less than 10% across all the samples.

Author details

1. Giorgio Oliviero

   Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and VILLUM Center for Bioanalytical Sciences. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

   Present address

   Systems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Sergey Kovalchuk

   Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and VILLUM Center for Bioanalytical Sciences. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Adelina Rogowska-Wrzesinska

   Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and VILLUM Center for Bioanalytical Sciences. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9876-0061

4. Veit Schwämmle

   Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and VILLUM Center for Bioanalytical Sciences. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Ole N Jensen

   Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and VILLUM Center for Bioanalytical Sciences. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   jenseno@bmb.sdu.dk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1862-8528

• 1,594

  Page views

• 223

  Downloads

• 6

  Citations

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