Abstract

Cohesin and CTCF are major drivers of 3D genome organization, but their role in neurons is still emerging. Here we show a prominent role for cohesin in the expression of genes that facilitate neuronal maturation and homeostasis. Unexpectedly, we observed two major classes of activity-regulated genes with distinct reliance on cohesin in mouse primary cortical neurons. Immediate early genes remained fully inducible by KCl and BDNF, and short-range enhancer-promoter contacts at the Immediate early gene Fos formed robustly in the absence of cohesin. In contrast, cohesin was required for full expression of a subset of secondary response genes characterised by long-range chromatin contacts. Cohesin-dependence of constitutive neuronal genes with key functions in synaptic transmission and neurotransmitter signaling also scaled with chromatin loop length. Our data demonstrate that key genes required for the maturation and activation of primary cortical neurons depend on cohesin for their full expression, and that the degree to which these genes rely on cohesin scales with the genomic distance traversed by their chromatin contacts.

Data availability

RNAseq and 5C data generated in this study have been deposited at Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE172429

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lesly Calderon

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5253-7369
  2. Felix D Weiss

    Institute of Innate Immunity, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jonathan A Beagan

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Marta S Oliveira

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Radina Georgieva

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yi-Fang Wang

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thomas S Carroll

    Bioinformatics Resouce Center, Rockefeller University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gopuraja Dharmalingam

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Wanfeng Gong

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Kyoko Tossell

    Institute of Clinical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Vincenzo de Paola

    Institute of Clinical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Chad Whilding

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Mark A Ungless

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Amanda G Fisher

    MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    jcremins@seas.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Matthias Merkenschlager

    Institute of Clinical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    matthias.merkenschlager@lms.mrc.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2889-3288

Funding

Medical Research Council

  • Matthias Merkenschlager

Wellcome Trust (099276/Z/12/Z)

  • Matthias Merkenschlager

European Molecular Biology Organization (ALTF 1047-2012)

  • Lesly Calderon

Human Frontiers in Science Program (LT00427/2013)

  • Lesly Calderon

National Institutes of Health (1R01-MH120269)

  • Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins

National Institutes of Health (1DP1OD031253)

  • Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins

National Institutes of Health (1R01-NS114226)

  • Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins

4D Nucleome Common Fund (1U01DK127405)

  • Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Laboratory bred mice of the appropriate genotype were maintained under SPF conditions and 12h light/dark cycle. Embryos were used to derive cells and tissues. Ethical approval was granted by the Home Office, UK, and the Imperial College London Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeremy J Day, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: February 24, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: December 20, 2021
  3. Accepted: April 26, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 26, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 13, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Calderon 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

  • 2,948
    Page views
  • 510
    Downloads
  • 22
    Citations

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

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. Lesly Calderon
  2. Felix D Weiss
  3. Jonathan A Beagan
  4. Marta S Oliveira
  5. Radina Georgieva
  6. Yi-Fang Wang
  7. Thomas S Carroll
  8. Gopuraja Dharmalingam
  9. Wanfeng Gong
  10. Kyoko Tossell
  11. Vincenzo de Paola
  12. Chad Whilding
  13. Mark A Ungless
  14. Amanda G Fisher
  15. Jennifer E Phillips-Cremins
  16. Matthias Merkenschlager
(2022)
Cohesin-dependence of neuronal gene expression relates to chromatin loop length
eLife 11:e76539.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76539

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Maikel Castellano-Pozo, Georgios Sioutas ... Enrique Martinez-Perez
    Short Report Updated

    The cohesin complex plays essential roles in chromosome segregation, 3D genome organisation, and DNA damage repair through its ability to modify DNA topology. In higher eukaryotes, meiotic chromosome function, and therefore fertility, requires cohesin complexes containing meiosis-specific kleisin subunits: REC8 and RAD21L in mammals and REC-8 and COH-3/4 in Caenorhabditis elegans. How these complexes perform the multiple functions of cohesin during meiosis and whether this involves different modes of DNA binding or dynamic association with chromosomes is poorly understood. Combining time-resolved methods of protein removal with live imaging and exploiting the temporospatial organisation of the C. elegans germline, we show that REC-8 complexes provide sister chromatid cohesion (SCC) and DNA repair, while COH-3/4 complexes control higher-order chromosome structure. High-abundance COH-3/4 complexes associate dynamically with individual chromatids in a manner dependent on cohesin loading (SCC-2) and removal (WAPL-1) factors. In contrast, low-abundance REC-8 complexes associate stably with chromosomes, tethering sister chromatids from S-phase until the meiotic divisions. Our results reveal that kleisin identity determines the function of meiotic cohesin by controlling the mode and regulation of cohesin–DNA association, and are consistent with a model in which SCC and DNA looping are performed by variant cohesin complexes that coexist on chromosomes.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Airat Ibragimov, Xin Yang Bing ... Paul Schedl
    Research Article Updated

    Though long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) represent a substantial fraction of the Pol II transcripts in multicellular animals, only a few have known functions. Here we report that the blocking activity of the Bithorax complex (BX-C) Fub-1 boundary is segmentally regulated by its own lncRNA. The Fub-1 boundary is located between the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) gene and the bxd/pbx regulatory domain, which is responsible for regulating Ubx expression in parasegment PS6/segment A1. Fub-1 consists of two hypersensitive sites, HS1 and HS2. HS1 is an insulator while HS2 functions primarily as an lncRNA promoter. To activate Ubx expression in PS6/A1, enhancers in the bxd/pbx domain must be able to bypass Fub-1 blocking activity. We show that the expression of the Fub-1 lncRNAs in PS6/A1 from the HS2 promoter inactivates Fub-1 insulating activity. Inactivation is due to read-through as the HS2 promoter must be directed toward HS1 to disrupt blocking.