Cells react to changes in their environment by altering gene expression, primarily by regulating transcription of inducible genes. The rate of induction of such genes is a product of enhancer and promoter activity (Vo Ngoc et al., 2017) but can also be influenced by the previous experiences of the cells. A number of genes from yeast, flies, worms, mammals, and plants are more strongly induced following a previous exposure to a stimulus, and this primed state can persist for 4–14 mitotic cell divisions (Brickner et al., 2007; D’Urso et al., 2016; Gialitakis et al., 2010; Lämke and Bäurle, 2017; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010; Maxwell et al., 2014; Pascual-Garcia et al., 2017; Siwek et al., 2020; Sood and Brickner, 2017). Because only a subset of genes induced under a particular condition exhibits memory (Light et al., 2013), this can also result in a qualitative change in the global expression pattern.

Although transcriptional memory in different organisms or for different genes has unique features, several common, conserved mechanisms have been identified. For example, in budding yeast, flies, and mammals, transcriptional memory requires the nuclear pore protein Nup98 (homologous to Nup100 in yeast). This protein physically interacts with the promoters of genes that exhibit memory and loss of Nup98/Nup100 disrupts memory (Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010; Pascual-Garcia et al., 2017). The interaction with Nup98 with chromatin in flies and mammals can occur away from the nuclear pore complex (NPC; Capelson et al., 2010; Kalverda et al., 2010). However, during memory, the interaction of promoters with Nup98/Nup100 in both yeast and flies occurs at the pore.

Transcriptional memory is also associated with local changes in chromatin modifications and chromosome folding. In Drosophila, memory induced by ecdysone involves a long-distance promoter-enhancer interaction that is strengthened/stabilized by Nup98 (Pascual-Garcia et al., 2017). In yeast, plants, and human cells, histone modifications of the promoter are required for memory: histone H3 lysine 4 dimethylation(H3K4me2) is generally associated with memory in yeast and humans (D’Urso et al., 2016; Gialitakis et al., 2010; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010), while in plants, several forms of epigenetic memory are associated with either H3K4me2 or H3K4me3 (Lämke and Bäurle, 2017). In flies and mammals, Nup98 physically interacts with the H3K4 methyltransferases Trx and Set1A/COMPASS, respectively (Franks et al., 2017; Pascual-Garcia et al., 2014). Nup98/Nup100 is required for memory-associated H3K4me2 in yeast and mammals, and conditional inactivation of either COMPASS (the methyltransferase) or SET3C (a histone deacetylase complex that binds H3K4me2; Kim and Buratowski, 2009) leads to rapid loss of memory in yeast (D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010). Likewise, substitution of alanine or arginine for lysine 4 on histone H3 (H3 K4R or K4A) disrupts INO1 transcriptional memory (D’Urso et al., 2016). Importantly, the H3K4me2 during memory in yeast is carried out by a form of COMPASS that lacks the Spp1 subunit (Spp1^- COMPASS), preventing trimethylation (D’Urso et al., 2016).

Finally, transcriptional memory in yeast and mammals leads to binding of a poised RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) pre-initiation complex (PIC; D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010). A similar phenomenon, called RNAPII ‘docking,’ has been reported in Caenorhabditis elegans (Maxwell et al., 2014). Work from yeast suggests that this poised RNAPII PIC is distinct from active RNAPII PIC in two ways. First, it fails to recruit Cdk7 (Kin28 in budding yeast), the kinase that phosphorylates serine 5 on the RNAPII carboxy terminal domain upon initiation (D’Urso et al., 2016). Second, it remains associated with Mediator kinase Cdk8 (Ssn3 in budding yeast; D’Urso et al., 2016). Cdk8 is also associated with poised promoters in HeLa cells (D’Urso et al., 2016) and has been found to regulate initiation (Akoulitchev et al., 2000; Pavri et al., 2005), suggesting that it plays a conserved role in transcriptional poising. Conditional depletion of yeast Ssn3 from the nucleus leads to loss RNAPII binding from the INO1 promoter during memory and a defect in the rate of INO1 reactivation (D’Urso et al., 2016). Therefore, transcriptional memory is a conserved phenomenon that may involve a conserved core mechanism.

The highly inducible budding yeast gene INO1 has served as a model for epigenetic transcriptional memory. INO1 is an essential enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of glucose to myo-inositol for the biosynthesis of phosphatidylinositol. Our current understanding of INO1 memory is summarized in Figure 1A. Repressed INO1 localizes in the nucleoplasm. Upon activation, the gene repositions to the nuclear periphery through interaction with the NPC (Ahmed et al., 2010; Brickner and Walter, 2004; Sumner et al., 2021). Interaction of active INO1 with the NPC requires two transcription factors, Put3 and Cbf1, that bind to the upstream DNA zip codes GRSI and GRSII (Figure 1A; Ahmed et al., 2010; Brickner and Walter, 2004; Randise-Hinchliff et al., 2016). Upon repression, recently repressed INO1 acquires memory-specific chromatin marks, poised RNAPII PIC, and associates with the NPC by another mechanism (Brickner et al., 2007; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010). Whereas nucleosomes in the promoter and 5’ end of active INO1 are hyper-acetylated and show both H3K4me2 and H3K4me3; the nucleosomes at the 5’ end of recently repressed INO1 are hypo-acetylated and show only H3K4me2 (D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013). Also, the histone variant H2A.Z is incorporated into an upstream nucleosome during INO1 memory (Brickner et al., 2007; Light et al., 2010). The interaction with the NPC requires the Sfl1 transcription factor, the memory recruitment sequence (MRS) DNA zip code to which Sfl1 binds, and the nuclear pore protein Nup100 (D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013; Light et al., 2010). Loss of Nup100 or Sfl1, or mutations in the MRS, disrupt INO1 localization to the nuclear periphery, cause loss of H3K4me2, H2A.Z and RNAPII binding, and slow the rate of reactivation of INO1 without affecting repression or activation. INO1 memory, as monitored by gene positioning, histone modification or RNAPII binding, is both maintained in mother cells and inherited to daughter cells through up to four mitotic divisions before being lost (Brickner et al., 2007; D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2010).

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Here we exploited our knowledge of INO1 transcriptional memory to address four critical questions. First, although transcription rates are impacted by memory, how it impacts fitness has not been generally assessed. We find that inositol memory provides a competitive fitness advantage during inositol starvation that is Nup100-, Cdk8-, and H3K4me2-dependent. Second, we assessed the function of H3K4me2 during memory. Sfl1 is required for H3K4 dimethylation, and H3K4me2 is essential for both Sfl1 binding and for RNAPII recruitment during INO1 memory, suggesting that memory involves a chromatin-dependent positive feedback loop. Third, we define ways in which the dimethylation of H3K4 during transcription is different from dimethylation of H3K4 during memory. While transcription-associated H3K4 methylation is RNAPII-dependent, memory-associated H3K4me2 is RNAPII-independent and requires both overlapping and distinct factors. Finally, we explore the molecular mechanism of epigenetic inheritance of INO1 memory. We rule out that protein production during inositol starvation promotes memory and instead highlight the critical role of heritable H3K4me2. Although establishing H3K4me2 during memory requires Sfl1, once established, H3K4me2 is maintained and inherited through ~4 cell divisions in the absence of Sfl1. A putative reader of H3K4me2 (SET3C) that is essential for this inheritance physically interacts with the writer of H3K4me2 (COMPASS), suggesting a molecular mechanism by which H3K4me2 is inherited during DNA replication. This work provides a compelling example of a heritable histone modification that stimulates future transcription and is inherited over a shorter timescale than other heritable histone modifications like H3K9 or H3K27 methylation.

Epigenetic phenomena result in heritable changes in phenotype without changes in DNA sequence (Nanney, 1958; Waddington, 2012). The classic examples are stable states, metastable states, or regulated switches in state. Stable states include transcriptionally silent subtelomeric, pericentromeric regions, or mating type loci (Gartenberg and Smith, 2016; Holoch and Moazed, 2015; Zofall and Grewal, 2006). Metastable states include colony morphology switching in microbes (Klar et al., 2001; Slutsky et al., 1987) and position effect variegation in animals (Elgin and Reuter, 2013). Stable switching of transcriptional states occurs during development, such as silencing of the mammalian X chromosome or establishment of the gene expression programs required for differentiation (Campos et al., 2014; Galupa and Heard, 2018; Gibney and Nolan, 2010; Tee and Reinberg, 2014). Such phenomena often require histone modifications, sometimes called epigenetic marks. However, histone modifications are generally regulated by sequence-specific DNA binding proteins that interact with cis-acting, genetically encoded DNA elements (Holoch et al., 2021; Holoch and Moazed, 2015; Laprell et al., 2017). Thus, signal transduction that alters the activity of a TF can produce a heritable change in phenotype that requires histone modifications without the histone modification itself being heritable. Unlike DNA methylation, in which the methyl marks retained on one strand after replication serve to stimulate methylation of the other (Edwards et al., 2017; Hermann et al., 2004), histone/nucleosome modifications are not necessarily re-incorporated at the same location after DNA replication (Escobar et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2009). However, both H3K9 methylation (constitutive heterochromatin; Ragunathan et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2008) and H3K27 methylation (facultative heterochromatin; Coleman and Struhl, 2017; Hansen and Helin, 2009; Hansen et al., 2008; Margueron et al., 2009) can be inherited through mitosis following removal of the initiating factors (albeit not as stably as with those factors). Furthermore, elegant proximity labeling studies show that nucleosomes at certain silent loci are re-incorporated locally after DNA replication (Escobar et al., 2019). Thus, mitotic inheritance requires both the local reincorporation of marked nucleosomes and reinforcement of these modifications through covalent modification of unmarked nucleosomes following DNA replication. The histone marks for which there is the clearest data for heritability share several features: (1) they tend to occur over large regions, encompassing many nucleosomes, (2) they are associated with transcriptional repression, and (3) inheritance requires an interaction between a writer and a reader that recruits or stimulates the writer.

Here we find that H3K4 dimethylation of nucleosomes over the same location in the genome can either be stable and heritable or unstable and rapidly removed, depending on the mechanism by which it is deposited. During active transcription, nucleosomes in the INO1 promoter are marked with histone acetylation (D’Urso et al., 2016; Rundlett et al., 1998), H3K4me3, and H3K4me2 (Santos-Rosa et al., 2002). This H3K4 methylation is catalyzed by COMPASS and requires RNAPII and the preinitiation complex (Figure 4C; D’Urso et al., 2016). In mutants that lack memory, these marks are rapidly removed upon transcriptional repression (Figure 6—figure supplement 1; D’Urso et al., 2016). In contrast, during memory, histone acetylation and H3K4me3 are lost and H3K4me2 is deposited (Figure 6C; D’Urso et al., 2016). This mechanism of H3K4 dimethylation during memory is mechanistically distinct from that observed during transcription: it is catalyzed by Spp1^- COMPASS, does not require RNAPII and requires SET3C, Leo1, Sfl1, and Nup100 (D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013). Critically, once established, H3K4me2 is both stable and inherited for ~4 cell divisions following degradation of Sfl1 (Figure 6). This is distinct from the effects of inactivating COMPASS or SET3C (Figures 4 and 6; D’Urso et al., 2016). Therefore, H3K4me2 can be maintained and inherited in the absence of an essential initiating factor but continuously requires the writer and reader. We conclude that, as with histone marks associated with heterochromatin (Reinberg and Vales, 2018), a histone mark associated with transcriptional poising is epigenetically inherited.

How is heritable H3K4me2 distinguished from unstable H3K4me2? It is possible that the heritable signal comprises H3K4me2 and additional histone marks. Although the incorporation of H2A.Z during memory is an intriguing possibility for a second signal, it is not essential for H3K4 dimethylation (Light et al., 2013). Alternatively, unacetylated histones may stimulate heritable H3K4 dimethylation, perhaps by regulating the activity of Spp1^- COMPASS or the Paf complex via Leo1. This may explain why the SET3C histone deacetylase is the reader for this mark.

Whereas H3K9 methylation or H3K27 methylation is generally very stable and state switching promotes long-term or permanent switches, transcriptional memory persists for shorter timescales, generally between 4 and 14 mitotic divisions. This limited inheritance may reflect a balance between the fitness benefits of memory and its costs in a fluctuating environment. Regardless, our current understanding suggests that the duration of memory relates to limits on inheritance following each round of DNA replication. Whereas H3K9 methylation or H3K27 methylation generally covers tens to hundreds of thousands of base pairs (Barski et al., 2007; Cutter DiPiazza et al., 2021; Pauler et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2014), the chromatin changes associated with epigenetic transcriptional memory are more local, covering hundreds of base pairs (D’Urso et al., 2016). Following DNA replication, nucleosomes are randomly segregated into the two daughter molecules (Petryk et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018). Approximately half of the nucleosomes should retain regulatory marks and the inheritance of those marks requires recognizing these nucleosomes and modifying adjacent, unmarked nucleosomes (Escobar et al., 2021; Loyola et al., 2006). If recognition and/or modification is imperfect, the efficiency of such an inheritance mechanism should increase with the number of nucleosomes (Cutter DiPiazza et al., 2021). If so, then the duration of memory could be limited by a combination of the number of modified nucleosomes, the fidelity, and efficiency of the reader-writer system and the regulation of the initiating transcription factors.

Our current model for INO1 transcriptional memory is shown in Figure 7. When active, INO1 interacts with the NPC through upstream DNA zip codes and the TFs Put3 and Cbf1. Two TFs essential for transcription, Ino2 and Ino4, bind to two UAS_INO elements that flank the MRS. These TFs recruit co-activators, including histone acetyltransferases like SAGA. Hms2 binds the MRS but has no known role in localization or transcription of active INO1. RNAPII recruits the Paf1C and COMPASS, leading to H3K4me3 (Figure 7A).

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

Upon repression, the Opi1 repressor binds to Ino2 (Brickner and Walter, 2004; Heyken et al., 2005), repressing transcription by recruiting the Rpd3L histone deacetylase (Kadosh and Struhl, 1997; Randise-Hinchliff et al., 2016). To establish memory, Hms2 facilitates recruitment of Sfl1 to the MRS and Nup100-dependent interaction with the NPC (Figure 7). Because Nup98 physically interacts with the H3K4 methyltransferases Trithorax in flies (Pascual-Garcia et al., 2014) and MLL in mammals (Franks et al., 2017), we envision that Nup100 helps recruit Spp1^- COMPASS to dimethylate H3K4 and establish memory (Figure 7). To-date, we have not observed co-immunoprecipitation of Nup100 with COMPASS (not shown). However, it is possible that Sfl1, Hms2, or Nup100 compete with Spp1 for binding to COMPASS to ensure this switch. Alternatively, these proteins may recruit Paf1C and COMPASS through interaction with Leo1.

Importantly, the H3K4me2 mark is required for both Sfl1 binding and H2A.Z incorporation during memory, forming a positive feedback loop between interaction with the NPC and chromatin changes. Because the MRS at an ectopic site is sufficient to induce chromatin changes without recruiting RNAPII (Light et al., 2013) or Mediator (our unpublished results), cis-acting promoter elements presumably facilitate RNAPII recruitment. We hypothesize that Ino2/Ino4 collaborate with Sfl1/Hms2 to recruit Cdk8⁺ Mediator, which is essential for RNAPII poising (Figure 7). This would explain why loss of H3K4 methylation leads to loss of Sfl1 binding, peripheral localization, and RNAPII.

Following DNA replication, we proposed that inheritance requires methylation of unmodified H3K4 on nucleosomes near those that were previously modified (Figure 7; Moazed, 2011). This pathway would involve recognition of the H3K4me2 mark on reincorporated nucleosomes by SET3C, recruitment of Spp1^- COMPASS, and dimethylation of H3K4 on adjacent nucleosomes. Once the INO1 promoter nucleosomes are methylated, Sfl1/Hms2 can bind, mediating interaction with the NPC and re-establishing memory. Loss of Leo1 seems to both weaken the interaction between COMPASS and SET3C and to disrupt persistence/inheritance of INO1 memory, suggesting that it facilitates Spp1^- COMPASS recruitment after DNA replication.

Do all genes that exhibit transcriptional memory utilize the same molecular mechanism? No. Several of the molecules required for INO1 memory are not generally involved in memory, such as Sfl1 and Hms2 (our unpublished data). However, INO1 epigenetic memory has also identified factors and mechanisms that are implicated in memory more generally and suggest a core, conserved, epigenetic poising mechanism. For example, Nup100-dependent interaction with the NPC is associated with transcriptional memory of several yeast genes and Nup98 plays an essential role in both interferon gamma memory in HeLa cells (Light et al., 2010) and in ecdysone memory in flies (Gozalo et al., 2020; Pascual-Garcia et al., 2017). In yeast and mammals, memory leads to H3K4me2, RNAPII binding, and Cdk8 association (D’Urso et al., 2016; Light et al., 2013). Therefore, many genes from yeast to mammals employ a common transcriptional poising mechanism. What selects which genes exhibit memory? Many yeast TFs can mediate Nup100-dependent interaction with the NPC (Brickner et al., 2019). Therefore, different stimuli may induce memory through regulating the activity of these TFs to induce memory in different subsets of genes. Diverse, transient signals could be interpreted through TFs to alter future fitness in distinct ways for several generations.

The scripts used to analyze the competition experiments are available at https://github.com/jasonbrickner/SeqComp, (copy archived at swh:1:rev:3eb152971adc09d0b4559bb86e4ad036eebd4dc7).

1. 1. Ahmed S
   2. Brickner DG
   3. Light WH
   4. Cajigas I
   5. McDonough M
   6. Froyshteter AB
   7. Volpe T
   8. Brickner JH

   (2010) DNA zip codes control an ancient mechanism for gene targeting to the nuclear periphery

   Nature Cell Biology 12:111–118.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akoulitchev S
   2. Chuikov S
   3. Reinberg D

   (2000) TFIIH is negatively regulated by cdk8-containing mediator complexes

   Nature 407:102–106.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35024111

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Atkinson KD
   2. Jensen B
   3. Kolat AI
   4. Storm EM
   5. Henry SA
   6. Fogel S

   (1980) Yeast mutants auxotrophic for choline or ethanolamine

   Journal of Bacteriology 141:558–564.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.141.2.558-564.1980

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bae HJ
   2. Dubarry M
   3. Jeon J
   4. Soares LM
   5. Dargemont C
   6. Kim J
   7. Geli V
   8. Buratowski S

   (2020) The Set1 N-terminal domain and Swd2 interact with RNA polymerase II CTD to recruit COMPASS

   Nature Communications 11:e2181.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16082-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barski A
   2. Cuddapah S
   3. Cui K
   4. Roh TY
   5. Schones DE
   6. Wang Z
   7. Wei G
   8. Chepelev I
   9. Zhao K

   (2007) High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome

   Cell 129:823–837.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bishop AC
   2. Ubersax JA
   3. Petsch DT
   4. Matheos DP
   5. Gray NS
   6. Blethrow J
   7. Shimizu E
   8. Tsien JZ
   9. Schultz PG
   10. Rose MD
   11. Wood JL
   12. Morgan DO
   13. Shokat KM

   (2000) A chemical switch for inhibitor-sensitive alleles of any protein kinase

   Nature 407:395–401.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35030148

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Brickner JH
   2. Walter P

   (2004) Gene recruitment of the activated INO1 locus to the nuclear membrane

   PLS Biology 2:e342.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020342

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Brickner DG
   2. Cajigas I
   3. Fondufe-Mittendorf Y
   4. Ahmed S
   5. Lee PC
   6. Widom J
   7. Brickner JH

   (2007) H2A.Z-mediated localization of genes at the nuclear periphery confers epigenetic memory of previous transcriptional state

   PLOS Biology 5:e81.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050081

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Brickner DG
   2. Randise-Hinchliff C
   3. Lebrun Corbin M
   4. Liang JM
   5. Kim S
   6. Sump B
   7. D’Urso A
   8. Kim SH
   9. Satomura A
   10. Schmit H
   11. Coukos R
   12. Hwang S
   13. Watson R
   14. Brickner JH

   (2019) The Role of Transcription Factors and Nuclear Pore Proteins in Controlling the Spatial Organization of the Yeast Genome

   Developmental Cell 49:936–947.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2019.05.023

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. Software

    1. Brickner J

    (2022) SeqComp, version swh:1:rev:3eb152971adc09d0b4559bb86e4ad036eebd4dc7

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/jasonbrickner/SeqComp
11. 1. Campos EI
    2. Stafford JM
    3. Reinberg D

    (2014) Epigenetic inheritance: histone bookmarks across generations

    Trends in Cell Biology 24:664–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2014.08.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Capelson M
    2. Liang Y
    3. Schulte R
    4. Mair W
    5. Wagner U
    6. Hetzer MW

    (2010) Chromatin-bound nuclear pore components regulate gene expression in higher eukaryotes

    Cell 140:372–383.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Coleman RT
    2. Struhl G

    (2017) Causal role for inheritance of H3K27me3 in maintaining the OFF state of a Drosophila HOX gene

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 356:eaai8236.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cutter DiPiazza AR
    2. Taneja N
    3. Dhakshnamoorthy J
    4. Wheeler D
    5. Holla S
    6. Grewal SIS

    (2021) Spreading and epigenetic inheritance of heterochromatin require a critical density of histone H3 lysine 9 tri-methylation

    PNAS 118:e2100699118.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100699118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. D’Urso A
    2. Takahashi Y-H
    3. Xiong B
    4. Marone J
    5. Coukos R
    6. Randise-Hinchliff C
    7. Wang J-P
    8. Shilatifard A
    9. Brickner JH

    (2016) Set1/COMPASS and Mediator are repurposed to promote epigenetic transcriptional memory

    eLife 5:e16691.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16691

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Edwards JR
    2. Yarychkivska O
    3. Boulard M
    4. Bestor TH

    (2017) DNA methylation and DNA methyltransferases

    Epigenetics & Chromatin 10:e23.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13072-017-0130-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Egecioglu DE
    2. D’Urso A
    3. Brickner DG
    4. Light WH
    5. Brickner JH

    (2014) Approaches to studying subnuclear organization and gene-nuclear pore interactions

    Methods in Cell Biology 122:463–485.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417160-2.00021-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Elgin SCR
    2. Reuter G

    (2013) Position-effect variegation, heterochromatin formation, and gene silencing in Drosophila

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5:a017780.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a017780

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Escobar TM
    2. Oksuz O
    3. Saldaña-Meyer R
    4. Descostes N
    5. Bonasio R
    6. Reinberg D

    (2019) Active and Repressed Chromatin Domains Exhibit Distinct Nucleosome Segregation during DNA Replication

    Cell 179:953–963.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Escobar TM
    2. Loyola A
    3. Reinberg D

    (2021) Parental nucleosome segregation and the inheritance of cellular identity

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 22:379–392.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00312-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Francis NJ

    (2009) Mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance: copying of polycomb repressed chromatin

    Cell Cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) 8:3521–3526.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.8.21.9876

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Franks TM
    2. McCloskey A
    3. Shokirev MN
    4. Benner C
    5. Rathore A
    6. Hetzer MW

    (2017) Nup98 recruits the Wdr82-Set1A/COMPASS complex to promoters to regulate H3K4 trimethylation in hematopoietic progenitor cells

    Genes & Development 31:2222–2234.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.306753.117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Fridy PC
    2. Li Y
    3. Keegan S
    4. Thompson MK
    5. Nudelman I
    6. Scheid JF
    7. Oeffinger M
    8. Nussenzweig MC
    9. Fenyö D
    10. Chait BT
    11. Rout MP

    (2014) A robust pipeline for rapid production of versatile nanobody repertoires

    Nature Methods 11:1253–1260.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3170

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Galupa R
    2. Heard E

    (2018) X-Chromosome Inactivation: A Crossroads Between Chromosome Architecture and Gene Regulation

    Annual Review of Genetics 52:535–566.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120116-024611

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Gartenberg MR
    2. Smith JS

    (2016) The Nuts and Bolts of Transcriptionally Silent Chromatin in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Genetics 203:1563–1599.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.145243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gerace E
    2. Moazed D

    (2014) Coimmunoprecipitation of proteins from yeast

    Methods in Enzymology 541:13–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420119-4.00002-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ghaemmaghami S
    2. Huh W-K
    3. Bower K
    4. Howson RW
    5. Belle A
    6. Dephoure N
    7. O’Shea EK
    8. Weissman JS

    (2003) Global analysis of protein expression in yeast

    Nature 425:737–741.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gialitakis M
    2. Arampatzi P
    3. Makatounakis T
    4. Papamatheakis J

    (2010) Gamma interferon-dependent transcriptional memory via relocalization of a gene locus to PML nuclear bodies

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 30:2046–2056.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00906-09

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gibney ER
    2. Nolan CM

    (2010) Epigenetics and gene expression

    Heredity 105:4–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2010.54

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Gozalo A
    2. Duke A
    3. Lan Y
    4. Pascual-Garcia P
    5. Talamas JA
    6. Nguyen SC
    7. Shah PP
    8. Jain R
    9. Joyce EF
    10. Capelson M

    (2020) Core Components of the Nuclear Pore Bind Distinct States of Chromatin and Contribute to Polycomb Repression

    Molecular Cell 77:67–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Graves JA
    2. Henry SA

    (2000) Regulation of the yeast INO1 gene. The products of the INO2, INO4 and OPI1 regulatory genes are not required for repression in response to inositol

    Genetics 154:1485–1495.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/154.4.1485

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Halley JE
    2. Kaplan T
    3. Wang AY
    4. Kobor MS
    5. Rine J

    (2010) Roles for H2A.Z and its acetylation in GAL1 transcription and gene induction, but not GAL1-transcriptional memory

    PLOS Biology 8:e1000401.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hansen K.H
    2. Bracken AP
    3. Pasini D
    4. Dietrich N
    5. Gehani SS
    6. Monrad A
    7. Rappsilber J
    8. Lerdrup M
    9. Helin K

    (2008) A model for transmission of the H3K27me3 epigenetic mark

    Nature Cell Biology 10:1291–1300.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1787

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hansen KH
    2. Helin K

    (2009) Epigenetic inheritance through self-recruitment of the polycomb repressive complex 2

    Epigenetics 4:133–138.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.4.3.8483

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Haruki H
    2. Nishikawa J
    3. Laemmli UK

    (2008) The anchor-away technique: rapid, conditional establishment of yeast mutant phenotypes

    Molecular Cell 31:925–932.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.07.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hermann A
    2. Goyal R
    3. Jeltsch A

    (2004) The Dnmt1 DNA-(cytosine-C5)-methyltransferase methylates DNA processively with high preference for hemimethylated target sites

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 279:48350–48359.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M403427200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Heyken W-T
    2. Repenning A
    3. Kumme J
    4. Schüller H-J

    (2005) Constitutive expression of yeast phospholipid biosynthetic genes by variants of Ino2 activator defective for interaction with Opi1 repressor

    Molecular Microbiology 56:696–707.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04499.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Holoch D
    2. Moazed D

    (2015) RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation of gene expression

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 16:71–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3863

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Holoch D
    2. Wassef M
    3. Lövkvist C
    4. Zielinski D
    5. Aflaki S
    6. Lombard B
    7. Héry T
    8. Loew D
    9. Howard M
    10. Margueron R

    (2021) A cis-acting mechanism mediates transcriptional memory at Polycomb target genes in mammals

    Nature Genetics 53:1686–1697.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00964-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Huh W-K
    2. Falvo JV
    3. Gerke LC
    4. Carroll AS
    5. Howson RW
    6. Weissman JS
    7. O’Shea EK

    (2003) Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast

    Nature 425:686–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Jackson JC
    2. Lopes JM

    (1996) The yeast UME6 gene is required for both negative and positive transcriptional regulation of phospholipid biosynthetic gene expression

    Nucleic Acids Research 24:1322–1329.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/24.7.1322

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kadosh D
    2. Struhl K

    (1997) Repression by Ume6 involves recruitment of a complex containing Sin3 corepressor and Rpd3 histone deacetylase to target promoters

    Cell 89:365–371.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80217-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kalverda B
    2. Pickersgill H
    3. Shloma VV
    4. Fornerod M

    (2010) Nucleoporins directly stimulate expression of developmental and cell-cycle genes inside the nucleoplasm

    Cell 140:360–371.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kim T
    2. Buratowski S

    (2009) Dimethylation of H3K4 by Set1 recruits the Set3 histone deacetylase complex to 5’ transcribed regions

    Cell 137:259–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.02.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Klar AJS
    2. Srikantha T
    3. Soll DR

    (2001) A histone deacetylation inhibitor and mutant promote colony-type switching of the human pathogen Candida albicans

    Genetics 158:919–924.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/158.2.919

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Krogan NJ
    2. Dover J
    3. Khorrami S
    4. Greenblatt JF
    5. Schneider J
    6. Johnston M
    7. Shilatifard A

    (2002) COMPASS, a histone H3 (Lysine 4) methyltransferase required for telomeric silencing of gene expression

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 277:10753–10755.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C200023200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Krogan NJ
    2. Dover J
    3. Wood A
    4. Schneider J
    5. Heidt J
    6. Boateng MA
    7. Dean K
    8. Ryan OW
    9. Golshani A
    10. Johnston M
    11. Greenblatt JF
    12. Shilatifard A

    (2003) The Paf1 complex is required for histone H3 methylation by COMPASS and Dot1p: linking transcriptional elongation to histone methylation

    Molecular Cell 11:721–729.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097-2765(03)00091-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Kundu S
    2. Peterson CL

    (2010) Dominant role for signal transduction in the transcriptional memory of yeast GAL genes

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 30:2330–2340.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01675-09

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Lämke J
    2. Bäurle I

    (2017) Epigenetic and chromatin-based mechanisms in environmental stress adaptation and stress memory in plants

    Genome Biology 18:e124.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1263-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Laprell F
    2. Finkl K
    3. Müller J

    (2017) Propagation of Polycomb-repressed chromatin requires sequence-specific recruitment to DNA

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 356:85–88.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8266

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Liang G
    2. Klose RJ
    3. Gardner KE
    4. Zhang Y

    (2007) Yeast Jhd2p is a histone H3 Lys4 trimethyl demethylase

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 14:243–245.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb1204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Light WH
    2. Brickner DG
    3. Brand VR
    4. Brickner JH

    (2010) Interaction of a DNA zip code with the nuclear pore complex promotes H2A.Z incorporation and INO1 transcriptional memory

    Molecular Cell 40:112–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Light WH
    2. Freaney J
    3. Sood V
    4. Thompson A
    5. D’Urso A
    6. Horvath CM
    7. Brickner JH

    (2013) A conserved role for human Nup98 in altering chromatin structure and promoting epigenetic transcriptional memory

    PLOS Biology 11:e1001524.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001524

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Liu Y
    2. Kung C
    3. Fishburn J
    4. Ansari AZ
    5. Shokat KM
    6. Hahn S

    (2004) Two cyclin-dependent kinases promote RNA polymerase II transcription and formation of the scaffold complex

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 24:1721–1735.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.24.4.1721-1735.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Loewen CJR
    2. Gaspar ML
    3. Jesch SA
    4. Delon C
    5. Ktistakis NT
    6. Henry SA
    7. Levine TP

    (2004) Phospholipid metabolism regulated by a transcription factor sensing phosphatidic acid

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 304:1644–1647.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Loyola A
    2. Bonaldi T
    3. Roche D
    4. Imhof A
    5. Almouzni G

    (2006) PTMs on H3 variants before chromatin assembly potentiate their final epigenetic state

    Molecular Cell 24:309–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2006.08.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Margueron R
    2. Justin N
    3. Ohno K
    4. Sharpe ML
    5. Son J
    6. Drury WJ
    7. Voigt P
    8. Martin SR
    9. Taylor WR
    10. De Marco V
    11. Pirrotta V
    12. Reinberg D
    13. Gamblin SJ

    (2009) Role of the polycomb protein EED in the propagation of repressive histone marks

    Nature 461:762–767.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08398

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Maxwell CS
    2. Kruesi WS
    3. Core LJ
    4. Kurhanewicz N
    5. Waters CT
    6. Lewarch CL
    7. Antoshechkin I
    8. Lis JT
    9. Meyer BJ
    10. Baugh LR

    (2014) Pol II docking and pausing at growth and stress genes in C. elegans

    Cell Reports 6:455–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.01.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Mizuguchi G
    2. Shen X
    3. Landry J
    4. Wu W-H
    5. Sen S
    6. Wu C

    (2004) ATP-driven exchange of histone H2AZ variant catalyzed by SWR1 chromatin remodeling complex

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 303:343–348.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090701

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Moazed D

    (2011) Mechanisms for the inheritance of chromatin states

    Cell 146:510–518.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Nanney DL

    (1958) EPIGENETIC CONTROL SYSTEMS

    PNAS 44:712–717.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.44.7.712

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Ng HH
    2. Dole S
    3. Struhl K

    (2003a) The Rtf1 component of the Paf1 transcriptional elongation complex is required for ubiquitination of histone H2B

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 278:33625–33628.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C300270200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Ng HH
    2. Robert F
    3. Young RA
    4. Struhl K

    (2003b) Targeted recruitment of Set1 histone methylase by elongating Pol II provides a localized mark and memory of recent transcriptional activity

    Molecular Cell 11:709–719.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097-2765(03)00092-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Nishimura K
    2. Fukagawa T
    3. Takisawa H
    4. Kakimoto T
    5. Kanemaki M

    (2009) An auxin-based degron system for the rapid depletion of proteins in nonplant cells

    Nature Methods 6:917–922.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Nonet M
    2. Scafe C
    3. Sexton J
    4. Young R

    (1987) Eucaryotic RNA polymerase conditional mutant that rapidly ceases mRNA synthesis

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 7:1602–1611.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.7.5.1602-1611.1987

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Pascual-Garcia P
    2. Jeong J
    3. Capelson M

    (2014) Nucleoporin Nup98 associates with Trx/MLL and NSL histone-modifying complexes and regulates Hox gene expression

    Cell Reports 9:433–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Pascual-Garcia P
    2. Debo B
    3. Aleman JR
    4. Talamas JA
    5. Lan Y
    6. Nguyen NH
    7. Won KJ
    8. Capelson M

    (2017) Metazoan Nuclear Pores Provide a Scaffold for Poised Genes and Mediate Induced Enhancer-Promoter Contacts

    Molecular Cell 66:63–76.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.02.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Pascual-Garcia P
    2. Little SC
    3. Capelson M

    (2022) Nup98-dependent transcriptional memory is established independently of transcription

    eLife 11:e63404.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63404

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Pauler FM
    2. Sloane MA
    3. Huang R
    4. Regha K
    5. Koerner MV
    6. Tamir I
    7. Sommer A
    8. Aszodi A
    9. Jenuwein T
    10. Barlow DP

    (2009) H3K27me3 forms BLOCs over silent genes and intergenic regions and specifies a histone banding pattern on a mouse autosomal chromosome

    Genome Research 19:221–233.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.080861.108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Pavri R
    2. Lewis B
    3. Kim T-K
    4. Dilworth FJ
    5. Erdjument-Bromage H
    6. Tempst P
    7. de Murcia G
    8. Evans R
    9. Chambon P
    10. Reinberg D

    (2005) PARP-1 determines specificity in a retinoid signaling pathway via direct modulation of mediator

    Molecular Cell 18:83–96.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2005.02.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Petryk N
    2. Dalby M
    3. Wenger A
    4. Stromme CB
    5. Strandsby A
    6. Andersson R
    7. Groth A

    (2018) MCM2 promotes symmetric inheritance of modified histones during DNA replication

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 361:1389–1392.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0294

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Ragunathan K
    2. Jih G
    3. Moazed D

    (2015) Epigenetics. Epigenetic inheritance uncoupled from sequence-specific recruitment

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 348:e1258699.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258699

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Randise-Hinchliff C
    2. Coukos R
    3. Sood V
    4. Sumner MC
    5. Zdraljevic S
    6. Meldi Sholl L
    7. Garvey Brickner D
    8. Ahmed S
    9. Watchmaker L
    10. Brickner JH

    (2016) Strategies to regulate transcription factor-mediated gene positioning and interchromosomal clustering at the nuclear periphery

    The Journal of Cell Biology 212:633–646.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201508068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Reinberg D
    2. Vales LD

    (2018) Chromatin domains rich in inheritance

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 361:33–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7871

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Robinett CC
    2. Straight A
    3. Li G
    4. Willhelm C
    5. Sudlow G
    6. Murray A
    7. Belmont AS

    (1996) In vivo localization of DNA sequences and visualization of large-scale chromatin organization using lac operator/repressor recognition

    The Journal of Cell Biology 135:1685–1700.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.135.6.1685

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Rundlett SE
    2. Carmen AA
    3. Suka N
    4. Turner BM
    5. Grunstein M

    (1998) Transcriptional repression by UME6 involves deacetylation of lysine 5 of histone H4 by RPD3

    Nature 392:831–835.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/33952

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Santos-Rosa H
    2. Schneider R
    3. Bannister AJ
    4. Sherriff J
    5. Bernstein BE
    6. Emre NCT
    7. Schreiber SL
    8. Mellor J
    9. Kouzarides T

    (2002) Active genes are tri-methylated at K4 of histone H3

    Nature 419:407–411.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01080

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Sikorski RS
    2. Hieter P

    (1989) A system of shuttle vectors and yeast host strains designed for efficient manipulation of DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Genetics 122:19–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/122.1.19

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Siwek W
    2. Tehrani SSH
    3. Mata JF
    4. Jansen LET

    (2020) Activation of Clustered IFNγ Target Genes Drives Cohesin-Controlled Transcriptional Memory

    Molecular Cell 80:396–409.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2020.10.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Slutsky B
    2. Staebell M
    3. Anderson J
    4. Risen L
    5. Pfaller M
    6. Soll DR

    (1987) “White-opaque transition”: a second high-frequency switching system in Candida albicans

    Journal of Bacteriology 169:189–197.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.169.1.189-197.1987

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Sood V
    2. Brickner JH

    (2017) Genetic and Epigenetic Strategies Potentiate Gal4 Activation to Enhance Fitness in Recently Diverged Yeast Species

    Current Biology 27:3591–3602.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Straight AF
    2. Belmont AS
    3. Robinett CC
    4. Murray AW

    (1996) GFP tagging of budding yeast chromosomes reveals that protein-protein interactions can mediate sister chromatid cohesion

    Current Biology 6:1599–1608.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(02)70783-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Sumner MC
    2. Torrisi SB
    3. Brickner DG
    4. Brickner JH

    (2021) Random sub-diffusion and capture of genes by the nuclear pore reduces dynamics and coordinates inter-chromosomal movement

    eLife 10:e66238.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Tee WW
    2. Reinberg D

    (2014) Chromatin features and the epigenetic regulation of pluripotency states in ESCs

    Development (Cambridge, England) 141:2376–2390.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.096982

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Vo Ngoc L
    2. Wang YL
    3. Kassavetis GA
    4. Kadonaga JT

    (2017) The punctilious RNA polymerase II core promoter

    Genes & Development 31:1289–1301.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.303149.117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Waddington CH

    (2012) The epigenotype. 1942

    International Journal of Epidemiology 41:10–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Wan L
    2. Zhang C
    3. Shokat KM
    4. Hollingsworth NM

    (2006) Chemical inactivation of cdc7 kinase in budding yeast results in a reversible arrest that allows efficient cell synchronization prior to meiotic recombination

    Genetics 174:1767–1774.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.064303

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Wang Z
    2. Zang C
    3. Cui K
    4. Schones DE
    5. Barski A
    6. Peng W
    7. Zhao K

    (2009) Genome-wide mapping of HATs and HDACs reveals distinct functions in active and inactive genes

    Cell 138:1019–1031.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.06.049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. White MJ
    2. Hirsch JP
    3. Henry SA

    (1991)

    The OPI1 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a negative regulator of phospholipid biosynthesis, encodes a protein containing polyglutamine tracts and a leucine zipper

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 266:863–872.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Yu R
    2. Jih G
    3. Iglesias N
    4. Moazed D

    (2014) Determinants of heterochromatic siRNA biogenesis and function

    Molecular Cell 53:262–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.11.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Yu C
    2. Gan H
    3. Serra-Cardona A
    4. Zhang L
    5. Gan S
    6. Sharma S
    7. Johansson E
    8. Chabes A
    9. Xu RM
    10. Zhang Z

    (2018) A mechanism for preventing asymmetric histone segregation onto replicating DNA strands

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 361:1386–1389.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8849

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Zacharioudakis I
    2. Gligoris T
    3. Tzamarias D

    (2007) A yeast catabolic enzyme controls transcriptional memory

    Current Biology 17:2041–2046.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Zentner GE
    2. Kasinathan S
    3. Xin B
    4. Rohs R
    5. Henikoff S

    (2015) ChEC-seq kinetics discriminates transcription factor binding sites by DNA sequence and shape in vivo

    Nature Communications 6:8733.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9733

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Zhang K
    2. Mosch K
    3. Fischle W
    4. Grewal SIS

    (2008) Roles of the Clr4 methyltransferase complex in nucleation, spreading and maintenance of heterochromatin

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 15:381–388.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1406

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Zofall M
    2. Grewal SIS

    (2006) RNAi-mediated heterochromatin assembly in fission yeast

    Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 71:487–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/sqb.2006.71.059

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Bethany Sump

   Department of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Donna G Brickner

   Department of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Agustina D'Urso

   Department of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States

   Present address

   Arcturus Therapeutics, San Diego, California, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation

   Competing interests

   is affiliated with Arcturus Therapeutics. The author has no financial interests to declare

4. Seo Hyun Kim

   Department of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States

   Present address

   Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Jason H Brickner

   Department of Molecular Biosciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   j-brickner@northwestern.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8019-3743

• 1,360

  views

• 263

  downloads

• 23

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.