Lineage-determining transcription factors (TF) are master regulators of gene programs that frequently initiate self-reinforcing loops by autoactivation. TF autoactivation is important for cells to pass restriction points during development (referred to as points of no return) and to enforce cellular identity. Molecular circuitries of autoactivation have been studied for several TF, such as GATA-binding factor 1 (GATA1), PU.1 (encoded by Spi1), CCAAT enhancer-binding protein α and ε (C/EBPα and ε; Graf and Enver, 2009; Loughran et al., 2020; Nishimura et al., 2000; Okuno et al., 2005; Theilgaard-Mönch et al., 2022). A further example is interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8), which shows autoactivation in cooperation with basic leucine zipper ATF-like transcription factor 3 (BATF3; Anderson et al., 2021; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015). An important principle in nature is negative feedback control to avoid signal overshooting and toxicity. Negative feedback control applies also to lineage-determining TF; however, there is a paucity on our knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved.

IRF8 is a hematopoietic TF positioned at the center of the regulatory gene network for dendritic cell (DC) development (Anderson et al., 2021; Belz and Nutt, 2012; Chauvistré and Seré, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2015; Nutt and Chopin, 2020; Tamura et al., 2015; Verlander et al., 2022). IRF8 is a member of the interferon regulatory factor (IRF) family of TF. Initially members of this TF family were found to mediate the induction of interferon induced genes, but are now known to serve diverse functions in regulating the immune system (Honda and Taniguchi, 2006; Tamura et al., 2008). Irf8 knockout mice show abnormal development of classical DC type 1 (cDC1) and plasmacytoid DC (pDC) (Durai et al., 2019; Schiavoni et al., 2002; Sichien et al., 2016; Tsujimura et al., 2003). Irf8 is prominently upregulated during DC development by autoactivation (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015), yet how Irf8 autoactivation is controlled and eventually limited, and the epigenetic mechanisms involved is largely unknown.

Irf8 expression in hematopoietic cells is induced and maintained by enhancers located at –50 kb,+32 kb,+41 kb and +56 kb relative to Irf8 transcription start site (TSS) (Anderson et al., 2021; Bagadia et al., 2019; Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2021; Schönheit et al., 2013). Enhancers are cis-regulatory sequences with multiple TF binding sites that cooperatively bind TF and thereby activate transcription, as demonstrated by many studies including our work (Davidson et al., 1986; Long et al., 2016; Wildeman et al., 1986; Zenke et al., 1986). Enhancers regulate complex gene networks and can also produce non-coding RNA, referred to as enhancer RNA (eRNA). eRNA serve as an indicator for enhancer activity and some eRNA have an activity on their own and act in cis or trans to regulate cell fate decisions (Sartorelli and Lauberth, 2020; Statello et al., 2021). Enhancer-associated long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) represent a class of lncRNA transcribed from active enhancers. Thus, eRNA and enhancer-associated lncRNA provide opportunities to detect enhancer activity and to investigate enhancer function.

DC are highly specialized immune cells that play a critical role in regulating innate and adaptive immune responses (Cabeza-Cabrerizo et al., 2021). DC develop from hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) via successive steps of lineage commitment and differentiation. More specifically, HSC develop into multipotent progenitors (MPP) that are committed to DC restricted common DC progenitors (CDP) and differentiate into classic DC (cDC) type 1 and type 2 (cDC1 and cDC2, respectively) and pDC (Anderson et al., 2021; Cabeza-Cabrerizo et al., 2021; Ginhoux et al., 2022; Nutt and Chopin, 2020; Rodrigues and Tussiwand, 2020). pDC were recently also shown to develop from lymphoid progenitors (Dress et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2018; Rodrigues and Tussiwand, 2020). Differential expression of Irf8 regulates DC and monocyte specification in a dose-dependent manner (Cytlak et al., 2020; Murakami et al., 2021). Irf8 expression starts at the CDP stage, and is high in pDC and cDC1, which is attributed to the autoactivation of Irf8 during DC subsets specification (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015). Interestingly, IRF8 can act as a transcriptional activator or repressor in hematopoiesis by interacting with different partner TF and binding to specific DNA sequences (Tamura et al., 2015).

As an activator, IRF8 binds to its own promoter in DC differentiation, which is considered as the autoactivation capacity of Irf8 (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015). For instance, IRF8 interacts with partner TF, such as PU.1, to initiate Irf8 autoactivation at the CDP stage (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015). Inversely, IRF8 inhibits C/EBPα activity in neutrophil differentiation (Kurotaki et al., 2014). IRF8 also represses C/EBPβ to generate and maintain DC lineage-specific enhancer landscapes (Bornstein et al., 2014). In addition, IRF8 is important for the Myc-Mycl transition in DC differentiation (Anderson lll et al., 2021). IRF8 represses Myc expression in progenitors, while IRF8 at high levels interacts with PU.1 and drives Mycl expression (Anderson lll et al., 2021). All this emphasizes the central position of IRF8 in coordinating the gene network that regulates DC differentiation and function.

During DC differentiation, the Irf8 gene locus shows high epigenetic dynamics, including histone modifications and TF binding identified by ChIP-seq (Chauvistré and Seré, 2020; Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015), chromatin accessibility measured by ATAC-seq (Kurotaki et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019), and three-dimensional chromatin structure remodeling determined by chromosome conformation capture (3 C) (Kurotaki et al., 2022; Schönheit et al., 2013). All this emphasizes the impact of epigenetic regulators on Irf8 gene activity in DC differentiation. Notably, Irf8 is flanked by multiple enhancers at –50 kb,+32 kb,+41 kb, and +56 kb that regulate Irf8 expression in hematopoietic cells (Anderson et al., 2021; Murakami et al., 2021). These four enhancers were found to be driven by PU.1, BATF3, E proteins and Runt-related transcription factor (RUNX)-core binding factor beta (CBFβ) (RUNX-CBFβ), respectively (Bagadia et al., 2019; Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2021; Schönheit et al., 2013).

Chromatin conformation, particularly enhancer promoter interactions, provides a platform for TF-driven gene regulation and serves as a driving force for cell-fate determinations (Misteli and Finn, 2021; Oudelaar and Higgs, 2021; Stadhouders et al., 2019). Schönheit et al. demonstrated Irf8 promoter interactions with its upstream enhancers by quantitative 3 C (Schönheit et al., 2013). In this study PU.1 was found to regulate chromatin remodeling between the –50 kb enhancer and the Irf8 promoter in myeloid differentiation. In a recent study Kurotaki et al., 2022 determined the higher-order chromatin structure in DC progenitors, cDC1 and cDC2 on a genome-wide scale by Hi-C. In this study, reorganization of chromatin conformation at DC-specific gene loci was observed during cDC differentiation, and IRF8 was found to promote chromatin activation in DC progenitors leading to cDC lineage-specific gene expression. However, high resolution maps of the physical chromatin interactions of the Irf8 promoter with upstream and downstream enhancers in the full complement of DC subsets, including pDC, are required for understanding Irf8 regulation during DC differentiation.

Frequently, chromatin data, including ATAC-seq and/or ChIP-seq data, are used to identify regulatory elements of gene transcription. Here we embarked on a different approach and searched for lncRNA, which by themselves might have regulatory functions or are indicative of enhancer activity. We identified a novel lncRNA transcribed from the Irf8 +32 kb enhancer, which is specifically expressed in pDC, referred to as lncIrf8. We found that the lncIrf8 promoter element but not lncIrf8 itself impacts pDC and cDC1 development. Thus, lncIrf8 acts as an indicator for the Irf8 +32 kb enhancer activity. Importantly, our study revealed a previously unrecognized negative feedback loop of Irf8 in DC differentiation. Irf8 first activates its expression by autoactivation via the +32 kb enhancer and second limits its own expression through the lncIrf8 promoter element in the +32 kb enhancer.

Hematopoiesis is a particularly well studied stem cell system and therefore provides an excellent model for studying TF in lineage commitment and cell differentiation, and the molecular principles involved (Belz and Nutt, 2012; Graf and Enver, 2009; Laurenti and Göttgens, 2018; Nutt and Chopin, 2020). This work revealed a previously unrecognized negative feedback loop of Irf8 in DC differentiation and shows how Irf8 autoactivation is controlled and ultimately limited. IRF8 is crucial for DC lineage specification both in humans and mice (Anderson et al., 2021; Belz and Nutt, 2012; Cabeza-Cabrerizo et al., 2021; Cytlak et al., 2020; Kurotaki et al., 2019; Nutt and Chopin, 2020). Irf8 is upregulated by autoactivation via the +32 kb enhancer (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015). However, how Irf8 expression is controlled at late stages of DC differentiation and eventually limited is not known. Here we demonstrate that Irf8 expression is limited by a negative feedback loop via a sequence element marked by lncIrf8 in the Irf8 +32 kb enhancer.

Irf8 expression in hematopoiesis is regulated by its flanking enhancers, which determine lineage specification and DC subset development (Bagadia et al., 2019; Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2021; Schönheit et al., 2013). Frequently, enhancers are identified by ATAC-seq and ChIP-seq (Durai et al., 2019; Murakami et al., 2021), and here we embarked on a different approach and searched for eRNA and enhancer-associated lncRNA by RNA-seq. We identified a novel pDC-specific lncRNA (lncIrf8) transcribed from the Irf8 +32 kb enhancer. lncIrf8 itself lacks activities in DC differentiation but a lncIrf8 promoter element is crucial for pDC and cDC1 development. Upon deletion of this lncIrf8 promoter element pDC and cDC1 development was severely compromised, demonstrating that this sequence is important for both pDC and cDC1 development.

We propose a model where Irf8 expression during DC differentiation is in a first step initiated and activated through flanking enhancers, including the +32 kb enhancer by autoactivation (Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015; Figure 7). In a second step, the lncIrf8 promoter element confers feedback inhibition, which limits Irf8 expression. This feedback inhibition is different for pDC and cDC1, both of which express high levels of Irf8 (Bornstein et al., 2014; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015). In cDC1, Irf8 expression is attributed to Irf8 autoactivation through the +32 kb enhancer driven by the BATF3-IRF8 complex (Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015). In pDC, Irf8 expression is even higher than in cDC1 (Bornstein et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015), which we propose is due to less feedback inhibition at late stages of DC differentiation.

A candidate for mediating Irf8 feedback inhibition is IRF8 itself, since IRF8 works as transcriptional activator or repressor, depending on context. IRF8 activator or repressor function depends largely on the heterodimers (or even heterotrimers) with partner TF that bind to specific DNA sequences (Chang et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2016; Humblin et al., 2017; Tamura et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2014). Modifications on IRF8 protein, such as phosphorylation and small molecule conjugation, also alter IRF8 activity (Chang et al., 2012; Konieczna et al., 2008). Potential IRF8 heterodimer partners, to form repressor complexes, are ETV6 or IRF2 (Huang et al., 2016; Humblin et al., 2017; Lau et al., 2018). The IRF8 repressor complex is proposed to bind to the +32 kb enhancer in cDC but not in pDC. This notion is in line with a prominent IRF8 signal at the +32 kb enhancer in cDC, which is absent in pDC (Durai et al., 2019; Grajales-Reyes et al., 2015; Figure 1A, Figure 7A and B, Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and Figure 2—figure supplement 2A).

Further support of our model stems from our CRIPSR activation/interference experiments (Figure 7C). CRIPSR activation of Irf8 promoter by dCas9-VP64 mimics Irf8 up-regulation during DC differentiation and causes an increase in pDC and cDC1 (Figure 5). CRIPSR interference of lncIrf8 promoter by dCas9-KRAB recapitulates transcriptional repressor binding to the +32 kb enhancer and causes Irf8 promoter inhibition (Figure 6).

We extended our study to delineate the chromatin conformation of the Irf8 promoter with flanking sequences by Capture-C. The Irf8 promoter was found to interact with its flanking enhancers already at the CDP stage and then interactions with specific upstream and downstream sequences are proposed to guide pDC and cDC specification, respectively. This is in accord with previous studies where some of these Irf8 flanking enhancers were required to maintain high levels of Irf8 expression (Anderson et al., 2021; Murakami et al., 2021).

We demonstrate that deletion of the lncIrf8 promoter element severely decreased Irf8 expression and abolished both pDC and cDC1 development in vitro and in vivo upon cell transplantation. These results are very similar to a previous study on cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer knockout mice, which demonstrates the impact of +32 kb enhancer for cDC1 development in vivo (Durai et al., 2019). The lncIrf8 promoter is located in close proximity to the cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer and thus can be expected to have overlapping functions. Indeed, deletion of the cDC1 +32 kb enhancer in HoxB8 MPP showed some similar activities on DC differentiation as the deletion of the lncIrf8 promoter element, including regulation of lncIrf8 and Irf8 expression, but mainly affected cDC1 differentiation. These observations indicate that the lncIrf8 promoter element has further functions compared to the cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer, for example for pDC development, and the underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation.

eRNA and enhancer-associated lncRNA are indicative of enhancer activity, however whether the process of their transcription, the transcripts themselves, or both are functionally linked to enhancer activity, remains unclear (Sartorelli and Lauberth, 2020; Statello et al., 2021). Previous studies revealed that some eRNA and enhancer-associated lncRNA are indeed functionally connected with expression of the respective target genes (Sartorelli and Lauberth, 2020; Statello et al., 2021). Here, we found no apparent activity of lncIrf8 on its own in pDC and cDC1 development, as demonstrated by lncIrf8 overexpression and rescue experiments. lncIrf8 appears to rather serve as an indicator for Irf8 +32 kb enhancer activity. However, lncIrf8 might have additional functions in DC biology, which are not revealed in the current study and remain to be identified.

In conclusion, by analyzing the gene expression and epigenetic profiles of the Irf8 locus, we identified an enhancer element marked by lncIrf8 that regulates Irf8 and controls DC differentiation through a negative feedback loop. Our results suggest that Irf8 regulates itself by its flanking enhancers in DC fate determination: First, Irf8 induces its expression by autoactivation via flanking enhancers, including the Irf8 +32 kb enhancer, to initiate DC differentiation, and second limits its expression at late stages via the lncIrf8 promoter element within the same +32 kb enhancer by feedback inhibition. This molecular principle of feedback inhibition is expected to also apply to other TF and cell differentiation systems.

ATAC-seq (MPP, CDP and cDC2), Capture-C targeting Irf8 promoter (MPP, CDP, cDC1, cDC2 and pDC), IRF8 ChIP-seq (cDC and pDC), and RNA-seq (MPP, CDP, cDC1, cDC2 and pDC) data generated in this study have been deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus and are accessible through GEO Series accession numbers GSE198651.ATAC-seq data of cDC1 and pDC (GSE118221) are published (Lin et al., 2015), and the ATAC-seq data of MPP, CDP and cDC2 of the same study are described here (GSE198651). ChIP-seq of CTCF in DC (GSE36099) (Garber et al., 2012), H3K27ac (GSE73143) (Allhoff et al., 2016), H3K4me1 and PU.1 (GSE57563) (Allhoff et al., 2014), H3K4me3 and H3K9me3 (GSE64767) (Lin et al., 2015) in MPP, CDP, cDC and pDC were re-analyzed in this study. scRNA-seq data were reanalyzed from GSE114313 (Rodrigues et al., 2018). Bulk RNA-seq data of splenic pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 were reanalyzed from GSE188992 (Pang et al., 2022).The sequence of the pDC specific lncRNA (lncIrf8 identified by RACE PCR) and the cDC1 specific lncRNA (Tcons_00190258 identified by RNA-seq) has been submitted to GenBank. The GenBank accession numbers for lncIrf8 and Tcons_00190258 are ON134061 and ON134062, respectively.

1. 1. Xu H
   2. Li Z
   3. Kuo C
   4. Götz K
   5. Look T
   6. Toledo MA
   7. Seré K
   8. Costa IG
   9. Zenke M

   (2023) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE198651. A lncRNA identifies Irf8 enhancer element in negative feedback control of dendritic cell differentiation.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE198651
2. 1. Xu H
   2. Li Z
   3. Kuo CC
   4. Goetz K
   5. Look T
   6. de Toldeo MAS
   7. Sere K
   8. Costa IG
   9. Zenke M

   (2022) NCBI Nucleotide

   ID ON134061. Mus musculus lncIRF8 lncRNA, partial sequence.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/ON134061
3. 1. Xu H
   2. Li Z
   3. Kuo CC
   4. Goetz K
   5. Look T
   6. de Toldeo MAS
   7. Sere K
   8. Costa IG
   9. Zenke M

   (2022) NCBI Nucleotide

   ID ON134062. Mus musculus TCONS_00190258 lncRNA, partial sequence.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/ON134062

1. 1. Li et al

   (2019) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE118221. Identification of Transcription Factor Binding Sites using ATAC-seq.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE118221
2. 1. Garber et al

   (2012) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE36099. A high throughput in vivo protein-DNA mapping approach reveals principles of dynamic gene regulation in mammals (ChIP-Seq).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE36099
3. 1. Allhoff et al

   (2016) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE73143. Differential Peak Calling of ChIP-Seq Signals with Replicates with THOR.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE73143
4. 1. Allhoff et al

   (2014) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE57563. Detecting differential peaks in ChIP-seq signals with ODIN.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE57563
5. 1. Lin et al

   (2015) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE64767. Epigenetic Program and Transcription Factor Circuitry of Dendritic Cell Development.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE64767
6. 1. Rodrigues et al

   (2018) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE114313. A distinct lineage of origin reveals heterogeneity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells II (scRNAseq).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE114313
7. 1. Pang et al

   (2022) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE188992. Bulk RNAseq of Mouse Splenic Dendritic Cell Subsets.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE188992

1. 1. Allhoff M
   2. Seré K
   3. Chauvistré H
   4. Lin Q
   5. Zenke M
   6. Costa IG

   (2014) Detecting differential peaks in ChIP-seq signals with ODIN

   Bioinformatics 30:3467–3475.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu722

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Allhoff M
   2. Seré K
   3. F Pires J
   4. Zenke M
   5. G Costa I

   (2016) Differential peak calling of ChIP-seq signals with replicates with THOR

   Nucleic Acids Research 44:e153.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw680

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alvarez-Dominguez JR
   2. Bai Z
   3. Xu D
   4. Yuan B
   5. Lo KA
   6. Yoon MJ
   7. Lim YC
   8. Knoll M
   9. Slavov N
   10. Chen S
   11. Peng C
   12. Lodish HF
   13. Sun L

   (2015) De novo reconstruction of adipose tissue transcriptomes reveals long non-coding RNA regulators of brown adipocyte development

   Cell Metabolism 21:764–776.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.04.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anderson D.A
   2. Dutertre CA
   3. Ginhoux F
   4. Murphy KM

   (2021) Genetic models of human and mouse dendritic cell development and function

   Nature Reviews. Immunology 21:101–115.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00413-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anderson lll DA
   2. Ou F
   3. Kim S
   4. Murphy TL
   5. Murphy KM

   (2021) Transition from cMyc to L-Myc during dendritic cell development coordinated by rising levels of IRF8

   The Journal of Experimental Medicine 219:e20211483.

   https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20211483

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bagadia P
   2. Huang X
   3. Liu TT
   4. Durai V
   5. Grajales-Reyes GE
   6. Nitschké M
   7. Modrusan Z
   8. Granja JM
   9. Satpathy AT
   10. Briseño CG
   11. Gargaro M
   12. Iwata A
   13. Kim S
   14. Chang HY
   15. Shaw AS
   16. Murphy TL
   17. Murphy KM

   (2019) An Nfil3-Zeb2-Id2 pathway imposes Irf8 enhancer switching during cDC1 development

   Nature Immunology 20:1174–1185.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0449-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Becht E
   2. McInnes L
   3. Healy J
   4. Dutertre CA
   5. Kwok IWH
   6. Ng LG
   7. Ginhoux F
   8. Newell EW

   (2019) Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using UMAP

   Nature Biotechnology 37:38–44.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4314

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Belz GT
   2. Nutt SL

   (2012) Transcriptional programming of the dendritic cell network

   Nature Reviews. Immunology 12:101–113.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3149

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bornstein C
   2. Winter D
   3. Barnett-Itzhaki Z
   4. David E
   5. Kadri S
   6. Garber M
   7. Amit I

   (2014) A negative feedback loop of transcription factors specifies alternative dendritic cell chromatin states

   Molecular Cell 56:749–762.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.10.014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cabeza-Cabrerizo M
    2. Cardoso A
    3. Minutti CM
    4. Pereira da Costa M
    5. Reis e Sousa C

    (2021) Dendritic cells revisited

    Annual Review of Immunology 39:131–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-immunol-061020-053707

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Caviness K
    2. Cicchini L
    3. Rak M
    4. Umashankar M
    5. Goodrum F

    (2014) Complex expression of the UL136 gene of human cytomegalovirus results in multiple protein isoforms with unique roles in replication

    Journal of Virology 88:14412–14425.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02711-14

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chang TH
    2. Xu S
    3. Tailor P
    4. Kanno T
    5. Ozato K

    (2012) The small ubiquitin-like modifier-deconjugating enzyme sentrin-specific peptidase 1 switches IFN regulatory factor 8 from a repressor to an activator during macrophage activation

    Journal of Immunology 189:3548–3556.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1201104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chang YK
    2. Zuo Z
    3. Stormo GD

    (2018) Quantitative profiling of BATF family proteins/JUNB/IRF hetero-trimers using spec-seq

    BMC Molecular Biology 19:5.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12867-018-0106-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chauvistré H
    2. Seré K

    (2020) Epigenetic aspects of DC development and differentiation

    Molecular Immunology 128:116–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2020.10.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Corces MR
    2. Trevino AE
    3. Hamilton EG
    4. Greenside PG
    5. Sinnott-Armstrong NA
    6. Vesuna S
    7. Satpathy AT
    8. Rubin AJ
    9. Montine KS
    10. Wu B
    11. Kathiria A
    12. Cho SW
    13. Mumbach MR
    14. Carter AC
    15. Kasowski M
    16. Orloff LA
    17. Risca VI
    18. Kundaje A
    19. Khavari PA
    20. Montine TJ
    21. Greenleaf WJ
    22. Chang HY

    (2017) An improved ATAC-seq protocol reduces background and enables interrogation of frozen tissues

    Nature Methods 14:959–962.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4396

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cytlak U
    2. Resteu A
    3. Pagan S
    4. Green K
    5. Milne P
    6. Maisuria S
    7. McDonald D
    8. Hulme G
    9. Filby A
    10. Carpenter B
    11. Queen R
    12. Hambleton S
    13. Hague R
    14. Lango Allen H
    15. Thaventhiran JED
    16. Doody G
    17. Collin M
    18. Bigley V

    (2020) Differential IRF8 transcription factor requirement defines two pathways of dendritic cell development in humans

    Immunity 53:353–370.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Davidson I
    2. Fromental C
    3. Augereau P
    4. Wildeman A
    5. Zenke M
    6. Chambon P

    (1986) Cell-type specific protein binding to the enhancer of simian virus 40 in nuclear extracts

    Nature 323:544–548.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/323544a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Dobin A
    2. Davis CA
    3. Schlesinger F
    4. Drenkow J
    5. Zaleski C
    6. Jha S
    7. Batut P
    8. Chaisson M
    9. Gingeras TR

    (2013) STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner

    Bioinformatics 29:15–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Downes DJ
    2. Beagrie RA
    3. Gosden ME
    4. Telenius J
    5. Carpenter SJ
    6. Nussbaum L
    7. De Ornellas S
    8. Sergeant M
    9. Eijsbouts CQ
    10. Schwessinger R
    11. Kerry J
    12. Roberts N
    13. Shivalingam A
    14. El-Sagheer A
    15. Oudelaar AM
    16. Brown T
    17. Buckle VJ
    18. Davies JOJ
    19. Hughes JR

    (2021) High-resolution targeted 3C interrogation of cis-regulatory element organization at genome-wide scale

    Nature Communications 12:531.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20809-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Downes DJ
    2. Smith AL
    3. Karpinska MA
    4. Velychko T
    5. Rue-Albrecht K
    6. Sims D
    7. Milne TA
    8. Davies JOJ
    9. Oudelaar AM
    10. Hughes JR

    (2022) Capture-C: a modular and flexible approach for high-resolution chromosome conformation capture

    Nature Protocols 17:445–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00651-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dress RJ
    2. Dutertre C-A
    3. Giladi A
    4. Schlitzer A
    5. Low I
    6. Shadan NB
    7. Tay A
    8. Lum J
    9. Kairi MFBM
    10. Hwang YY
    11. Becht E
    12. Cheng Y
    13. Chevrier M
    14. Larbi A
    15. Newell EW
    16. Amit I
    17. Chen J
    18. Ginhoux F

    (2019) Plasmacytoid dendritic cells develop from Ly6D⁺ lymphoid progenitors distinct from the myeloid lineage

    Nature Immunology 20:852–864.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0420-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Durai V
    2. Bagadia P
    3. Granja JM
    4. Satpathy AT
    5. Kulkarni DH
    6. Davidson JT
    7. Wu R
    8. Patel SJ
    9. Iwata A
    10. Liu TT
    11. Huang X
    12. Briseño CG
    13. Grajales-Reyes GE
    14. Wöhner M
    15. Tagoh H
    16. Kee BL
    17. Newberry RD
    18. Busslinger M
    19. Chang HY
    20. Murphy TL
    21. Murphy KM

    (2019) Cryptic activation of an Irf8 enhancer governs cDC1 fate specification

    Nature Immunology 20:1161–1173.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0450-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Felker P
    2. Seré K
    3. Lin Q
    4. Becker C
    5. Hristov M
    6. Hieronymus T
    7. Zenke M

    (2010) TGF-β1 accelerates dendritic cell differentiation from common dendritic cell progenitors and directs subset specification toward conventional dendritic cells

    Journal of Immunology 185:5326–5335.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.0903950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Fischer M
    2. Goldschmitt J
    3. Peschel C
    4. Brakenhoff JP
    5. Kallen KJ
    6. Wollmer A
    7. Grötzinger J
    8. Rose-John S

    (1997) I. A bioactive designer cytokine for human hematopoietic progenitor cell expansion

    Nature Biotechnology 15:142–145.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0297-142

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fornes O
    2. Castro-Mondragon JA
    3. Khan A
    4. van der Lee R
    5. Zhang X
    6. Richmond PA
    7. Modi BP
    8. Correard S
    9. Gheorghe M
    10. Baranašić D
    11. Santana-Garcia W
    12. Tan G
    13. Chèneby J
    14. Ballester B
    15. Parcy F
    16. Sandelin A
    17. Lenhard B
    18. Wasserman WW
    19. Mathelier A

    (2020) JASPAR 2020: update of the open-access database of transcription factor binding profiles

    Nucleic Acids Research 48:D87–D92.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Frankish A
    2. Diekhans M
    3. Ferreira A-M
    4. Johnson R
    5. Jungreis I
    6. Loveland J
    7. Mudge JM
    8. Sisu C
    9. Wright J
    10. Armstrong J
    11. Barnes I
    12. Berry A
    13. Bignell A
    14. Carbonell Sala S
    15. Chrast J
    16. Cunningham F
    17. Di Domenico T
    18. Donaldson S
    19. Fiddes IT
    20. García Girón C
    21. Gonzalez JM
    22. Grego T
    23. Hardy M
    24. Hourlier T
    25. Hunt T
    26. Izuogu OG
    27. Lagarde J
    28. Martin FJ
    29. Martínez L
    30. Mohanan S
    31. Muir P
    32. Navarro FCP
    33. Parker A
    34. Pei B
    35. Pozo F
    36. Ruffier M
    37. Schmitt BM
    38. Stapleton E
    39. Suner M-M
    40. Sycheva I
    41. Uszczynska-Ratajczak B
    42. Xu J
    43. Yates A
    44. Zerbino D
    45. Zhang Y
    46. Aken B
    47. Choudhary JS
    48. Gerstein M
    49. Guigó R
    50. Hubbard TJP
    51. Kellis M
    52. Paten B
    53. Reymond A
    54. Tress ML
    55. Flicek P

    (2019) GENCODE reference annotation for the human and mouse genomes

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:D766–D773.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky955

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Garber M
    2. Yosef N
    3. Goren A
    4. Raychowdhury R
    5. Thielke A
    6. Guttman M
    7. Robinson J
    8. Minie B
    9. Chevrier N
    10. Itzhaki Z
    11. Blecher-Gonen R
    12. Bornstein C
    13. Amann-Zalcenstein D
    14. Weiner A
    15. Friedrich D
    16. Meldrim J
    17. Ram O
    18. Cheng C
    19. Gnirke A
    20. Fisher S
    21. Friedman N
    22. Wong B
    23. Bernstein BE
    24. Nusbaum C
    25. Hacohen N
    26. Regev A
    27. Amit I

    (2012) A high-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation approach reveals principles of dynamic gene regulation in mammals

    Molecular Cell 47:810–822.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.07.030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gibson DG
    2. Young L
    3. Chuang RY
    4. Venter JC
    5. Hutchison CA
    6. Smith HO

    (2009) Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases

    Nature Methods 6:343–345.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1318

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ginhoux F
    2. Guilliams M
    3. Merad M

    (2022) Expanding dendritic cell nomenclature in the single-cell era

    Nature Reviews. Immunology 22:67–68.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-022-00675-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Graf T
    2. Enver T

    (2009) Forcing cells to change lineages

    Nature 462:587–594.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08533

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Graham FL
    2. van der Eb AJ

    (1973) A new technique for the assay of infectivity of human adenovirus 5 DNA

    Virology 52:456–467.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6822(73)90341-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Grajales-Reyes GE
    2. Iwata A
    3. Albring J
    4. Wu X
    5. Tussiwand R
    6. Kc W
    7. Kretzer NM
    8. Briseño CG
    9. Durai V
    10. Bagadia P
    11. Haldar M
    12. Schönheit J
    13. Rosenbauer F
    14. Murphy TL
    15. Murphy KM

    (2015) Batf3 maintains autoactivation of Irf8 for commitment of a CD8α⁺ conventional DC clonogenic progenitor

    Nature Immunology 16:708–717.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.3197

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Heckl D
    2. Kowalczyk MS
    3. Yudovich D
    4. Belizaire R
    5. Puram RV
    6. McConkey ME
    7. Thielke A
    8. Aster JC
    9. Regev A
    10. Ebert BL

    (2014) Generation of mouse models of myeloid malignancy with combinatorial genetic lesions using CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing

    Nature Biotechnology 32:941–946.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2951

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Honda K
    2. Taniguchi T

    (2006) IRFs: master regulators of signalling by Toll-like receptors and cytosolic pattern-recognition receptors

    Nature Reviews. Immunology 6:644–658.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1900

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Huang XF
    2. Nandakumar V
    3. Tumurkhuu G
    4. Wang T
    5. Jiang X
    6. Hong B
    7. Jones L
    8. Won H
    9. Yoshii H
    10. Ozato K
    11. Masumi A
    12. Chen S-Y

    (2016) Mysm1 is required for interferon regulatory factor expression in maintaining HSC quiescence and thymocyte development

    Cell Death & Disease 7:e2260.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2016.162

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Humblin E
    2. Thibaudin M
    3. Chalmin F
    4. Derangère V
    5. Limagne E
    6. Richard C
    7. Flavell RA
    8. Chevrier S
    9. Ladoire S
    10. Berger H
    11. Boidot R
    12. Apetoh L
    13. Végran F
    14. Ghiringhelli F

    (2017) IRF8-dependent molecular complexes control the Th9 transcriptional program

    Nature Communications 8:2085.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01070-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kim S
    2. Bagadia P
    3. Anderson DA
    4. Liu TT
    5. Huang X
    6. Theisen DJ
    7. O’Connor KW
    8. Ohara RA
    9. Iwata A
    10. Murphy TL
    11. Murphy KM

    (2020) High amount of transcription factor IRF8 engages AP1-IRF composite elements in enhancers to direct type 1 conventional dendritic cell identity

    Immunity 53:759–774.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.07.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Konermann S
    2. Brigham MD
    3. Trevino AE
    4. Joung J
    5. Abudayyeh OO
    6. Barcena C
    7. Hsu PD
    8. Habib N
    9. Gootenberg JS
    10. Nishimasu H
    11. Nureki O
    12. Zhang F

    (2015) Genome-Scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex

    Nature 517:583–588.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Konieczna I
    2. Horvath E
    3. Wang H
    4. Lindsey S
    5. Saberwal G
    6. Bei L
    7. Huang W
    8. Platanias L
    9. Eklund EA

    (2008) Constitutive activation of SHP2 in mice cooperates with ICSBP deficiency to accelerate progression to acute myeloid leukemia

    The Journal of Clinical Investigation 118:853–867.

    https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI33742

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Korhonen J
    2. Martinmäki P
    3. Pizzi C
    4. Rastas P
    5. Ukkonen E

    (2009) MOODS: fast search for position weight matrix matches in DNA sequences

    Bioinformatics 25:3181–3182.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp554

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kühn R
    2. Schwenk F
    3. Aguet M
    4. Rajewsky K

    (1995) Inducible gene targeting in mice

    Science 269:1427–1429.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7660125

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kurotaki D
    2. Yamamoto M
    3. Nishiyama A
    4. Uno K
    5. Ban T
    6. Ichino M
    7. Sasaki H
    8. Matsunaga S
    9. Yoshinari M
    10. Ryo A
    11. Nakazawa M
    12. Ozato K
    13. Tamura T

    (2014) IRF8 inhibits C/EBPα activity to restrain mononuclear phagocyte progenitors from differentiating into neutrophils

    Nature Communications 5:4978.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5978

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kurotaki D
    2. Kawase W
    3. Sasaki H
    4. Nakabayashi J
    5. Nishiyama A
    6. Morse HC
    7. Ozato K
    8. Suzuki Y
    9. Tamura T

    (2019) Epigenetic control of early dendritic cell lineage specification by the transcription factor IRF8 in mice

    Blood 133:1803–1813.

    https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-06-857789

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kurotaki D
    2. Kikuchi K
    3. Cui K
    4. Kawase W
    5. Saeki K
    6. Fukumoto J
    7. Nishiyama A
    8. Nagamune K
    9. Zhao K
    10. Ozato K
    11. Rocha PP
    12. Tamura T

    (2022) Chromatin structure undergoes global and local reorganization during murine dendritic cell development and activation

    PNAS 119:e2207009119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207009119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Landazuri N
    2. Krishna D
    3. Gupta M
    4. Le Doux JM

    (2007) Retrovirus-polymer complexes: study of the factors affecting the dose response of transduction

    Biotechnology Progress 23:480–487.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bp060336y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Langmead B
    2. Salzberg SL

    (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2

    Nature Methods 9:357–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1923

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Lau CM
    2. Tiniakou I
    3. Perez OA
    4. Kirkling ME
    5. Yap GS
    6. Hock H
    7. Reizis B

    (2018) Transcription factor ETV6 regulates functional differentiation of cross-presenting classical dendritic cells

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 215:2265–2278.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20172323

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Laurenti E
    2. Göttgens B

    (2018) From haematopoietic stem cells to complex differentiation landscapes

    Nature 553:418–426.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Li Z
    2. Schulz MH
    3. Look T
    4. Begemann M
    5. Zenke M
    6. Costa IG

    (2019) Identification of transcription factor binding sites using ATAC-seq

    Genome Biology 20:45.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1642-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Lin MF
    2. Jungreis I
    3. Kellis M

    (2011) PhyloCSF: a comparative genomics method to distinguish protein coding and non-coding regions

    Bioinformatics 27:i275–i282.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr209

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Lin Q
    2. Chauvistré H
    3. Costa IG
    4. Gusmao EG
    5. Mitzka S
    6. Hänzelmann S
    7. Baying B
    8. Klisch T
    9. Moriggl R
    10. Hennuy B
    11. Smeets H
    12. Hoffmann K
    13. Benes V
    14. Seré K
    15. Zenke M

    (2015) Epigenetic program and transcription factor circuitry of dendritic cell development

    Nucleic Acids Research 43:9680–9693.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Long HK
    2. Prescott SL
    3. Wysocka J

    (2016) Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution

    Cell 167:1170–1187.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Loughran SJ
    2. Haas S
    3. Wilkinson AC
    4. Klein AM
    5. Brand M

    (2020) Lineage commitment of hematopoietic stem cells and progenitors: insights from recent single cell and lineage tracing technologies

    Experimental Hematology 88:1–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exphem.2020.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Lutz MB
    2. Ali S
    3. Audiger C
    4. Autenrieth SE
    5. Berod L
    6. Bigley V
    7. Cyran L
    8. Dalod M
    9. Dörrie J
    10. Dudziak D
    11. Flórez-Grau G
    12. Giusiano L
    13. Godoy GJ
    14. Heuer M
    15. Krug AB
    16. Lehmann CHK
    17. Mayer CT
    18. Naik SH
    19. Scheu S
    20. Schreibelt G
    21. Segura E
    22. Seré K
    23. Sparwasser T
    24. Tel J
    25. Xu H
    26. Zenke M

    (2022) Guidelines for mouse and human DC generation

    European Journal of Immunology.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.202249816

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Manguso RT
    2. Pope HW
    3. Zimmer MD
    4. Brown FD
    5. Yates KB
    6. Miller BC
    7. Collins NB
    8. Bi K
    9. LaFleur MW
    10. Juneja VR
    11. Weiss SA
    12. Lo J
    13. Fisher DE
    14. Miao D
    15. Van Allen E
    16. Root DE
    17. Sharpe AH
    18. Doench JG
    19. Haining WN

    (2017) In vivo CRISPR screening identifies Ptpn2 as a cancer immunotherapy target

    Nature 547:413–418.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23270

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Misteli T
    2. Finn EH

    (2021) Chromatin architecture is a flexible foundation for gene expression

    Nature Genetics 53:426–427.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00813-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Murakami K
    2. Sasaki H
    3. Nishiyama A
    4. Kurotaki D
    5. Kawase W
    6. Ban T
    7. Nakabayashi J
    8. Kanzaki S
    9. Sekita Y
    10. Nakajima H
    11. Ozato K
    12. Kimura T
    13. Tamura T

    (2021) A RUNX-CBFβ-driven enhancer directs the Irf8 dose-dependent lineage choice between DCs and monocytes

    Nature Immunology 22:301–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-00871-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Nishimura S
    2. Takahashi S
    3. Kuroha T
    4. Suwabe N
    5. Nagasawa T
    6. Trainor C
    7. Yamamoto M

    (2000) A GATA box in the GATA-1 gene hematopoietic enhancer is a critical element in the network of GATA factors and sites that regulate this gene

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 20:713–723.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.20.2.713-723.2000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Nutt SL
    2. Chopin M

    (2020) Transcriptional networks driving dendritic cell differentiation and function

    Immunity 52:942–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Okuno Y
    2. Huang G
    3. Rosenbauer F
    4. Evans EK
    5. Radomska HS
    6. Iwasaki H
    7. Akashi K
    8. Moreau-Gachelin F
    9. Li Y
    10. Zhang P
    11. Göttgens B
    12. Tenen DG

    (2005) Potential autoregulation of transcription factor PU.1 by an upstream regulatory element

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 25:2832–2845.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.25.7.2832-2845.2005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Oudelaar AM
    2. Beagrie RA
    3. Gosden M
    4. de Ornellas S
    5. Georgiades E
    6. Kerry J
    7. Hidalgo D
    8. Carrelha J
    9. Shivalingam A
    10. El-Sagheer AH
    11. Telenius JM
    12. Brown T
    13. Buckle VJ
    14. Socolovsky M
    15. Higgs DR
    16. Hughes JR

    (2020) Dynamics of the 4D genome during in vivo lineage specification and differentiation

    Nature Communications 11:2722.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16598-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Oudelaar A.M
    2. Higgs DR

    (2021) The relationship between genome structure and function

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 22:154–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00303-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Owens DDG
    2. Anselmi G
    3. Oudelaar AM
    4. Downes DJ
    5. Cavallo A
    6. Harman JR
    7. Schwessinger R
    8. Bucakci A
    9. Greder L
    10. de Ornellas S
    11. Jeziorska D
    12. Telenius J
    13. Hughes JR
    14. de Bruijn MFTR

    (2022) Dynamic Runx1 chromatin boundaries affect gene expression in hematopoietic development

    Nature Communications 13:773.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28376-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Pang ES
    2. Daraj G
    3. Balka KR
    4. De Nardo D
    5. Macri C
    6. Hochrein H
    7. Masterman K-A
    8. Tan PS
    9. Shoppee A
    10. Magill Z
    11. Jahan N
    12. Bafit M
    13. Zhan Y
    14. Kile BT
    15. Lawlor KE
    16. Radford KJ
    17. Wright MD
    18. O’Keeffe M

    (2022) Discordance in STING-induced activation and cell death between mouse and human dendritic cell populations

    Frontiers in Immunology 13:794776.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.794776

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Platt RJ
    2. Chen S
    3. Zhou Y
    4. Yim MJ
    5. Swiech L
    6. Kempton HR
    7. Dahlman JE
    8. Parnas O
    9. Eisenhaure TM
    10. Jovanovic M
    11. Graham DB
    12. Jhunjhunwala S
    13. Heidenreich M
    14. Xavier RJ
    15. Langer R
    16. Anderson DG
    17. Hacohen N
    18. Regev A
    19. Feng G
    20. Sharp PA
    21. Zhang F

    (2014) CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling

    Cell 159:440–455.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Redecke V
    2. Wu R
    3. Zhou J
    4. Finkelstein D
    5. Chaturvedi V
    6. High AA
    7. Häcker H

    (2013) Hematopoietic progenitor cell lines with myeloid and lymphoid potential

    Nature Methods 10:795–803.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Rodrigues PF
    2. Alberti-Servera L
    3. Eremin A
    4. Grajales-Reyes GE
    5. Ivanek R
    6. Tussiwand R

    (2018) Distinct progenitor lineages contribute to the heterogeneity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells

    Nature Immunology 19:711–722.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-018-0136-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Rodrigues PF
    2. Tussiwand R

    (2020) Novel concepts in plasmacytoid dendritic cell (pDC) development and differentiation

    Molecular Immunology 126:25–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2020.07.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Sanborn AL
    2. Rao SSP
    3. Huang SC
    4. Durand NC
    5. Huntley MH
    6. Jewett AI
    7. Bochkov ID
    8. Chinnappan D
    9. Cutkosky A
    10. Li J
    11. Geeting KP
    12. Gnirke A
    13. Melnikov A
    14. McKenna D
    15. Stamenova EK
    16. Lander ES
    17. Aiden EL

    (2015) Chromatin extrusion explains key features of loop and domain formation in wild-type and engineered genomes

    PNAS 112:E6456–E6465.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518552112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Sartorelli V
    2. Lauberth SM

    (2020) Enhancer RNAs are an important regulatory layer of the epigenome

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 27:521–528.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0446-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Schiavoni G
    2. Mattei F
    3. Sestili P
    4. Borghi P
    5. Venditti M
    6. Morse HC
    7. Belardelli F
    8. Gabriele L

    (2002) ICSBP is essential for the development of mouse type I interferon-producing cells and for the generation and activation of CD8α⁺ dendritic cells

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 196:1415–1425.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20021263

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Schönheit J
    2. Kuhl C
    3. Gebhardt ML
    4. Klett FF
    5. Riemke P
    6. Scheller M
    7. Huang G
    8. Naumann R
    9. Leutz A
    10. Stocking C
    11. Priller J
    12. Andrade-Navarro MA
    13. Rosenbauer F

    (2013) PU.1 level-directed chromatin structure remodeling at the Irf8 gene drives dendritic cell commitment

    Cell Reports 3:1617–1628.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Scotto-Lavino E
    2. Du G
    3. Frohman MA

    (2006) 3’ end cDNA amplification using classic race

    Nature Protocols 1:2742–2745.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.481

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Sichien D
    2. Scott CL
    3. Martens L
    4. Vanderkerken M
    5. Van Gassen S
    6. Plantinga M
    7. Joeris T
    8. De Prijck S
    9. Vanhoutte L
    10. Vanheerswynghels M
    11. Van Isterdael G
    12. Toussaint W
    13. Madeira FB
    14. Vergote K
    15. Agace WW
    16. Clausen BE
    17. Hammad H
    18. Dalod M
    19. Saeys Y
    20. Lambrecht BN
    21. Guilliams M

    (2016) IRF8 transcription factor controls survival and function of terminally differentiated conventional and plasmacytoid dendritic cells, respectively

    Immunity 45:626–640.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.08.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Software

    1. sims-lab

    (2022) CapCruncher, version 81786d0

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/sims-lab/CapCruncher
76. 1. Stadhouders R
    2. Filion GJ
    3. Graf T

    (2019) Transcription factors and 3D genome conformation in cell-fate decisions

    Nature 569:345–354.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1182-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Statello L
    2. Guo CJ
    3. Chen LL
    4. Huarte M

    (2021) Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 22:96–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-00315-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Tamura T
    2. Yanai H
    3. Savitsky D
    4. Taniguchi T

    (2008) The IRF family transcription factors in immunity and oncogenesis

    Annual Review of Immunology 26:535–584.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.26.021607.090400

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Tamura T
    2. Kurotaki D
    3. Koizumi S

    (2015) Regulation of myelopoiesis by the transcription factor IRF8

    International Journal of Hematology 101:342–351.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-015-1761-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Theilgaard-Mönch K
    2. Pundhir S
    3. Reckzeh K
    4. Su J
    5. Tapia M
    6. Furtwängler B
    7. Jendholm J
    8. Jakobsen JS
    9. Hasemann MS
    10. Knudsen KJ
    11. Cowland JB
    12. Fossum A
    13. Schoof E
    14. Schuster MB
    15. Porse BT

    (2022) Transcription factor-driven coordination of cell cycle exit and lineage-specification in vivo during granulocytic differentiation: in memoriam Professor Niels borregaard

    Nature Communications 13:3595.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31332-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Trapnell C
    2. Roberts A
    3. Goff L
    4. Pertea G
    5. Kim D
    6. Kelley DR
    7. Pimentel H
    8. Salzberg SL
    9. Rinn JL
    10. Pachter L

    (2012) Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-Seq experiments with tophat and cufflinks

    Nature Protocols 7:562–578.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2012.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Tsujimura H
    2. Tamura T
    3. Ozato K

    (2003) Cutting edge: IFN consensus sequence binding protein/IFN regulatory factor 8 drives the development of type I IFN-producing plasmacytoid dendritic cells

    Journal of Immunology 170:1131–1135.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.170.3.1131

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Verlander Z
    2. Cummings A
    3. Brown HM
    4. Sen R

    (2022) Advances in understanding epigenetic impacts on dendritic cell regulation and function

    Clinical and Translational Discovery 2:e53.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.53

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Wang L
    2. Park HJ
    3. Dasari S
    4. Wang S
    5. Kocher JP
    6. Li W

    (2013) CPAT: coding-potential assessment tool using an alignment-free logistic regression model

    Nucleic Acids Research 41:e74.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Wilczynski B
    2. Dojer N
    3. Patelak M
    4. Tiuryn J

    (2009) Finding evolutionarily conserved cis-regulatory modules with a universal set of motifs

    BMC Bioinformatics 10:82.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-82

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Wildeman AG
    2. Zenke M
    3. Schatz C
    4. Wintzerith M
    5. Grundström T
    6. Matthes H
    7. Takahashi K
    8. Chambon P

    (1986) Specific protein binding to the simian virus 40 enhancer in vitro

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 6:2098–2105.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mcb.6.6.2098-2105.1986

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Wolf FA
    2. Angerer P
    3. Theis FJ

    (2018) SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis

    Genome Biology 19:15.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Xu H
    2. Look T
    3. Prithiviraj S
    4. Lennartz D
    5. Cáceres MD
    6. Götz K
    7. Wanek P
    8. Häcker H
    9. Kramann R
    10. Seré K
    11. Zenke M

    (2022) CRISPR/Cas9 editing in conditionally immortalized HoxB8 cells for studying gene regulation in mouse dendritic cells

    European Journal of Immunology 52:1859–1862.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.202149482

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Yoon J
    2. Feng X
    3. Kim YS
    4. Shin DM
    5. Hatzi K
    6. Wang H
    7. Morse HC

    (2014) Interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) interacts with the B cell lymphoma 6 (BCL6) corepressor BCOR

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 289:34250–34257.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.571182

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Zenke M
    2. Grundström T
    3. Matthes H
    4. Wintzerith M
    5. Schatz C
    6. Wildeman A
    7. Chambon P

    (1986) Multiple sequence motifs are involved in SV40 enhancer function

    The EMBO Journal 5:387–397.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04224.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "A lncRNA identifies IRF8 enhancer element in negative feedback control of dendritic cell differentiation" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 2 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Satyajit Rath as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in the review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Stephen L Nutt (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

1) Demonstrate the presence of lncRNA selectively in ex-vivo splenic pDC sub-type and confirm its expression in human pDCs.

2) To clarify the role of irf8 in pdc development in regards to published data comparing the lncIrf8 and +32kb activity in their system: The authors conclude that lncIRF8 promoter KO hematopoietic progenitors are not capable of differentiating to pDCs (Figure 2C, Figure 2 Suppl 3D). However, it is now understood that Irf8 is not essential for pDC development (see Sichien Immunity 2016 where they study WT:IRF8-/- BM chimeras) and that Irf8 deregulates some key markers, including CD11b. The authors need to account for this discrepancy. Are pDCs with aberrant marker expression produced in the lncIRF8 promoter KO, and if not, why does this phenotype differ from the Irf8 KO? In addition, it is essential that authors delete the +32 Kb enhancer region (as defined in Durai 2019) in their culture system and analyze the same with respect to +32Kb lncIRF8 promoter deletion in terms of expression of IRF8, lncIRF8 and its effect on the development of pDC vs cDC1.

3)( Provide evidence that IRF8 binds in the lncIRF8 promoter. Authors showed show DNA binding motifs for Irf8 in the lncIrf8, but no evidence of actual binding. Perhaps the +32kb enhancer is also physically involved, but either way more evidence is needed to fully support the authors' models. Instead, IRF8 binds in the more 5' part of the +32kb enhancer identified by Durai 2019. How then is a putative IRF8 repressor complex linked to the lncIRF8 promoter as the authors propose? Moreover, the model does not appear to address why the IRF8 repressor complex binding to the lncIRF8 would be active in cDC1 and not pDC.

4) Authors should acknowledge/discuss clearly that one limitation of their study is that lncIRF8 might have other roles in DC/pDC biology which is yet unidentified in the current study.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. While refining the cross-talk between promoter and enhancers authors have completely overlooked the functional significance of lncIRF8 in pDCs. Authors have demonstrated the expression of lncIRF8 is specific to pDCs, it is not evident whether all pDCs express it or a fraction of the same.

a. Further authors should confirm the expression of lncRNA in ex vivo pDCs from various murine tissues. Is the expression of lncRNA also conserved in human pDCs?

b. How is the expression of lncIRF8 modulated upon CpG stimulation/viral infection of pDCs?

c. Is there any significance of lncIRF8 in pDC functions (TLR stimulations, cytokine production, etc.) these aspects could be studied without much effort as authors already have systems that can knockout lncIRF8 promoter or overexpress lncIRF8.

2. Though authors have identified that lncIRF8 is specifically expressed in pDC subtype but while understanding its significance and regulation, it was preferred to study bulk DC cultures overlooking the finding regarding specificity. Experiments performed by employing dCas9 VP64/KRAB-GFP constructs, do provide some direction in terms of mechanistic understanding of the cross-talk between the promoter of IRF8 and lncIRF8. This data needs to be further strengthened by sorting pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 populations and studying the effect of the genetic manipulations on IRF8 and lncRNA expression in each cell type.

3. One of the most important findings of the submitted study is to demonstrate that knocking out the lncIRF8 promoter also diminishes the expression of IRF8, pDC as well as cDC1 development (Figure 2). Once the IRF8 expression is suppressed the analysis of pDC and cDC1 differentiation is redundant. It is previously reported that the deletion of +32 Kb enhancer (Durai et al. 2019) in a mouse model did not affect pDC but specifically depleted cDC1 development. Authors should examine the deletion of only the +32 kb enhancer region in their culture system to sort out the hierarchy between the +32 Kb enhancer and +32 Kb lncRNA promoter in terms of DC subtype development (cDC1 Vs pDC). Does the deletion of the lncIRF8 promoter lead to epigenetic changes at the overall +32 region? It is expected that due to interactions and chromatin loop formation between IRF8 promoter with various enhancers elements; deletion of lncIRF8 promoter might play an important role in defining these interactions in a cell type-specific manner. These interactions become more valuable by the fact that activation of the lncIRF8 promoter leads to enhanced cDC1 differentiation. Does this simply mean more open chromatin conformation around the cDC1-specific +32 Kb region rather than correlating with the lncIRF8?

Can authors analyze the epigenetic changes by performing similar experiments in some of the available pDC and cDC1 cell lines? As these cell lines are likely to have active IRF8 transcription and it would help to measure the effect of lncIRF8 promoter deletion/mutation/activation/repression on IRF8 expression and specific DC subtype maintenance.

4. Based on the various earlier published reports and results from the current study authors have shown a schematic representation of the pDC and cDC1-specific interactions. Can these interactions be validated in primary/ex-vivo DCs and be correlated with lncIRF8 as well as IRF8 expression? Will it be possible for authors to validate these interactions in light of the lncIRF8 promoter deletion/mutation/activation/repression? Authors may be careful to perform these experiments in purified pDC and cDC1 fractions to get meaningful data.

In case it is not possible to perform experiments with primary DCs/genetically modified HOXB8 cultures; if required, some of these experiments may be performed in the cell lines wherein overall interaction between various enhancer elements and promoters can be validated.

5. Authors have also identified a TCONS_00190258 which is specifically expressed in the cDC1 subtype. Why not look at the expression levels of this transcript in the various experiments in the current study as enhancer element crosstalk will help in cell type-specific transcription of IRF8, lncIRF8, and TCONS_00190258?

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

I find the quality and interpretation of the genomics data to be excellent and I have no major concerns with that data. I do have some specific comments around the interpretation of the cellular data and the model presented.

Specific comments

1. The authors conclude that lncIRF8 promoter KO hematopoietic progenitors are not capable of differentiating to pDCs (Figure 2C, Figure 2 Suppl 3D). However, it is now understood that Irf8 is not essential for pDC development (see Sichien Immunity 2016 where they study WT:IRF8-/- BM chimeras) and that Irf8 deregulates some key markers, including CD11b. The authors need to account for this discrepancy. Are pDCs with aberrant marker expression produced in the lncIRF8 promoter KO, and if not, why does this phenotype differ from the Irf8 KO?

2. There does not appear to be compelling evidence that IRF8 binds in the lncIRF8 promoter in cDC1. Instead, IRF8 binds in the more 5' part of the +32kb enhancer identified by Durai 2019. How then is a putative IRF8 repressor complex linked to the lncIRF8 promoter as the authors propose? Moreover, the model does not appear to address why the IRF8 repressor complex binding to the IRF8 repressor complex would be active in cDC1 and not pDC.

3. The authors use 2 versions of the HoxB8 MPP differentiation system (lines 207-234). Firstly, it is unclear, why two similar approaches are used, but more importantly, the second system outlined in figure 2 Suppl 3 shows that the lncIRF8 promoter is also required for cDC2 differentiation. This is a concern, as IRF8 is not expressed in cDC2, and Irf8-/- mice produce cDC2.

Essential revisions:

1) Demonstrate the presence of lncRNA selectively in ex-vivo splenic pDC sub-type and confirm its expression in human pDCs.

Point 1: Presence of lncRNA selectively in ex-vivo splenic pDC sub-type.

This is interesting and we addressed this point by re-analyzing public scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq datasets for spleen. We also included the analysis of lncRNA expression in bone marrow. The scRNA-seq data of murine ex-vivo spleen pDC and bone marrow pDC were obtained from GSE114313 (Rodrigues et al., Nat. Immunol., 2018). The bulk RNA-seq dataset of splenic DC subsets pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 are from GSE188992 (Pang et al., Front. Immunol., 2022).

These new results are now shown in new Figure 1—figure supplement 3 (page 32) and described in the Results section, page 6, lines 151-154 as follows:

“lncIrf8 and TCONS_00190258 show the same expression pattern in pDC and cDC1, respectively, in BM and spleen (Figure 1—figure supplement 3), as revealed by reanalyzing scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data (Rodrigues et al., 2018; Pang et al., 2022).”

The Materials and methods section was updated accordingly (page 17, lines 536-548).

More specifically, the scRNA-seq data from GSE114313 (Rodrigues et al., Nat. Immunol., 2018) were downloaded, BAM files were converted back into FASTQ files and a custom reference genome of mm9 was created now including the novel lncIrf8 (GenBank: ON134061) and Tcons_00190258 lncRNA (GenBank: ON134062). Data were subjected to bioinformatic processing as described in the Materials and methods section on page 17, lines 536-548 and visualized in UMAPs.

In Dress et al., Nat. Immunol., 2019 authors are critical on the pDC-like cells in GSE114313. Therefore to better define the pDC population in GSE114313, we included the pDC marker genes Tcf4, Bst2 and Siglec-H in our analysis and used the cDC marker genes Zbtb46, Cx3cr1 and Xcr1 as negative controls. We observed that lncIrf8 is expressed in bone marrow (BM) and spleen pDC (new Figure 1—figure supplement 3, page 32). Expression of the cDC1 specific Tcons_00190258 lncRNA in BM and spleen pDC is very low to absent.

To further extend this analysis, we analyzed the bulk RNA-seq dataset of splenic DC subsets pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 from GSE188992 (Pang et al., Front. Immunol., 2022). lncIrf8 and Tcons_00190258 lncRNA were visualized by IGV browser. As expected, lncIrf8 and Tcons_00190258 lncRNA were expressed in pDC and cDC1 of spleen, respectively, and the expression pattern was the same as in our in vitro bone marrow DC (new Figure 1—figure supplement 3).

Point 2: Confirm its expression in human pDCs.

To address this point, we checked the transcripts around the Irf8 gene in different species using data from NCBI, including mouse, human and zebrafish. We found a lncRNA downstream of human Irf8 gene, referred to as LINC02132, but no lncRNA was observed downstream of zebrafish Irf8 gene (see Author response image 1A).

Author response image 1

Download asset Open asset

We found that the sequences of mouse lncIrf8 and human LINC02132 are not conserved (Author response image 1B). The human LINC02132 locus also shows potential enhancer activities, as revealed by H3K27ac and open chromatin (DNase) signals (Author response image 1C). The human LINC02132 is mainly expressed in lymphocytes, spleen and whole blood (Author response image 1D). Data of H3K27ac (7 cell lines) and DNase signal are from ENCODE; gene expression of human LINC02132 are from GTEx RNA-seq (54 tissues, 17382 samples, 948 donors).

Taken together, the pDC specific lncIrf8 is not conserved across species, which is in line with the general characteristics of lncRNA. We have now included this information in the Results section, page 7, lines 200-202.

2) To clarify the role of irf8 in pdc development in regards to published data comparing the lncIrf8 and +32kb activity in their system: The authors conclude that lncIRF8 promoter KO hematopoietic progenitors are not capable of differentiating to pDCs (Figure 2C, Figure 2 Suppl 3D). However, it is now understood that Irf8 is not essential for pDC development (see Sichien Immunity 2016 where they study WT:IRF8-/- BM chimeras) and that Irf8 deregulates some key markers, including CD11b. The authors need to account for this discrepancy. Are pDCs with aberrant marker expression produced in the lncIRF8 promoter KO, and if not, why does this phenotype differ from the Irf8 KO? In addition, it is essential that authors delete the +32 Kb enhancer region (as defined in Durai 2019) in their culture system and analyze the same with respect to +32Kb lncIRF8 promoter deletion in terms of expression of IRF8, lncIRF8 and its effect on the development of pDC vs cDC1.

Point 1: Are pDCs with aberrant marker expression produced in the lncIRF8 promoter KO?

We appreciate the point raised and know the work by Sichien et al., 2016 on WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras and the conclusions reached from their work that IRF8 is dispensable for pDC development. Previous studies, including the study of Sichien et al., 2016, showed that pDC are reduced in Irf8 knockout mice (Murakami et al., Nat. Immunol., 2021; Schiavoni et al., J. Exp. Med., 2002; Tsujimura et al., J. Immunol., 2003). Thus, there is the possibility that the conclusions reached by Sichien et al., 2016 on the impact of IRF8 on pDC function, is on the pDC population, which is left in the Irf8-/- mice. In addition the results in Sichien et al., 2016 are based on WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras upon transplantation in lethally irradiated mice and thus the divergent results might be due to the experimental set-up WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras versus Irf8 knockout mice.

Sichien et al., 2016, report on altered marker expression (CD11b, CD11c and MHC II), which for CD11b and CD11c was not very prominent. In our study on the lncIrf8 promoter KO we used immunophenotyping of CD11c+ CD11b- B220+ cells for in vitro pDC (Figure 2C and Figure 2—figure supplement 3) and CD45.2+ Gr1- Siglec H⁺ cells for pDC following transplantation (Figure 3A and D, G and J; Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). Thus, we are confident to correctly detect pDC.

A potentially altered DC marker expression on lncIrf8 promoter KO pDC cannot be measured because cells are absent in lncIrf8 promoter KO. Nevertheless, we visualized CD11c and CD11b expression on cells which are present by gating on single cells on day 7 and 9 of Flt3L directed DC differentiation in lncIrf8 promoter KO and control cultures. In lncIrf8 promoter KO cells CD11c expression was slightly reduced and CD11b expression was slightly increased (see Author response image 2). This indicates that lncIrf8 promoter KO does not have a major effect on the expression of CD11c and CD11b. Given this negative result we prefer not to include these data in the manuscript.

Author response image 2

Download asset Open asset

Point 2: Deletion of the +32 kb enhancer region as defined in Durai et al. 2019.

We followed the request of the reviewers and deleted the +32 kb enhancer region by using the same gRNAs as described in Durai et al., Nat. Immunol., 2019, referred to as cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO (see new Figure 2—figure supplement 4C, page 35). In parallel, we also designed a new pair of gRNAs to delete this +32 kb enhancer region. We followed the same procedure as in the lncIrf8 promoter KO experiments (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A) for both the Durai et al. gRNAs and our new self-designed gRNAs to obtain homozygous clones of cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO. Five out of 165 single-cell clones were subjected to DC differentiation and further analyzed at day 7 and 9. Frequencies of pDC were unaffected by +32 kb enhancer KO at the end of culture (day 9). There was some effect at day 7, however this was not statistically significant. The cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO compromised cDC1 development at day 7 and day 9, which is in line with the phenotypes described by Durai et al., Nat. Immunol., 2019 and Murakami et al., Nat. Immunol., 2021 in mice.

These new results are now shown in new Figure 2—figure supplement 4 in the revised manuscript (Results section, page 8, lines 235-249 and page 35). The Materials and methods section was also updated accordingly (page 18, lines 576-605). Source data of new Figure 2—figure supplement 4B are also provided and described on page 36 (Figure 2—figure supplement 4-source data 1 and source data 2)

In summary, our data show that deletion of cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer affects cDC1 development while the lncIrf8 promoter KO affects both pDC and cDC1 development (Figure 2). This indicates that the lncIrf8 promoter element has further functions compared to the cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer, e.g. to control pDC development. We have now indicated this point in the Discussion (Discussion section, page 13, lines 422-427).

3) Provide evidence that IRF8 binds in the lncIRF8 promoter. Authors showed show DNA binding motifs for Irf8 in the lncIrf8, but no evidence of actual binding. Perhaps the +32kb enhancer is also physically involved, but either way more evidence is needed to fully support the authors' models. Instead, IRF8 binds in the more 5' part of the +32kb enhancer identified by Durai 2019. How then is a putative IRF8 repressor complex linked to the lncIRF8 promoter as the authors propose? Moreover, the model does not appear to address why the IRF8 repressor complex binding to the lncIRF8 would be active in cDC1 and not pDC.

We appreciate the reviewers’ point and can very well agree with the reviewers that the cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer element by Durai et al. 2019 might also be involved in the negative feedback regulation of Irf8 during DC differentiation. The full +32 kb enhancer is delineated by the H3K27ac and H3K4me3 marks (Figure 2A and new Figure 2—figure supplement 4A) and comprises both the +32 kb enhancer element by Durai et al. 2019 and the lncIrf8 promoter described here. Both elements appear to be important for full Irf8 +32 kb enhancer function in DC differentiation: (i) Deletion of the lncIrf8 promoter compromised both pDC and cDC1 differentiation (Figure 2); (ii) Deletion of the +32 kb enhancer element by Durai et al. 2019 compromised cDC1 and to some extent also pDC differentiation (new Figure 2—figure supplement 4; although not statistical significant); (iii) positioning the dCas9-VP64 at the lncIrf8 promoter for CRISPR activation prominently enhanced cDC1 differentiation (Figure 5A, B and E) and (iv) positioning the dCas9-KRAB at the lncIrf8 promoter for CRISPR interference compromised both pDC and cDC1 differentiation (Figure 6A-E).

In our model we proposed that binding of the putative IRF8 repressor to the +32 kb enhancer is mainly in the 5’ part of the +32 kb enhancer, as demonstrated by the ChIP-seq of IRF8. There is a strong IRF8 binding signal detected in cDC and weak to no IRF8 binding signal in pDC (Figure 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2 and Figure 7B, ChIP-seq IRF8 signal).

Thus, we propose the putative IRF8 repressor complex is only active in cDC and not pDC (Figure 7B). We agree with the reviewers that at this stage of analysis we do not know why IRF8 binds to the 5’ part of the +32 kb enhancer in cDC but not in pDC. Addressing this point should be subject for further studies.

4) Authors should acknowledge/discuss clearly that one limitation of their study is that lncIRF8 might have other roles in DC/pDC biology which is yet unidentified in the current study.

We appreciate the suggestion made by the reviewer. We have now indicated that lncIrf8 might have other roles in DC biology which is yet unidentified in the current study (Discussion section, page 13, lines 435 and 436).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. While refining the cross-talk between promoter and enhancers authors have completely overlooked the functional significance of lncIRF8 in pDCs. Authors have demonstrated the expression of lncIRF8 is specific to pDCs, it is not evident whether all pDCs express it or a fraction of the same.

a. Further authors should confirm the expression of lncRNA in ex vivo pDCs from various murine tissues. Is the expression of lncRNA also conserved in human pDCs?

The question by the reviewer on the expression of the novel lncIrf8 and Tcons_00190258 lncRNA in ex vivo pDC is well taken. We addressed this point be re-analyzing scRNA-seq data of BM and spleen pDC of GSE114313 (Rodrigues et al., Nat. Immunol., 2018) and bulk RNA-seq data of the splenic DC subsets pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 of GSE188992 (Pang et al., Front. Immunol., 2022).

The scRNA-seq data showed that lncIrf8 is expressed in BM and spleen pDC. Expression of the cDC1 specific Tcons_00190258 lncRNA in BM and spleen pDC is very low to absent. The bulk RNA-seq data fully support these results: lncIrf8 and Tcons_00190258 lncRNA are expressed in pDC and cDC1 of spleen, respectively, and the expression pattern is the same as in in vitro bone marrow DC.

These new data are in new Figure 1—figure supplement 3 (please see above our response to Essential Revision 1).

We also addressed the question on the conservation of the novel lncIrf8 across species. A lncRNA downstream of the human Irf8 gene was identified, referred to as LINC02132, but no lncRNA was observed downstream of zebrafish Irf8 gene (see Author response image 1A). By sequence alignment we demonstrate that the sequences of mouse lncIrf8 and human LINC02132 are not conserved (Author response image 1B; see also above our response above to Essential Revision 1 for further details).

We conclude that the pDC specific lncIrf8 is not conserved across species. This is a common characteristic, which is very frequently found for lncRNA. We now include this information in the Results section, page 7, lines 200-202.

b. How is the expression of lncIRF8 modulated upon CpG stimulation/viral infection of pDCs?

This is an interesting question and we addressed this point by re-analyzing public RNA-seq data of FACS sorted pDC (CD3- CD19- CD11c+ CD11blow B220+ Siglec-H⁺ CD317+) from BM cells of in vitro Flt3L cultures (GSE170750, Mann-Nuettel et al., BMC Genom. Data, 2021). In this study pDC were stimulated by CpG 2216 for 0, 2, 6 and 12 hours and subjected to RNA-seq analysis. Our analysis showed that Irf8 expression was upregulated with time upon CpG stimulation, while lncIrf8 expression was downregulated (Author response image 3A). Obviously, pDC activation by CpG stimulation affects the expression of hundreds of transcription factors within a few hours (Author response image 3B, C taken from Mann-Nuettel et al., BMC Genom. Data, 2021), including IRF8. CpG stimulation of pDC occurs within hours and is different from pDC differentiation, which takes a few days.

Author response image 3

Download asset Open asset

Therefore, it is not easy to explain the gene expression patterns of lncIrf8 and Irf8 in pDC upon CpG stimulation and a potential cross talk between lncIrf8 and Irf8 using our model that builds on DC differentiation. Given these rather different scenarios and the complexity of both systems, we prefer to not include these data in the paper.

c. Is there any significance of lncIRF8 in pDC functions (TLR stimulations, cytokine production, etc.) these aspects could be studied without much effort as authors already have systems that can knockout lncIRF8 promoter or overexpress lncIRF8.

We understand the reviewer’s point on the interest in a potential significance of lncIRF8 on pDC functions using knockout or overexpression studies. However this point is difficult to address: (i) The lncIrf8 promoter KO severely compromises pDC development and pDC are essentially absent in lncIrf8 promoter KO cultures. (ii) lncIRF8 overexpression is difficult, as overexpression of lncRNA in general, which is challenging. This is because lncRNA overexpression in lentivirus vectors is very different from protein overexpression. To limit lncIrf8 overexpression to the lncIrf8 sequence a polyA signal for transcription termination has to be inserted at the 3 ’end of lncIrf8 (Figure 4B). This polyA signal decrease the titer of lentivirus, which limits the overexpression capacity. We would expect to need a much higher lncIrf8 overexpression than the one achieved here (Figure 4 and Figure 4—figure supplement 1) to reveal a potential significance of lncIrf8 in pDC functions, such as TLR stimulations and/or cytokine production.

We are in accord with the reviewer that lncIrf8 might have other roles in DC biology than the one identified in our study. We now included a sentence on the potential other roles of lncIrf8 in DC biology, which are not yet identified in the current study (Discussion section, page 13, lines 435 and 436).

2. Though authors have identified that lncIRF8 is specifically expressed in pDC subtype but while understanding its significance and regulation, it was preferred to study bulk DC cultures overlooking the finding regarding specificity. Experiments performed by employing dCas9 VP64/KRAB-GFP constructs, do provide some direction in terms of mechanistic understanding of the cross-talk between the promoter of IRF8 and lncIRF8. This data needs to be further strengthened by sorting pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 populations and studying the effect of the genetic manipulations on IRF8 and lncRNA expression in each cell type.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion on studying the effects of dCas9-VP64/KRAB-GFP constructs targeting the lncIrf8 and Irf8 promoters in sorted pDC, cDC1 and cDC2 populations. However, this is difficult and in some cases not possible, since the dCas9-VP64/KRAB-GFP constructs are introduced in HoxB8 multipotent progenitors (HoxB8 MPP) (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A) and following Flt3L directed DC differentiation some DC subsets are very low in abundance to even absent (Figures 5 and 6). For example, in the dCas9-KRAB experiment in Figure 6A-E, frequencies of cDC1 and pDC are very low to absent. In the dCas9-VP64 experiment in Figure 5 cDC1 and pDC are there, but the impact of targeted CRISPR activation on the lncIrf8 promoter is mainly seen in HoxB8 MPP at day 0 of DC differentiation (Figure 5C) and the activation effect is largely lost in the differentiated cells at later time points. Thus, studying the impact of targeted CRISPR activation and interference on IRF8 and lncRNA expression in DC subsets should include also MPP/CDP and pre-DC, and should be ideally performed by scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq. This analysis is beyond the scope of the present study and will be subject of our future work.

3. One of the most important findings of the submitted study is to demonstrate that knocking out the lncIRF8 promoter also diminishes the expression of IRF8, pDC as well as cDC1 development (Figure 2). Once the IRF8 expression is suppressed the analysis of pDC and cDC1 differentiation is redundant. It is previously reported that the deletion of +32 Kb enhancer (Durai et al. 2019) in a mouse model did not affect pDC but specifically depleted cDC1 development. Authors should examine the deletion of only the +32 kb enhancer region in their culture system to sort out the hierarchy between the +32 Kb enhancer and +32 Kb lncRNA promoter in terms of DC subtype development (cDC1 Vs pDC). Does the deletion of the lncIRF8 promoter lead to epigenetic changes at the overall +32 region? It is expected that due to interactions and chromatin loop formation between IRF8 promoter with various enhancers elements; deletion of lncIRF8 promoter might play an important role in defining these interactions in a cell type-specific manner. These interactions become more valuable by the fact that activation of the lncIRF8 promoter leads to enhanced cDC1 differentiation. Does this simply mean more open chromatin conformation around the cDC1-specific +32 Kb region rather than correlating with the lncIRF8?

We agree with the reviewer that deletion of the lncIrf8 promoter might lead to epigenetic changes in the entire +32 region and might have multiple effects, such as affecting transcription factor binding, histone modifications, open chromatin regions and chromatin interactions. Similarly, targeting dCas9-VP64 to the lncIrf8 promoter for CRISPR activation caused more cDC1 differentiation, which might be also due to multiple effects, such as changes in transcription factor binding, chromatin interactions and/or chromatin conformation. Here CRISPR activation of the lncIrf8 promoter might cause +32 kb enhancer activation and as a consequence IRF8 activation and more cDC1 (Figure 5A-E).

We now followed the request of the reviewer and deleted the +32 kb enhancer region with the four 4 AICE elements as described by Durai et al., Nat. Immunol., 2019 by using the same gRNAs as described in Durai et al., in the following referred to as cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO. In parallel, we also designed a novel pair of gRNAs to delete this +32 kb enhancer region. We followed the same procedure as the lncIrf8 promoter KO experiments (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A) to obtain homozygous clones of cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO. Five out of 165 single-cell clones were subjected to DC differentiation and further analyzed. cDC1 specific +32 kb enhancer KO did not affect pDC differentiation but compromised cDC1 development, which is in line with the phenotypes described by Durai et al., Nat. Immunol., 2019 and Murakami et al., Nat. Immunol., 2021 in mice.

These new results are now shown in new Figure 2—figure supplement 4 in the revised manuscript (Results section, page 8, lines 235-249 and page 35). The Materials and methods section was also updated accordingly (page 18, lines 576-605). Please see above our response to Essential Revision 2.

Can authors analyze the epigenetic changes by performing similar experiments in some of the available pDC and cDC1 cell lines? As these cell lines are likely to have active IRF8 transcription and it would help to measure the effect of lncIRF8 promoter deletion/mutation/activation/repression on IRF8 expression and specific DC subtype maintenance.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to study the epigenetic changes reported here in some of the available pDC and cDC1 cell lines. However, we hesitate to do so, since established cell lines have inevitably suffered from mutation and multiple alterations, which are often unknown and/or hard to control. We rather have built our study on conditional immortalization of mouse bone marrow cells by HoxB8 (referred to as HoxB8 MPP; Figure 1—figure supplement 2A).

These conditionally immortalized HoxB8 MPP exhibit an essentially unlimited lifespan when grown with estrogen (E2), when HoxB8 is active (Xu et al., Eur. J. Immunol., 2022). Additionally, they stop proliferating when E2 is removed and faithfully recapitulate hematopoietic stem cell commitment, DC differentiation and allow genetic manipulations by CRISPR/Cas tools. Thus, we consider HoxB8 MPP a particularly versatile and useful model to study gene regulations during DC differentiation. Repeating the study in pDC and cDC1 cell lines will, in our opinion, only provide limited new information but entails the risk of picking up aberrant phenomena, which are inherent to studies in cell lines.

4. Based on the various earlier published reports and results from the current study authors have shown a schematic representation of the pDC and cDC1-specific interactions. Can these interactions be validated in primary/ex-vivo DCs and be correlated with lncIRF8 as well as IRF8 expression? Will it be possible for authors to validate these interactions in light of the lncIRF8 promoter deletion/mutation/activation/repression? Authors may be careful to perform these experiments in purified pDC and cDC1 fractions to get meaningful data.

In case it is not possible to perform experiments with primary DCs/genetically modified HOXB8 cultures; if required, some of these experiments may be performed in the cell lines wherein overall interaction between various enhancer elements and promoters can be validated.

We agree with the reviewer that validating the pDC and cDC1-specific interactions mediated by lncIrf8 and Irf8 in primary/ex-vivo DC should be interesting. In this context we now provide data that ex-vivo pDC express lncIrf8 similar to in vitro BM pDC (new Figure 1—figure supplement 3), which indicates that the gene regulation patterns we found in our in vitro systems also exist in vivo.

Primary/ex-vivo DC have a limited lifespan in vitro, thus it will be challenging to impossible to generate genetically modified cells for studying gene regulations in primary cells. In particular, deletions of cis-regulatory elements (such as enhancer or promoter sequences) that require single-cell clones, are not possible with primary mouse cells due to lifespan restrictions. These limitations made us to develop the conditional immortalized mouse bone marrow HoxB8 MPP system (Figure 1—figure supplement 2A; Xu et al., Eur. J. Immunol., 2022). Experimental details of the HoxB8 MPP-DC differentiation system are now included in a Guideline paper by Lutz et al., Eur. J. Immunol., 2022. We added this reference to the reference list and cite this paper along with the Xu et al., 2022 paper as indicated.

5. Authors have also identified a TCONS_00190258 which is specifically expressed in the cDC1 subtype. Why not look at the expression levels of this transcript in the various experiments in the current study as enhancer element crosstalk will help in cell type-specific transcription of IRF8, lncIRF8, and TCONS_00190258?

We really appreciate the suggestion made by the reviewer. We have now provided evidence that Tcons_00190258 is also express in ex-vivo tissue (new Figure 1—figure supplement 3C). Studying the impact of Tcons_00190258 on DC differentiation and its potential crosstalk with lncIrf8/Irf8 both in vitro and in vivo will be subject of our future work and described elsewhere.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

I find the quality and interpretation of the genomics data to be excellent and I have no major concerns with that data. I do have some specific comments around the interpretation of the cellular data and the model presented.

Specific comments

1. The authors conclude that lncIRF8 promoter KO hematopoietic progenitors are not capable of differentiating to pDCs (Figure 2C, Figure 2 Suppl 3D). However, it is now understood that Irf8 is not essential for pDC development (see Sichien Immunity 2016 where they study WT:IRF8-/- BM chimeras) and that Irf8 deregulates some key markers, including CD11b. The authors need to account for this discrepancy. Are pDCs with aberrant marker expression produced in the lncIRF8 promoter KO, and if not, why does this phenotype differ from the Irf8 KO?

We appreciate the point made by the reviewer. In our study on DC differentiation of lncIrf8 promoter KO in vitro and following transplantation into sublethally irradiated mice in vivo, we observed low to absent CD11c+ CD11b- B220+ pDC (Figure 2C, Figure 2—figure supplement 3) or Gr1- Siglec H⁺ pDC (Figure 3A and D, G and J), respectively.

We know the work by Sichien et al., 2016 on WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras and the conclusions reached from their work that IRF8 is dispensable for pDC development. The results in Sichien et al., 2016 are based on WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras upon transplantation in lethally irradiated mice and thus the divergent results compared to the classical Irf8-/- mice might be due to the experimental set-up WT:Irf8-/- BM chimeras versus Irf8 knockout mice (see also our response above to Essential revisions 2).

We now followed the advice of the reviewer and checked whether the lncIrf8 promoter KO had an impact on DC marker genes, such as CD11c and CD11b. We visualized CD11c and CD11b expression (gating on single cells) on day 7 and 9 of Flt3L directed DC differentiation in lncIrf8 promoter KO and control cells. In lncIrf8 promoter KO cells CD11c expression was slightly reduced and CD11b expression was slightly increased (see above Author response image 2 and our response to Essential revisions 2).

This indicates that lncIrf8 promoter KO does not have a major effect on CD11c and CD11b expression. Given this negative result we prefer not to include these data in the manuscript.

2. There does not appear to be compelling evidence that IRF8 binds in the lncIRF8 promoter in cDC1. Instead, IRF8 binds in the more 5' part of the +32kb enhancer identified by Durai 2019. How then is a putative IRF8 repressor complex linked to the lncIRF8 promoter as the authors propose? Moreover, the model does not appear to address why the IRF8 repressor complex binding to the IRF8 repressor complex would be active in cDC1 and not pDC.

The point made by the reviewer is well taken. In our model we proposed that binding of the putative IRF8 repressor to the +32 kb enhancer is mainly in the 5’ part of the +32 kb enhancer, as demonstrated by the ChIP-seq of IRF8. There is a strong IRF8 binding signal detected in cDC and weak to no IRF8 binding signal in pDC (Figure 1A, Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 2—figure supplement 2 and Figure 7B, ChIP-seq IRF8 signal).

Thus, we propose the putative IRF8 repressor complex is only active in cDC and not pDC (Figure 7B). We agree with the reviewer that at this stage of analysis we do not know why IRF8 binds to the 5’ part of the +32 kb enhancer in cDC but not in pDC. Addressing this point should be subject for further studies. See also our response above to Essential revisions 3.

3. The authors use 2 versions of the HoxB8 MPP differentiation system (lines 207-234). Firstly, it is unclear, why two similar approaches are used, but more importantly, the second system outlined in figure 2 Suppl 3 shows that the lncIRF8 promoter is also required for cDC2 differentiation. This is a concern, as IRF8 is not expressed in cDC2, and Irf8-/- mice produce cDC2.

In the present study we used two approaches to differentiate the lncIrf8 promoter KO cells, thereby following the DC differentiation systems described in Xu et al., Eur. J. Immunol., 2022:

The first system is spontaneous DC differentiation, where we just remove estrogen (E2) and keep SCF, Flt3L (low concentration), hyper-IL6 and IGF1 in culture. Under these conditions most of the lncIrf8 promoter KO cells moved to Gr1+ monocytes (Figure 2E). This spontaneous DC differentiation mimics in vitro the differentiation potential of these cells in vivo upon cell transplantation, where most of the lncIrf8 promoter KO cells also differentiated into Gr1+ monocytes (Figure 3B and H).

The second system is Flt3L directed DC differentiation, where estrogen (E2) and the growth promoting cytokines SCF, Flt3L (low concentration), hyper-IL6 and IGF1 are removed and high Flt3L concentration is applied to direct HoxB8 MPP differentiation towards DC, and all DC subsets (cDC1, cDC2 and pDC) are obtained. In the manuscript we used both approaches, spontaneous DC differentiation (-E2) and Flt3L directed DC differentiation, to support the conclusions reached.

Concerning the reduced cDC2 population in Figure 2—figure supplement 3G, this is because the cDC2 population was gated from CD11c+ cells and calculated based on living single cells. In the lncIrf8 promoter KO most cells differentiated into Gr1+ monocytes (Figure 2E) and thus CD11c+ cDC2 were much lower in the lncIrf8 promoter KO compared to control.

We now also calculated cDC2 based on CD11c+ cells and show these data as new Figure 2—figure supplement 3H. We did not observe significant differences between lncIrf8 promoter KO and control cells on day 8 and 10. On day 6 the spontaneous DC differentiation of control cells progressed slower than the lncIrf8 promoter KO cells, thus lower frequency of cDC2 was observed. We added this information to the legend for Figure 2—figure supplement 3 (page 34, lines 1214-1217).

Author details

1. Huaming Xu

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Zhijian Li

   Institute for Computational Genomics, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Present address

   Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Software, Visualization, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Chao-Chung Kuo

   Institute for Computational Genomics, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Present address

   Interdisciplinary Centre for Clinical Research (IZKF) Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Software, Visualization, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Katrin Götz

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Present address

   Department of Cell and Tumor Biology, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Thomas Look

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Present address

   Laboratory for Molecular Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Marcelo AS de Toledo

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
   3. Department of Hematology, Oncology, Hemostaseology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Kristin Seré

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Present address

   Department of Cell and Tumor Biology, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Ivan G Costa

   Institute for Computational Genomics, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2890-8697

9. Martin Zenke

   1. Department of Cell Biology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University Medical School, Aachen, Germany
   2. Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
   3. Department of Hematology, Oncology, Hemostaseology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   martin.zenke@rwth-aachen.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1107-3251

• 706

  Page views

• 125

  Downloads

• 1

  Citations

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