Eukaryotic genomes are compartmentalized into euchromatic and heterochromatin regions (Ruiz-Velasco and Zaugg, 2017). In euchromatin, nucleosomes are more accessible, while in heterochromatin nucleosomes are more compacted and restrictive to transcription. Protein coding genes are typically euchromatic, while non-coding and repetitive elements more often reside in heterochromatin. However, transposable elements, which are targeted for DNA methylation and silencing, are found in both euchromatic and heterochromatic regions of the genome (Bourque et al., 2018). The pathways responsible for deposition of methylation and silencing of TEs in these different regions are functionally and genetically distinct (Du et al., 2015).

In plants, euchromatic repetitive regions are targeted by the RNA-directed DNA methylation pathway (RdDM) (Erdmann and Picard, 2020), in which the concerted action of non-coding RNA polymerases and small RNAs direct the DNA methyltransferase, DRM2, to specific sites of the genome. Newly invading genetic elements are targeted by the ‘non-canonical’ RdDM pathway, and involve the action of Pol II derived small RNAs (Cuerda-Gil and Slotkin, 2016). Once established, the canonical RdDM pathway takes over, whereby small RNAs are generated by the plant-specific polymerase IV (Pol IV). In both cases, a second plant-specific polymerase, Pol V, is an essential downstream component. Pol V transcribes scaffold transcripts to which Argonaute-bound small RNAs can bind through base complementarity to recruit DRM2 to direct DNA methylation (Wierzbicki et al., 2009; Wierzbicki et al., 2008; Zhong et al., 2014). The recruitment of Pol V to chromatin is stabilized by interaction with the DNA methylation readers SUVH2 and SUVH9 (Johnson et al., 2014). However, methylation alone is not sufficient to explain Pol V occupancy, as Pol V is restricted to the edges of long TEs and euchromatic methylated regions, despite methylation levels being high in the bodies of long TEs and in heterochromatin (Zhong et al., 2012). Therefore, additional mechanisms must exist to regulate Pol V occupancy.

Heterochromatin is targeted for DNA methylation and silencing by CMT methyltransferases (Stroud et al., 2014; Zemach et al., 2013). CMT3 and CMT2 are responsible for CHG and CHH methylation maintenance, respectively, at these regions. The CMTs form an epigenetic feedback loop with the KYP family of H3K9me2 methyltransferases, thereby maintaining high levels of repression-associated non-CG methylation and H3K9me2 at heterochromatic regions of the genome (Du et al., 2014; Du et al., 2012; Li et al., 2018). As both DNA methylation and H3K9me2 are known to recruit components of the RdDM pathway (Johnson et al., 2014; Law et al., 2013), it is unclear how these regions remain functionally separated from RdDM.

The linker histone H1 associates with nucleosomes to modulate chromatin accessibility and higher order structures (Saha and Dalal, 2021). H1 binds to linker DNA as it exits from the nucleosome dyad and reduces linker DNA flexibility (Bednar et al., 2017). In plants, H1 is preferentially associated with heterochromatin, where it contributes to chromatin compaction (Bourguet et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2020; Rutowicz et al., 2019). Genetic evidence suggests that the chromatin remodeler DDM1 displaces H1 at heterochromatic TEs to facilitate access of CMT methyltransferases (Zemach et al., 2013), while biochemical data suggests that this effect could be indirect, via DDM1s interaction with the heterochromatin associated histone variant, H2A.W (Osakabe et al., 2021). Why DDM1 grants CMTs but not RdDM access to H1-containing nucleosomes is not clear. Recent structural data shows that nucleosome-bound DDM1 promotes DNA sliding (Liu et al., 2024), which may be sufficient for CMT to deposit methylation, but not for the RdDM machinery to become established. H1 also plays a key role in shaping nuclear architecture and preventing ectopic polycomb-mediated H3K27me3 deposition in telomeres (Teano et al., 2023).

Since H1 physically locks genomic DNA to the nucleosome and is preferentially associated with heterochromatin, it is a promising candidate for preventing RdDM encroachment into these regions. Recent evidence supports this hypothesis, with RdDM-associated small RNAs becoming more heterochromatically enriched in h1 knockouts (Choi et al., 2021; Papareddy et al., 2020). However, small RNAs are not a direct readout of functional RdDM activity and Pol IV-dependent small RNAs are abundant in regions of the genome that do not require RdDM for methylation maintenance and that do not contain Pol V (Stroud et al., 2014). Here we directly tested whether RdDM occupancy is affected by loss of H1, by taking advantage of an endogenous Pol V antibody (which recognizes Pol V’s largest subunit, NRPE1). We found that h1 antagonizes NRPE1 occupancy throughout the genome, particularly in heterochromatic regions. This effect was not limited to RdDM, similarly impacting both the methylation reader complex component, SUVH1 (Harris et al., 2018), and polycomb-mediated H3K27me3 (Teano et al., 2023). These results suggest that H1 acts in part to restrict the function of other epigenetic pathways.

To understand how H1 affects RdDM occupancy, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) with a native antibody against NRPE1 (the largest catalytic subunit of Pol V, previously validated [Liu et al., 2018]). Two biological replicates of ChIP-seq in wild-type control Col-0 and in h1.1–1/h1.2–1 double mutant (hereafter referred to as WT and h1, respectively) were performed. As previously reported (Böhmdorfer et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2012), NRPE1 was enriched over short TEs and at the edges of long TEs in WT (Figure 1A–B). In the h1 mutant, however, NRPE1 enrichment was markedly increased, with NRPE1 invading the heterochromatic bodies of long TEs (Figure 1A–B). The negative correlation between NRPE1 enrichment and TE length observed in WT was reverted in the h1 mutant (Figure 1C). This suggests that mutation of h1 facilitates the invasion of NRPE1 to more heterochromatic regions, in which long TEs tend to reside (Bourguet et al., 2021; Zemach et al., 2013). Consistent with this, NRPE1 increased more over heterochromatin associated CMT2 dependent hypo-CHH differentially methylated regions (DMRs) than at the RdDM associated DRM2 dependent CHH sites (Figure 1D). The preferential enrichment of NRPE1 in h1 was more pronounced at TEs that overlapped with heterochromatin associated mark, H3K9me2 (Figure 1E). Comparing NRPE1 occupancy over TEs that had previously been classified by as either ‘euchromatic’ or ‘heterochromatic’ (based on a broad range of features and small RNA expression dynamics during embryonic development Papareddy et al., 2020), again, we found a striking increase in NRPE1 at heterochromatic over euchromatic TEs in h1 (Figure 1F). From a chromosomal viewpoint, NRPE1 was preferentially enriched over pericentromeric regions in h1, and showed corresponding depletion from the more euchromatic chromosomal arms (Figure 1G, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Importantly, we found no evidence for increased expression of NRPE1 or other methylation pathway components known to be involved in Pol V loading or stability in the h1 mutant (Supplementary file 1). Together, the results indicate that H1 broadly restricts NRPE1 access to chromatin, and that this effect is more pronounced in heterochromatic regions of the genome. As H1 itself is preferentially localized to heterochromatin (see Figure 1B, D and F; Bourguet et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2020), this suggests that H1 directly antagonizes RdDM occupancy.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

One mechanism by which H1 could restrict RdDM access is by promoting chromatin compaction. Consistent with this idea and previous reports (Bourguet et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2020; He et al., 2019; Rutowicz et al., 2019), we observed increased accessibility in heterochromatic regions in h1, which mirrored the preferential recruitment of NRPE1 to heterochromatin (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A, B). Loss of H1-mediated compaction in heterochromatin may be the indirect result of loss of heterochromatin-associated marks such as H3K9me2. To examine this possibility, we performed H3K9me2 ChIP-seq, and although we observed some minor reductions in H3K9me2 in h1, the losses were not preferentially in heterochromatin where we see the majority of NRPE1 gain (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C, D). While we cannot exclude the possibility that other heterochromatin-associated marks are altered, the data suggests that H1 primarily affects the accessibility, rather than the nature of chromatin in these heterochromatic regions.

To determine whether the antagonistic relationship between H1 and NRPE1 is reciprocal, we performed ChIP-seq using an endogenous antibody for H1, with two biological replicates in the WT and nrpe1 mutant backgrounds. H1 levels were broadly unchanged in nrpe1 at TE regions (Figure 2A). Similarly, over NRPE1-defined peaks (where NRPE1 occupancy is strongest in WT) we observed no change in H1 occupancy in nrpe1 (Figure 2B). The results indicate that H1 does not invade RdDM regions in the nrpe1 mutant background.

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Next, we asked whether ectopic recruitment of RdDM may be sufficient to evict H1 from the genome. For this, we took advantage of the ZF-DMS3 transgenic lines that we previously characterized, in which zinc finger (ZF) fused DMS3 can recruit endogenous NRPE1 to >10,000 ectopic sites throughout the genome, corresponding to ZF ‘off-target’ binding sites (Gallego-Bartolomé et al., 2019). With these lines, we performed NRPE1 and H1 ChIP-seq in parallel. Compared to the non-transgenic control, we confirmed that NRPE1 was highly enriched at these ‘off-target’ regions (Figure 2C). However, with the same material, we observed no depletion of H1 at the ectopically bound NRPE1 sites (Figure 2C). We validated the quality of our H1 ChIPs, demonstrating antibody specificity, showing that they follow the previously described profiling patterns over H2A.W associated TEs (Bourguet et al., 2021), H3K27me3 marked/unmarked genes (Teano et al., 2023), and that H1.2 occupancy (Teano et al., 2023) is similarly enriched over our H1 peaks (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). To exclude the possibility that NRPE1 alone may be insufficient to evict H1, but that the fully functioning RdDM pathway may be required (which constitutes at least 32 described proteins acting in concert [Matzke and Mosher, 2014]), we focused on the subset of ZF-DMS3 off-target sites that experience hyper-CHH methylation (Gallego-Bartolomé et al., 2019). The gain of ectopic methylation at these regions indicates that the full RdDM pathway is recruited and functions to deposit de novo methylation. However, even at these regions where H1 is mildly enriched in WT, we saw no evidence for H1 depletion in the ZF-DMS3 transgenic lines (Figure 2D). Together, these results indicate that H1 hierarchically and non-reciprocally restricts RdDM from overaccumulation in heterochromatin.

Given our observation that NRPE1 is redistributed in h1, we wondered whether this could help to explain some of the unusual methylation defects observed in the h1 mutant. For instance, h1 mutants experience contrasting loss and gain of DNA methylation at euchromatic and heterochromatic TEs, respectively (Bourguet et al., 2021; Zemach et al., 2013). Previous explanations to account for this suggested that the h1 afforded increased accessibility of euchromatic TEs may promote increased access by activation-associated chromatin modifying enzymes, which in turn antagonize DNA methylation (Zemach et al., 2013). Another non-mutually exclusive scenario is that euchromatic loss and heterochromatic gain of methylation are caused by the relative shift of RdDM from euchromatin to heterochromatin. To directly test this possibility, we generated two independent NRPE1 CRISPR knockouts in the h1 mutant background (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A, B), and performed whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) analysis, alongside nrpe1, h1, and WT controls. We confirmed nrpe1 loss of function in the independent CRISPR KO lines by plotting CHH methylation over NRPE1 associated high confidence DMRs (Zhang et al., 2018), finding that CHH methylation is entirely abolished over these regions in both nrpe1/h1 lines (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C). By analysis of chromosome level DNA methylation patterns in the different mutant backgrounds, we found that the striking pericentromeric increase in CG and CHG methylation observed in h1, is almost entirely independent of RdDM, as it was not rescued in nrpe1/h1 (Figure 3A, Figure 3—figure supplement 2). In contrast, CHH methylation was mostly unaltered between the genotypes at the chromosome scale, with evidence for a slight reduction of CHH in the h1/nrpe1 double mutant as compared to h1 alone (Figure 3A, Figure 3—figure supplement 2).

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Next, we compared methylation levels in euchromatic versus heterochromatic TEs. Heterochromatic TEs experienced major increases in CG and CHG methylation in h1 as previously reported (Zemach et al., 2013), and these were independent of NRPE1 function, as the same increases were observed in nrpe1/h1 (Figure 3B). CHH levels were largely unchanged at heterochromatic TEs in all mutant backgrounds (Figure 3B). At euchromatic TEs, CG and CHG methylation levels were largely unchanged in h1, while CHH levels were markedly reduced as previously reported (Figure 3C). CHH methylation levels were further reduced in nrpe1, consistent with the well-established role of RdDM in maintaining CHH at euchromatic TEs (Stroud et al., 2013), with the additional mutation of h1 in nrpe1/h1 having a minimal effect (Figure 3C). However, we noticed that the loss of CHG methylation in nrpe1 was largely rescued in the nrpe1/h1 double mutant (Figure 3C). This striking effect was specific to euchromatic TEs. NRPE1 is therefore required for CHG methylation maintenance at euchromatic TEs and in the absence of H1, loss of RdDM can be functionally compensated for by other methylation pathways. This compensation is likely due to the action of CMT3 (Stroud et al., 2014; Zemach et al., 2013). The effect is reminiscent of h1’s amelioration of methylation loss in the chromatin remodeler mutant, ddm1 (Zemach et al., 2013), and further supports a role for H1 in demarcating the boundary between heterochromatic and euchromatic methylation pathways.

Calling DMRs in the mutant backgrounds, we found that h1 hyper CHG DMRs were by far the most numerous as compared to any other context (Figure 4A). Consistent with the average methylation chromosomal and TE plots, these hyper CHG DMRs were highly enriched over pericentromeric heterochromatin (Figure 4B). To gain insight into the functional context of methylation in these regions, we performed an overlap analysis between h1 hyper CHG DMRs and DMRs from 96 other Arabidopsis gene silencing mutants that were published previously (Stroud et al., 2013). Building similarity matrices based on pairwise overlapping scores (Co-Occurrence Statistics), we observed the separation of clustering of mutants belonging to different functional pathways (Figure 4C, Figure 4—figure supplement 1), consistent with previous studies (Stroud et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2018). The h1 hyper CHG DMRs clustered primarily with components of the CG maintenance pathway, including met1 and vim1/2/3 (Figure 4D). Interestingly, the h1 hyper CHG DMRs also clustered and correlated strongly with ddm1 hyper CHH DMRs. As heterochromatic transposons are known to transition from a state of quiescence to being actively targeted by RdDM in the ddm1 mutant (Panda et al., 2016), this again suggests that H1 controls regions of the genome that are susceptible to spurious RdDM targeting.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

While the majority of methylation changes observed in h1 (hyper CG and CHG) were entirely independent of NRPE1, in the chromosomal plots we noted a subtle depletion of CHH methylation in the h1/nrpe1 double mutant as compared to h1 alone (Figure 3A), suggesting that redistribution of NRPE1 may have functional consequences on methylation patterning. To explicitly investigate these ectopically bound loci, we compared NRPE1 enrichment in WT versus h1 and identified 15,075 peaks that have significantly higher NRPE1 signal in the h1 mutant. At these regions, CG and CHG methylation changes broadly mirrored that of heterochromatic TEs, again supporting the notion that NRPE1 primarily redistributes to heterochromatic regions of the genome in h1 (Figure 5A, Figure 5—figure supplement 1A). However, we also observed a significant depletion of CHH methylation at these regions in the nrpe1/h1 double mutant, as compared to either the h1 and nrpe1 alone, which was not observed when looking at heterochromatic TEs as a whole (compare Figure 5A to Figure 3B). This indicates that NRPE1 facilitates active deposition of CHH methylation at these newly bound locations. Reciprocally, we asked how methylation changes at regions of the genome that lose NRPE1 in h1 (1,859 peaks), and we found that methylation levels are significantly depleted in all three contexts (CG, CHG, and CHH) in the h1, nrpe1, and nrpe1/h1 double mutant backgrounds (Figure 5B, Figure 5—figure supplements 1B and 2). The mirrored loss and gain of methylation with changes in NRPE1 occupancy indicates that NRPE1 redistribution in h1 directly impacts methylation patterning in cis.

Figure 5 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The results thus far support a model whereby H1 prevents RdDM encroachment into heterochromatin. As H1 likely restricts access by reducing chromatin accessibility at these regions, we reasoned that this effect would not be RdDM specific and could affect other machinery in a similar manner. The SUVH1 methyl binding protein directly binds CHH methylation in vitro, yet shows strong preferential recruitment to RdDM over CMT dependent sites in vivo (Harris et al., 2018). Along with SUVH3, SUVH1 functions to protect the expression of genes residing nearby to RdDM-targeted transposable elements by recruiting DNAJ1/2 transcriptional activators. We therefore wondered whether the SUVH1’s occupancy might also be affected by H1. To test this, we performed ChIP-seq on SUVH1-3xFLAG in an h1 mutant background (Figure 6A). As with NRPE1, SUVH1 was generally enriched throughout the genome in h1, but the effect was strongest over heterochromatin (long TEs, cmt2-dependent hypo-CHH DMRs, and heterochromatic TEs, Figure 6B). At the transcript level, we saw no evidence that SUVH1 or related complex components are upregulated in the h1 mutant background (Supplementary file 1), however, we cannot rule out the possibility that the SUVH1-3xFLAG transgene is expressed more highly in h1. Teano et al recently showed that polycomb dependent H3K27me3 is redistributed in h1. We compared sites that gain NRPE1 to sites that gain H3K27me3 in h1, finding a statistically significant overlap (2.4 fold enrichment over expected, hypergeometric test p-value 2.1e^–71). Reciprocally, sites that lose NRPE1 were significantly enriched for overlap with H3K27me3 loss regions (1.6 fold over expected, hypergeometric test p-value 1.4e^–4). This indicates that RdDM and H3K27me3 patterning are similarly modulated by H1. To directly test this, we reanalyzed the H3K27me3 ChIP-seq data from Teano et al., finding coincident enrichment and depletion of H3K27me3 at sites that gain and lose NRPE1 in h1 (Figure 6E). Therefore, H1 acts in a non-RdDM-specific manner, to prevent euchromatic machinery from heterochromatic encroachment, likely through promoting nucleosome compaction and restricting access to chromatin.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Here, we show that loss of H1 results in redistribution of RdDM from euchromatic to heterochromatic regions, consistent with recent findings from small RNA data (Choi et al., 2021; Papareddy et al., 2020). This ectopic accumulation results in modest but detectable NRPE1-dependent methylation, and it would be interesting to determine whether Pol V transcript production and DRM2 methyltransferase recruitment occur in a similar manner to euchromatin in these regions. It is important to note that NRPE1 binding was generally increased in the h1 mutant (both euchromatin and heterochromatin), consistent with H1’s widespread occupancy through the genome, but that the effect was strongest in heterochromatin where H1 shows maximal enrichment (Bourguet et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2020; Rutowicz et al., 2019). The antagonism of RdDM by H1 is non-reciprocal, as H1 levels were not affected by RdDM loss, or artificial gain at ectopic regions of the genome. H1-mediated restriction could be in part due to its structural capacity to reduce linker DNA flexibility (Bednar et al., 2017), thereby reducing polymerase access to unwind and interact with genomic DNA. Pol V requires the DDR complex for efficient association with chromatin (Wongpalee et al., 2019), so the presence of H1 could present an additional barrier to this complex. Mammalian H1 has been shown to compact chromatin in part through the phase-separating property of its highly charged intrinsically disordered domain (Gibson et al., 2019). Consistent with this, very recent work in Arabidopsis showed that H1 induced phase separation and that this capacity was essential for the stability of heterochromatic nuclear foci (He et al., 2024). Therefore, another possibility is that high H1 occupancy creates a biophysical environment that excludes Pol V and related complexes. Our data together with the observed heterochromatic encroachment of Pol IV-dependent small RNAs in h1 (Choi et al., 2021; Papareddy et al., 2020), along with H1’s recently described role in preventing spurious antisense transcription at protein-coding genes (Choi et al., 2020), support a polymerase indiscriminate model for H1’s antagonism.

Small RNAs are relatively abundant in heterochromatin, despite Pol lV and RdDM being dispensable for methylation in these regions (Stroud et al., 2014). This suggests that Pol IV occupies heterochromatin, but that RdDM is either impotent for methylation deposition or acts redundantly with the CMT/KYP pathway. Here we detect NRPE1-dependent methylation at heterochromatic loci in h1, and combined with the finding that Pol V does not appreciably enter these regions in WT, suggests that H1 prevents RdDM from fully mobilizing in these regions by blocking Pol V. Recent evidence suggests that Pol V can be directly recruited by small RNAs to establish methylation (Sigman et al., 2021), and therefore mechanisms that preclude Pol V recruitment to heterochromatin would be particularly crucial in preventing redundant RdDM activity at regions where methylation has already been established.

In Arabidopsis thaliana, RdDM targets evolutionarily young transposable elements (Zhong et al., 2012). H1 therefore helps to improve the efficiency of RdDM by focusing it on TEs with the greatest potential to mobilize. As transposons age, they eventually become targeted by CMTs. How this transition occurs is unclear, but our results indicate a potential role for the progressive accumulation of H1 in this process. Interestingly in tomato, CMTs rather than RdDM target the evolutionarily younger elements (Wang and Baulcombe, 2020), therefore it will be important to determine whether H1 plays a similar role in maintaining the barrier between methylation pathways in this context. Recent work has shown that H1 co-operates with H2A.W to promote compaction at heterochromatic regions (Bourguet et al., 2021). However, H2A.W was found to antagonize rather than promote H1 deposition at heterochromatin. Therefore, the features that drive H1 to preferentially incorporate into heterochromatin are yet to be discovered.

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE225480.The pipelines and codes for downstream analysis are available on GitHub (https://github.com/Zhenhuiz/H1-restricts-euchromatin-associated-methylation-pathways-from-heterochromatic-encroachment, copy archived at Zhenhuiz, 2023). The bed files used to generate the plots are supplied in Supplementary file 3.

1. 1. Harris CJ
   2. Zhong Z

   (2023) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE225480. H1 restricts euchromatin-associated methylation pathways from heterochromatic encroachment.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE225480

1. 1. Choi J
   2. Lyons DB
   3. Kim MY

   (2019) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE122394. DNA methylation and histone H1 jointly repress transposable elements and aberrant intragenic transcripts.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE122394
2. 1. Wolff L
   2. Concia L
   3. Biocanin I
   4. Bourbousse C
   5. Barneche F

   (2023) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE160410. Linker histones mediate sequence-specific regulation of chromosomal organization and H3K27me3 enrichment over genes and telomeric repeats (ChIP-RX).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE160410

1. 1. Bednar J
   2. Garcia-Saez I
   3. Boopathi R
   4. Cutter AR
   5. Papai G
   6. Reymer A
   7. Syed SH
   8. Lone IN
   9. Tonchev O
   10. Crucifix C
   11. Menoni H
   12. Papin C
   13. Skoufias DA
   14. Kurumizaka H
   15. Lavery R
   16. Hamiche A
   17. Hayes JJ
   18. Schultz P
   19. Angelov D
   20. Petosa C
   21. Dimitrov S

   (2017) Structure and dynamics of a 197 bp nucleosome in complex with linker histone H1

   Molecular Cell 66:384–397.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.04.012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Böhmdorfer G
   2. Sethuraman S
   3. Rowley MJ
   4. Krzyszton M
   5. Rothi MH
   6. Bouzit L
   7. Wierzbicki AT

   (2016) Long non-coding RNA produced by RNA polymerase V determines boundaries of heterochromatin

   eLife 5:e19092.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19092

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bourguet P
   2. Picard CL
   3. Yelagandula R
   4. Pélissier T
   5. Lorković ZJ
   6. Feng S
   7. Pouch-Pélissier MN
   8. Schmücker A
   9. Jacobsen SE
   10. Berger F
   11. Mathieu O

   (2021) The histone variant H2A.W and linker histone H1 co-regulate heterochromatin accessibility and DNA methylation

   Nature Communications 12:2683.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22993-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bourque G
   2. Burns KH
   3. Gehring M
   4. Gorbunova V
   5. Seluanov A
   6. Hammell M
   7. Imbeault M
   8. Izsvák Z
   9. Levin HL
   10. Macfarlan TS
   11. Mager DL
   12. Feschotte C

   (2018) Ten things you should know about transposable elements 06 Biological Sciences 0604 Genetics

   Genome Biology 19:1–12.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1577-z

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Choi J
   2. Lyons DB
   3. Kim MY
   4. Moore JD
   5. Zilberman D

   (2020) DNA methylation and histone H1 jointly repress transposable elements and aberrant intragenic transcripts

   Molecular Cell 77:310–323.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.011

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Choi J
   2. Lyons DB
   3. Zilberman D

   (2021) Histone H1 prevents non-CG methylation-mediated small RNA biogenesis in Arabidopsis heterochromatin

   eLife 10:e72676.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72676

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cuerda-Gil D
   2. Slotkin RK

   (2016) Non-canonical RNA-directed DNA methylation

   Nature Plants 2:16163.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.163

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Du J
   2. Zhong X
   3. Bernatavichute YV
   4. Stroud H
   5. Feng S
   6. Caro E
   7. Vashisht AA
   8. Terragni J
   9. Chin HG
   10. Tu A
   11. Hetzel J
   12. Wohlschlegel JA
   13. Pradhan S
   14. Patel DJ
   15. Jacobsen SE

   (2012) Dual binding of chromomethylase domains to H3K9me2-containing nucleosomes directs DNA methylation in plants

   Cell 151:167–180.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.034

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Du J
   2. Johnson LM
   3. Groth M
   4. Feng S
   5. Hale CJ
   6. Li S
   7. Vashisht AA
   8. Wohlschlegel JA
   9. Patel DJ
   10. Jacobsen SE

   (2014) Mechanism of DNA methylation-directed histone methylation by KRYPTONITE

   Molecular Cell 55:495–504.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Du J
    2. Johnson LM
    3. Jacobsen SE
    4. Patel DJ

    (2015) DNA methylation pathways and their crosstalk with histone methylation

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 16:519–532.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm4043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Erdmann RM
    2. Picard CL

    (2020) RNA-directed DNA Methylation

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1009034.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Gallego-Bartolomé J
    2. Liu W
    3. Kuo PH
    4. Feng S
    5. Ghoshal B
    6. Gardiner J
    7. Zhao JM-C
    8. Park SY
    9. Chory J
    10. Jacobsen SE

    (2019) Co-targeting RNA Polymerases IV and V promotes efficient de novo DNA methylation in Arabidopsis

    Cell 176:1068–1082.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Gibson BA
    2. Doolittle LK
    3. Schneider MWG
    4. Jensen LE
    5. Gamarra N
    6. Henry L
    7. Gerlich DW
    8. Redding S
    9. Rosen MK

    (2019) ORganization of chromatin by intrinsic and regulated phase separation

    Cell 179:470–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Harris CJ
    2. Husmann D
    3. Liu W
    4. Kasmi FE
    5. Wang H
    6. Papikian A
    7. Pastor WA
    8. Moissiard G
    9. Vashisht AA
    10. Dangl JL
    11. Wohlschlegel JA
    12. Jacobsen SE

    (2016) Arabidopsis AtMORC4 and AtMORC7 form nuclear bodies and repress a large number of protein-coding genes

    PLOS Genetics 12:e1005998.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005998

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Harris CJ
    2. Scheibe M
    3. Wongpalee SP
    4. Liu W
    5. Cornett EM
    6. Vaughan RM
    7. Li X
    8. Chen W
    9. Xue Y
    10. Zhong Z
    11. Yen L
    12. Barshop WD
    13. Rayatpisheh S
    14. Gallego-Bartolome J
    15. Groth M
    16. Wang Z
    17. Wohlschlegel JA
    18. Du J
    19. Rothbart SB
    20. Butter F
    21. Jacobsen SE

    (2018) A DNA methylation reader complex that enhances gene transcription

    Science 362:1182–1186.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7854

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. He S
    2. Vickers M
    3. Zhang J
    4. Feng X

    (2019) Natural depletion of histone H1 in sex cells causes DNA demethylation, heterochromatin decondensation and transposon activation

    eLife 8:e42530.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42530

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. He S
    2. Yu Y
    3. Wang L
    4. Zhang J
    5. Bai Z
    6. Li G
    7. Li P
    8. Feng X

    (2024) Linker histone H1 drives heterochromatin condensation via phase separation in Arabidopsis

    The Plant Cell 36:1829–1843.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koae034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Heinz S
    2. Benner C
    3. Spann N
    4. Bertolino E
    5. Lin YC
    6. Laslo P
    7. Cheng JX
    8. Murre C
    9. Singh H
    10. Glass CK

    (2010) Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities

    Molecular Cell 38:576–589.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Ichino L
    2. Boone BA
    3. Strauskulage L
    4. Harris CJ
    5. Kaur G
    6. Gladstone MA
    7. Tan M
    8. Feng S
    9. Jami-Alahmadi Y
    10. Duttke SH
    11. Wohlschlegel JA
    12. Cheng X
    13. Redding S
    14. Jacobsen SE

    (2021) MBD5 and MBD6 couple DNA methylation to gene silencing through the J-domain protein SILENZIO

    Science 372:1434–1439.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg6130

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Johnson LM
    2. Du J
    3. Hale CJ
    4. Bischof S
    5. Feng S
    6. Chodavarapu RK
    7. Zhong X
    8. Marson G
    9. Pellegrini M
    10. Segal DJ
    11. Patel DJ
    12. Jacobsen SE

    (2014) SRA- and SET-domain-containing proteins link RNA polymerase V occupancy to DNA methylation

    Nature 507:124–128.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12931

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. Software

    1. Krueger F

    (2019) Trim Galore

    Babraham Bioinformatics.

    https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/
22. 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
23. 1. Law JA
    2. Du J
    3. Hale CJ
    4. Feng S
    5. Krajewski K
    6. Palanca AMS
    7. Strahl BD
    8. Patel DJ
    9. Jacobsen SE

    (2013) Polymerase IV occupancy at RNA-directed DNA methylation sites requires SHH1

    Nature 498:385–389.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12178

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Li X
    2. Harris CJ
    3. Zhong Z
    4. Chen W
    5. Liu R
    6. Jia B
    7. Wang Z
    8. Li S
    9. Jacobsen SE
    10. Du J

    (2018) Mechanistic insights into plant SUVH family H3K9 methyltransferases and their binding to context-biased non-CG DNA methylation

    PNAS 115:E8793–E8802.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809841115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Liu W
    2. Duttke SH
    3. Hetzel J
    4. Groth M
    5. Feng S
    6. Gallego-Bartolome J
    7. Zhong Z
    8. Kuo HY
    9. Wang Z
    10. Zhai J
    11. Chory J
    12. Jacobsen SE

    (2018) RNA-directed DNA methylation involves co-transcriptional small-RNA-guided slicing of polymerase V transcripts in Arabidopsis

    Nature Plants 4:181–188.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0100-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Liu Y
    2. Zhang Z
    3. Hu H
    4. Chen W
    5. Zhang F
    6. Wang Q
    7. Wang C
    8. Yan K
    9. Du J

    (2024) Molecular basis of chromatin remodelling by DDM1 involved in plant DNA methylation

    Nature Plants 10:374–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01640-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Matzke MA
    2. Mosher RA

    (2014) RNA-directed DNA methylation: an epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity

    Nature Reviews Genetics 15:394–408.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3683

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Naish M
    2. Alonge M
    3. Wlodzimierz P
    4. Tock AJ
    5. Abramson BW
    6. Schmücker A
    7. Mandáková T
    8. Jamge B
    9. Lambing C
    10. Kuo P
    11. Yelina N
    12. Hartwick N
    13. Colt K
    14. Smith LM
    15. Ton J
    16. Kakutani T
    17. Martienssen RA
    18. Schneeberger K
    19. Lysak MA
    20. Berger F
    21. Bousios A
    22. Michael TP
    23. Schatz MC
    24. Henderson IR

    (2021) The genetic and epigenetic landscape of the Arabidopsis centromeres

    Science 374:eabi7489.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi7489

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Osakabe A
    2. Jamge B
    3. Axelsson E
    4. Montgomery SA
    5. Akimcheva S
    6. Kuehn AL
    7. Pisupati R
    8. Lorković ZJ
    9. Yelagandula R
    10. Kakutani T
    11. Berger F

    (2021) The chromatin remodeler DDM1 prevents transposon mobility through deposition of histone variant H2A.W

    Nature Cell Biology 23:391–400.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-021-00658-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Panda K
    2. Ji L
    3. Neumann DA
    4. Daron J
    5. Schmitz RJ
    6. Slotkin RK

    (2016) Full-length autonomous transposable elements are preferentially targeted by expression-dependent forms of RNA-directed DNA methylation

    Genome Biology 17:170.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-1032-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Papareddy RK
    2. Páldi K
    3. Paulraj S
    4. Kao P
    5. Lutzmayer S
    6. Nodine MD

    (2020) Chromatin regulates expression of small RNAs to help maintain transposon methylome homeostasis in Arabidopsis

    Genome Biology 21:251.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02163-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Ramírez F
    2. Ryan DP
    3. Grüning B
    4. Bhardwaj V
    5. Kilpert F
    6. Richter AS
    7. Heyne S
    8. Dündar F
    9. Manke T

    (2016) deepTools2: a next generation web server for deep-sequencing data analysis

    Nucleic Acids Research 44:W160–W165.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw257

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ruiz-Velasco M
    2. Zaugg JB

    (2017) Structure meets function: How chromatin organisation conveys functionality

    Current Opinion in Systems Biology 1:129–136.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coisb.2017.01.003

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Rutowicz K
    2. Lirski M
    3. Mermaz B
    4. Teano G
    5. Schubert J
    6. Mestiri I
    7. Kroteń MA
    8. Fabrice TN
    9. Fritz S
    10. Grob S
    11. Ringli C
    12. Cherkezyan L
    13. Barneche F
    14. Jerzmanowski A
    15. Baroux C

    (2019) Linker histones are fine-scale chromatin architects modulating developmental decisions in Arabidopsis

    Genome Biology 20:157.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1767-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Saha A
    2. Dalal Y

    (2021) A glitch in the snitch: the role of linker histone H1 in shaping the epigenome in normal and diseased cells

    Open Biology 11:210124.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.210124

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Sigman MJ
    2. Panda K
    3. Kirchner R
    4. McLain LL
    5. Payne H
    6. Peasari JR
    7. Husbands AY
    8. Slotkin RK
    9. McCue AD

    (2021) An siRNA-guided ARGONAUTE protein directs RNA polymerase V to initiate DNA methylation

    Nature Plants 7:1461–1474.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01008-7

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Stroud H
    2. Greenberg MVC
    3. Feng S
    4. Bernatavichute YV
    5. Jacobsen SE

    (2013) Comprehensive analysis of silencing mutants reveals complex regulation of the Arabidopsis methylome

    Cell 152:352–364.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.10.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Stroud H
    2. Do T
    3. Du J
    4. Zhong X
    5. Feng S
    6. Johnson L
    7. Patel DJ
    8. Jacobsen SE

    (2014) Non-CG methylation patterns shape the epigenetic landscape in Arabidopsis

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 21:64–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Teano G
    2. Concia L
    3. Wolff L
    4. Carron L
    5. Biocanin I
    6. Adamusová K
    7. Fojtová M
    8. Bourge M
    9. Kramdi A
    10. Colot V
    11. Grossniklaus U
    12. Bowler C
    13. Baroux C
    14. Carbone A
    15. Probst AV
    16. Schrumpfová PP
    17. Fajkus J
    18. Amiard S
    19. Grob S
    20. Bourbousse C
    21. Barneche F

    (2023) Histone H1 protects telomeric repeats from H3K27me3 invasion in Arabidopsis

    Cell Reports 42:112894.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112894

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Villar CBR
    2. Kohler C

    (2018) Plant chromatin immunoprecipitation

    Methods in Molecular Biology 1839:65–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8685-9

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Wang Z
    2. Baulcombe DC

    (2020) Transposon age and non-CG methylation

    Nature Communications 11:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14995-6

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Wierzbicki AT
    2. Haag JR
    3. Pikaard CS

    (2008) Noncoding transcription by RNA polymerase Pol IVb/Pol V mediates transcriptional silencing of overlapping and adjacent genes

    Cell 135:635–648.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.035

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Wierzbicki AT
    2. Ream TS
    3. Haag JR
    4. Pikaard CS

    (2009) RNA polymerase V transcription guides ARGONAUTE4 to chromatin

    Nature Genetics 41:630–634.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.365

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Wongpalee SP
    2. Liu S
    3. Gallego-Bartolomé J
    4. Leitner A
    5. Aebersold R
    6. Liu W
    7. Yen L
    8. Nohales MA
    9. Kuo PH
    10. Vashisht AA
    11. Wohlschlegel JA
    12. Feng S
    13. Kay SA
    14. Zhou ZH
    15. Jacobsen SE

    (2019) CryoEM structures of Arabidopsis DDR complexes involved in RNA-directed DNA methylation

    Nature Communications 10:3916.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11759-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Xi Y
    2. Li W

    (2009) BSMAP: whole genome bisulfite sequence MAPping program

    BMC Bioinformatics 10:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Yan L
    2. Wei S
    3. Wu Y
    4. Hu R
    5. Li H
    6. Yang W
    7. Xie Q

    (2015) High-efficiency genome editing in Arabidopsis using YAO promoter-driven CRISPR/Cas9 System

    Molecular Plant 8:1820–1823.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2015.10.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Yu G
    2. Wang LG
    3. He QY

    (2015) ChIPseeker: an R/Bioconductor package for ChIP peak annotation, comparison and visualization

    Bioinformatics 31:2382–2383.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv145

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Zemach A
    2. Kim MY
    3. Hsieh PH
    4. Coleman-Derr D
    5. Eshed-Williams L
    6. Thao K
    7. Harmer SL
    8. Zilberman D

    (2013) The Arabidopsis nucleosome remodeler DDM1 allows DNA methyltransferases to access H1-containing heterochromatin

    Cell 153:193–205.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Zhang Y
    2. Liu T
    3. Meyer CA
    4. Eeckhoute J
    5. Johnson DS
    6. Bernstein BE
    7. Nusbaum C
    8. Myers RM
    9. Brown M
    10. Li W
    11. Liu XS

    (2008) Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS)

    Genome Biology 9:R137.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Zhang Y
    2. Harris CJ
    3. Liu Q
    4. Liu W
    5. Ausin I
    6. Long Y
    7. Xiao L
    8. Feng L
    9. Chen X
    10. Xie Y
    11. Chen X
    12. Zhan L
    13. Feng S
    14. Li JJ
    15. Wang H
    16. Zhai J
    17. Jacobsen SE

    (2018) Large-scale comparative epigenomics reveals hierarchical regulation of non-CG methylation in Arabidopsis

    PNAS 115:E1069–E1074.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716300115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. Software

    1. Zhenhuiz

    (2023) H1-restricts-Euchromatin-associated-methylation-pathways-from-Heterochromatic-encroachment, version swh:1:rev:bf0c18ec33eb5366d6c54871b720635248ce6c45

    Software Heriatge.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:a6c23cc9b2026037400089fa0fbb64a1775e1cc6;origin=https://github.com/Zhenhuiz/H1-restricts-euchromatin-associated-methylation-pathways-from-heterochromatic-encroachment;visit=swh:1:snp:6473a6a85743d177277f0cc43af0272972de78fc;anchor=swh:1:rev:bf0c18ec33eb5366d6c54871b720635248ce6c45
52. 1. Zhong X
    2. Hale CJ
    3. Law JA
    4. Johnson LM
    5. Feng S
    6. Tu A
    7. Jacobsen SE

    (2012) DDR complex facilitates global association of RNA polymerase V to promoters and evolutionarily young transposons

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 19:870–875.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2354

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Zhong X
    2. Du J
    3. Hale CJ
    4. Gallego-Bartolome J
    5. Feng S
    6. Vashisht AA
    7. Chory J
    8. Wohlschlegel JA
    9. Patel DJ
    10. Jacobsen SE

    (2014) Molecular mechanism of action of plant DRM de novo DNA methyltransferases

    Cell 157:1050–1060.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. C Jake Harris

   Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Present address

   Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Zhenhui Zhong

   For correspondence

   cjh92@cam.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5120-0377

2. Zhenhui Zhong

   Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Present address

   Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   C Jake Harris

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Lucia Ichino

   Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Suhua Feng

   1. Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
   2. Eli & Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine & Stem Cell Research, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Steven E Jacobsen

   1. Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
   2. Eli & Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine & Stem Cell Research, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
   3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   jacobsen@ucla.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9483-138X

• 790

  views

• 76

  downloads

• 1

  citations

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