Chromatin Remodeling: The voyage is as important as the harbor

To find nucleosomes, chromatin remodelers slide and hop along DNA, and their direction of approach affects the direction that nucleosomes slide in.
  1. Anton Sabantsev  Is a corresponding author
  2. Sebastian Deindl  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, Sweden

Most of the DNA in eukaryotic cells is wrapped around histone proteins in a spool-like configuration to form basic structural units called nucleosomes, which together make up chromatin (Luger et al., 1997; Kornberg, 1974). Such tight packaging significantly restricts DNA accessibility (Kornberg and Lorch, 2020). As a result, the position of nucleosomes around a gene promoter – the stretch of DNA where gene expression is initiated – can dictate whether a gene is turned on or off (Jiang and Pugh, 2009).

Chromatin remodelers are proteins powered by ATP that play a crucial role in sliding nucleosomes along DNA to ensure specific genomic sequences are accessible. Some chromatin remodelers, like those known as RSC and ISW2 in yeast, operate at promoters by either pushing nucleosomes apart (RSC) or pulling them together (ISW2) (Yen et al., 2012). This increases or decreases the accessibility of the promotor, respectively. Understanding how the chromatin remodelers exert these opposing effects is essential for comprehending the organization of a genome and the pathogenesis of many diseases with genetic components – including cancers.

In principle, a protein can find its target simply by randomly diffusing in all three spatial dimensions. However, navigating the vast genomic landscape using only these random 3D movements would be an exceedingly time-consuming endeavor. Therefore, many DNA-binding proteins have evolved to bind weakly to any DNA sequence and move along it, a process known as 1D diffusion. This combination of 3D and 1D diffusion greatly speeds up the search process (Berg et al., 1981; Marklund et al., 2020). Now, in eLife, Carl Wu, Taekjip Ha and colleagues – including Jee Min Kim and Claudia Carcamo as joint first authors – report that the yeast chromatin remodelers RSC and ISW2 diffuse over long stretches of DNA to find nucleosomes to slide. Moreover, their direction of approach affects the direction that nucleosomes slide in. Taken together, these findings reveal an intriguing new facet of remodeler function (Kim et al., 2023).

The team (who are based at Johns Hopkins University and HHMI Janelia Research Campus) used optical tweezers to hold stretches of DNA in place (van Mameren et al., 2009; Comstock et al., 2011). Combined with confocal fluorescence microscopy techniques, this allowed them to visualize individual fluorescently labeled molecules of RSC and ISW2 diffusing along DNA molecules with widely spaced nucleosomes (Figure 1A). The experiments demonstrated that both remodelers can diffuse along DNA, but that each displays distinct diffusion mechanisms. ISW2 slides along the DNA, following its spiral configuration closely, whereas RSC hops between nearby positions on the DNA strand (see Figure 1B). Additionally, labeling remodelers with different fluorescent markers allowed simultaneous tracking of their movements on the same DNA molecule. Interestingly, when two remodelers encounter each other while diffusing along DNA, they seldom pass by each other. Instead, they either recoil or briefly come together to co-diffuse for less than one second.

How remodelers find nucleosomes.

(A) Schematic of the assay used to observe chromatin remodeler 1D diffusion and subsequent nucleosome sliding on a sparse nucleosome array. A long DNA molecule (approximately 50,000 base pairs) with up to 40 nucleosomes is stretched between two microspheres held in optical traps (purple). Fluorescence from nucleosomes (green) and chromatin remodeler molecules (red) is monitored using confocal fluorescence microscopy. (B) Schematics illustrating the target search mechanisms and resulting nucleosome sliding directionality for RSC (left) and ISW2 (right) remodelers.

When remodelers arrive at a nucleosome, they often attach to it and then begin remodeling. In the presence of ATP, Kim et al. noted that RSC or ISW2 remodelers bind to nucleosomes and then slide them in a single direction for considerable distances, sometimes exceeding 500 base pairs. This behavior distinguishes them from remodelers such as Chd1, which frequently alter their direction (Qiu et al., 2017). The capability to visualize individual remodelers locating and subsequently moving a nucleosome in real-time also revealed a fascinating and unexpected effect – the direction of nucleosome sliding depends on the direction the remodeler approaches the nucleosome from. RSC nudges nucleosomes onward in the same direction as it was moving before, while ISW2 pulls them in the opposite direction from which it arrived (Figure 1B).

Until now, real-time single-molecule analysis of nucleosome sliding was mainly achieved using single-molecule FRET – a potent method capable of detecting movements of a couple of base pairs, but with a limited dynamic range of less than 20 base pairs. As a result, very little was known about the behavior of chromatin remodelers at larger scales. The findings of Kim et al. suggest an intriguing new mechanism behind the effects of RSC and ISW2 on promoter nucleosomes: the stretches of nucleosome-free DNA near promoters serve as landing sites for these remodelers, allowing them to use 1D diffusion to move towards the nucleosomes. This might not only help remodelers locate the nucleosomes they need to act upon, but also orient them to slide nucleosomes in the right direction.

In the future, it would be fascinating to see the techniques used by Kim et al. extended to other remodelers, including those found in humans, to examine how widespread the observed effects are. Furthermore, this approach is well-positioned to explore the critical question of what occurs when a remodeler moves a nucleosome into another nucleosome or obstacle. Developing a quantitative model that integrates 1D diffusion could facilitate analysis of the impact of these previously unappreciated effects on sliding of promoter nucleosomes. Constructing such a model necessitates further characterization of nucleosome binding rates via both 1D and 3D diffusion. Overall, these important findings will undoubtedly shape future research and encourage scientists to consider how remodelers locate nucleosomes in their experiments and the potential consequences for the remodeling process.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anton Sabantsev

    Anton Sabantsev is in the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    For correspondence
    anton.sabantcev@icm.uu.se
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8559-8894
  2. Sebastian Deindl

    Sebastian Deindl is in the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    For correspondence
    sebastian.deindl@icm.uu.se
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6807-8654

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: March 15, 2024 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2024, Sabantsev and Deindl

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 519
    Page views
  • 33
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Anton Sabantsev
  2. Sebastian Deindl
(2024)
Chromatin Remodeling: The voyage is as important as the harbor
eLife 13:e96836.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.96836

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.