Activation of individual L1 retrotransposon instances is restricted to cell-type dependent permissive loci

  1. Claude Philippe
  2. Dulce B Vargas-Landin
  3. Aurelien J Doucet
  4. Dominic van Essen
  5. Jorge Vera-Otarola
  6. Monika Kuciak
  7. Antoine Corbin
  8. Pilvi Nigumann
  9. Gaël Cristofari  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, France
  2. Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, France
  3. 1Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, France
  4. Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France

Abstract

LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposons represent approximately one sixth of the human genome, but only the human-specific L1HS-Ta subfamily acts as an endogenous mutagen in modern humans, reshaping both somatic and germline genomes. Due to their high levels of sequence identity and the existence of many polymorphic insertions absent from the reference genome, the transcriptional activation of individual genomic L1HS-Ta copies remains poorly understood. Here we comprehensively mapped fixed and polymorphic L1HS-Ta copies in 12 commonly-used somatic cell lines, and identified transcriptional and epigenetic signatures allowing the unambiguous identification of active L1HS-Ta copies in their genomic context. Strikingly, only a very restricted subset of L1HS-Ta loci - some being polymorphic among individuals - significantly contributes to the bulk of L1 expression, and these loci are differentially regulated among distinct cell lines. Thus, our data support a local model of L1 transcriptional activation in somatic cells, governed by individual-, locus-, and cell-type-specific determinants.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Claude Philippe

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Dulce B Vargas-Landin

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aurelien J Doucet

    Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dominic van Essen

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jorge Vera-Otarola

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, 1Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Monika Kuciak

    Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, University of Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Antoine Corbin

    Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pilvi Nigumann

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Gaël Cristofari

    INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Institute for Research on Cancer and Aging of Nice, Nice, France
    For correspondence
    Gael.Cristofari@unice.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Philippe et al.

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

Metrics

  • 7,614
    views
  • 1,245
    downloads
  • 130
    citations

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

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. Claude Philippe
  2. Dulce B Vargas-Landin
  3. Aurelien J Doucet
  4. Dominic van Essen
  5. Jorge Vera-Otarola
  6. Monika Kuciak
  7. Antoine Corbin
  8. Pilvi Nigumann
  9. Gaël Cristofari
(2016)
Activation of individual L1 retrotransposon instances is restricted to cell-type dependent permissive loci
eLife 5:e13926.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13926

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13926

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article Updated

    The preservation of genome integrity during sperm and egg development is vital for reproductive success. During meiosis, the tumor suppressor BRCA1/BRC-1 and structural maintenance of chromosomes 5/6 (SMC-5/6) complex genetically interact to promote high fidelity DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, but the specific DSB repair outcomes these proteins regulate remain unknown. Using genetic and cytological methods to monitor resolution of DSBs with different repair partners in Caenorhabditis elegans, we demonstrate that both BRC-1 and SMC-5 repress intersister crossover recombination events. Sequencing analysis of conversion tracts from homolog-independent DSB repair events further indicates that BRC-1 regulates intersister/intrachromatid noncrossover conversion tract length. Moreover, we find that BRC-1 specifically inhibits error prone repair of DSBs induced at mid-pachytene. Finally, we reveal functional interactions of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 in regulating repair pathway engagement: BRC-1 is required for localization of recombinase proteins to DSBs in smc-5 mutants and enhances DSB repair defects in smc-5 mutants by repressing theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). These results are consistent with a model in which some functions of BRC-1 act upstream of SMC-5/6 to promote recombination and inhibit error-prone DSB repair, while SMC-5/6 acts downstream of BRC-1 to regulate the formation or resolution of recombination intermediates. Taken together, our study illuminates the coordinated interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Ryo Kariyazono, Takashi Osanai
    Research Article

    The hox operon in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, encoding bidirectional hydrogenase responsible for H2 production, is transcriptionally upregulated under microoxic conditions. Although several regulators for hox transcription have been identified, their dynamics and higher-order DNA structure of hox region in microoxic conditions remain elusive. We focused on key regulators for the hox operon: cyAbrB2, a conserved regulator in cyanobacteria, and SigE, an alternative sigma factor. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing revealed that cyAbrB2 binds to the hox promoter region under aerobic conditions, with its binding being flattened in microoxic conditions. Concurrently, SigE exhibited increased localization to the hox promoter under microoxic conditions. Genome-wide analysis revealed that cyAbrB2 binds broadly to AT-rich genome regions and represses gene expression. Moreover, we demonstrated the physical interactions of the hox promoter region with its distal genomic loci. Both the transition to microoxic conditions and the absence of cyAbrB2 influenced the chromosomal interaction. From these results, we propose that cyAbrB2 is a cyanobacterial nucleoid-associated protein (NAP), modulating chromosomal conformation, which blocks RNA polymerase from the hox promoter in aerobic conditions. We further infer that cyAbrB2, with altered localization pattern upon microoxic conditions, modifies chromosomal conformation in microoxic conditions, which allows SigE-containing RNA polymerase to access the hox promoter. The coordinated actions of this NAP and the alternative sigma factor are crucial for the proper hox expression in microoxic conditions. Our results highlight the impact of cyanobacterial chromosome conformation and NAPs on transcription, which have been insufficiently investigated.