Structure of the germline genome of Tetrahymena thermophila and relationship to the massively rearranged somatic genome

  1. Eileen P Hamilton
  2. Aurélie Kapusta
  3. Piroska E Huvos
  4. Shelby L Bidwell
  5. Nikhat Zafar
  6. Haibao Tang
  7. Michalis Hadjithomas
  8. Vivek Krishnakumar
  9. Jonathan H Badger
  10. Elisabet V Caler
  11. Carsten Russ
  12. Qiandong Zeng
  13. Lin Fan
  14. Joshua Z Levin
  15. Terrance Shea
  16. Sarah K Young
  17. Ryan Hegarty
  18. Riza Daza
  19. Sharvari Gujja
  20. Jennifer R Wortman
  21. Bruce W Birren
  22. Chad Nusbaum
  23. Jainy Thomas
  24. Clayton M Carey
  25. Ellen J Pritham
  26. Cédric Feschotte
  27. Tomoko Noto
  28. Kazufumi Mochizuki
  29. Romeo Papazyan
  30. Sean D Taverna
  31. Paul H Dear
  32. Donna M Cassidy-Hanley
  33. Jie Xiong
  34. Wei Miao
  35. Eduardo Orias
  36. Robert S Coyne  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
  2. University of Utah School of Medicine, United States
  3. Southern Illinois University, United States
  4. J. Craig Venter Institute, United States
  5. Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, United States
  6. Broad Institute, United States
  7. Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, Austria
  8. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
  9. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom
  10. Cornell University, United States
  11. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Abstract

The germline genome of the binucleated ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila undergoes programmed chromosome breakage and massive DNA elimination to generate the somatic genome. Here we present a complete sequence assembly of the germline genome and analyze multiple features of its structure and its relationship to the somatic genome, shedding light on the mechanisms of genome rearrangement as well as the evolutionary history of this remarkable germline/soma differentiation. Our results strengthen the notion that a complex, dynamic, and ongoing interplay between mobile DNA elements and the host genome have shaped Tetrahymena chromosome structure, locally and globally. Non-standard outcomes of rearrangement events, including the generation of short-lived somatic chromosomes and excision of DNA interrupting protein-coding regions, may represent novel forms of developmental gene regulation. We also compare Tetrahymena's germline/soma differentiation to that of other characterized ciliates, illustrating the wide diversity of adaptations that have occurred within this phylum.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Eileen P Hamilton

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Aurélie Kapusta

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Piroska E Huvos

    Department of Medical Biochemistry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Shelby L Bidwell

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nikhat Zafar

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Haibao Tang

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michalis Hadjithomas

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Vivek Krishnakumar

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5227-0200
  9. Jonathan H Badger

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Elisabet V Caler

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Carsten Russ

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Qiandong Zeng

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Lin Fan

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Joshua Z Levin

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Terrance Shea

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Sarah K Young

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Ryan Hegarty

    Genomics Platform, Broad Institute, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Riza Daza

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Sharvari Gujja

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jennifer R Wortman

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Bruce W Birren

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Chad Nusbaum

    Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Jainy Thomas

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Clayton M Carey

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Ellen J Pritham

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Cédric Feschotte

    Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Tomoko Noto

    Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Kazufumi Mochizuki

    Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7987-9852
  29. Romeo Papazyan

    Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Sean D Taverna

    Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  31. Paul H Dear

    MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  32. Donna M Cassidy-Hanley

    Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  33. Jie Xiong

    Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  34. Wei Miao

    Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  35. Eduardo Orias

    Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  36. Robert S Coyne

    J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    For correspondence
    rcoyne@jcvi.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7693-3996

Funding

National Human Genome Research Institute (U54 HG003067)

  • Chad Nusbaum

National Science Foundation (MCB-1158346)

  • Robert S Coyne

Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (31525021)

  • Wei Miao

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 6,379
    views
  • 961
    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. Eileen P Hamilton
  2. Aurélie Kapusta
  3. Piroska E Huvos
  4. Shelby L Bidwell
  5. Nikhat Zafar
  6. Haibao Tang
  7. Michalis Hadjithomas
  8. Vivek Krishnakumar
  9. Jonathan H Badger
  10. Elisabet V Caler
  11. Carsten Russ
  12. Qiandong Zeng
  13. Lin Fan
  14. Joshua Z Levin
  15. Terrance Shea
  16. Sarah K Young
  17. Ryan Hegarty
  18. Riza Daza
  19. Sharvari Gujja
  20. Jennifer R Wortman
  21. Bruce W Birren
  22. Chad Nusbaum
  23. Jainy Thomas
  24. Clayton M Carey
  25. Ellen J Pritham
  26. Cédric Feschotte
  27. Tomoko Noto
  28. Kazufumi Mochizuki
  29. Romeo Papazyan
  30. Sean D Taverna
  31. Paul H Dear
  32. Donna M Cassidy-Hanley
  33. Jie Xiong
  34. Wei Miao
  35. Eduardo Orias
  36. Robert S Coyne
(2016)
Structure of the germline genome of Tetrahymena thermophila and relationship to the massively rearranged somatic genome
eLife 5:e19090.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19090

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19090

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Matthew C Pahl, Prabhat Sharma ... Andrew D Wells
    Research Article

    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of genetic signals associated with autoimmune disease. The majority of these signals are located in non-coding regions and likely impact cis-regulatory elements (cRE). Because cRE function is dynamic across cell types and states, profiling the epigenetic status of cRE across physiological processes is necessary to characterize the molecular mechanisms by which autoimmune variants contribute to disease risk. We localized risk variants from 15 autoimmune GWAS to cRE active during TCR-CD28 co-stimulation of naïve human CD4+ T cells. To characterize how dynamic changes in gene expression correlate with cRE activity, we measured transcript levels, chromatin accessibility, and promoter–cRE contacts across three phases of naive CD4+ T cell activation using RNA-seq, ATAC-seq, and HiC. We identified ~1200 protein-coding genes physically connected to accessible disease-associated variants at 423 GWAS signals, at least one-third of which are dynamically regulated by activation. From these maps, we functionally validated a novel stretch of evolutionarily conserved intergenic enhancers whose activity is required for activation-induced IL2 gene expression in human and mouse, and is influenced by autoimmune-associated genetic variation. The set of genes implicated by this approach are enriched for genes controlling CD4+ T cell function and genes involved in human inborn errors of immunity, and we pharmacologically validated eight implicated genes as novel regulators of T cell activation. These studies directly show how autoimmune variants and the genes they regulate influence processes involved in CD4+ T cell proliferation and activation.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Leif Benner, Savannah Muron ... Brian Oliver
    Research Article

    Differentiation of female germline stem cells into a mature oocyte includes the expression of RNAs and proteins that drive early embryonic development in Drosophila. We have little insight into what activates the expression of these maternal factors. One candidate is the zinc-finger protein OVO. OVO is required for female germline viability and has been shown to positively regulate its own expression, as well as a downstream target, ovarian tumor, by binding to the transcriptional start site (TSS). To find additional OVO targets in the female germline and further elucidate OVO’s role in oocyte development, we performed ChIP-seq to determine genome-wide OVO occupancy, as well as RNA-seq comparing hypomorphic and wild type rescue ovo alleles. OVO preferentially binds in close proximity to target TSSs genome-wide, is associated with open chromatin, transcriptionally active histone marks, and OVO-dependent expression. Motif enrichment analysis on OVO ChIP peaks identified a 5’-TAACNGT-3’ OVO DNA binding motif spatially enriched near TSSs. However, the OVO DNA binding motif does not exhibit precise motif spacing relative to the TSS characteristic of RNA polymerase II complex binding core promoter elements. Integrated genomics analysis showed that 525 genes that are bound and increase in expression downstream of OVO are known to be essential maternally expressed genes. These include genes involved in anterior/posterior/germ plasm specification (bcd, exu, swa, osk, nos, aub, pgc, gcl), egg activation (png, plu, gnu, wisp, C(3)g, mtrm), translational regulation (cup, orb, bru1, me31B), and vitelline membrane formation (fs(1)N, fs(1)M3, clos). This suggests that OVO is a master transcriptional regulator of oocyte development and is responsible for the expression of structural components of the egg as well as maternally provided RNAs that are required for early embryonic development.