Xist RNA binds select autosomal genes and depends on Repeat B to regulate their expression

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Yao S. and colleagues aims to monitor the potential autosomal regulatory role of the master regulator of X chromosome inactivation, the Xist long non-coding RNA. It has recently become apparent that in the human system, Xist RNA can not only spread in cis on the future inactive X chromosome but also reach some autosomal regions where it recruits transcriptional repression and Polycomb marking. Previous work has also reported that Xist RNA can show a diffused signal in some biological contexts in FISH experiments.

In this study, the authors investigate whether Xist represses autosomal loci in differentiating female mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and somatic mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs). They perform a time course of ESC differentiation followed by Capture Hybridization of Associated RNA Targets (CHART) on both female and male ESCs, as well as pulldowns with sense oligos for Xist. The authors also examine transcriptional activity through RNA-seq and integrate this data with prior ChIP-seq experiments. Additional experiments were conducted in MEFs and Xist-ΔB repeat mutants, the latter fails to recruit Polycomb repressors.

Based on this experimental design, the authors make several bold claims:

(1) Xist binds to about a hundred specific autosomal regions.
(2) This binding is specific to promoter regions rather than broad spreading.
(3) Xist autosomal signal is inversely correlated with PRC1/2 marks but positively correlated with transcription.
(4) Xist targeting results in the attenuation of transcription at autosomal regions.
(5) The B-repeat region is important for autosomal Xist binding and gene repression.
(6) Xist binding to autosomal regions also occurs in somatic cells but does not lead to gene repression.

Together, these claims suggest that Xist might play a role in modulating the expression of autosomal genes in specific developmental and cellular contexts in mice.

Strengths:

This paper deals with an interesting hypothesis that Xist ncRNA can also function at autosomal loci.

Weaknesses:

The claims reported in this paper are largely unsubstantiated by the data, with multiple misinterpretations, lacking controls, and inadequate statistics. Fundamental flaws in the experimental design/analysis preclude the validity of the findings. Major concerns are listed below:

(1) The entire paper is based on the CHART observation that Xist is specifically targeted to autosomal promoters. Overall, the data analysis is flawed and does not support such conclusions. Importantly the sense WT and the 0h controls are not used, nor are the biological replicates. Data is typically visualized without quantification, and when quantified, control loci/gene sets are erroneously selected. Firstly, CHART validation on the X in FigS1 is misleading and not based on any quantifications (e.g., see the scale on Kdm6a (0-190) compared to Cdkl5 (0-40)). If scaled appropriately, there is Xist signal on the escapee. All X-linked loci should have been quantified and classified based on escape status; sense control should also be quantified, and biological replicates should be shown separately. Secondly, and most importantly, Figure 1 does not convincingly show specific Xist autosomal binding. Panel A quantification is on extremely variable y-scales and actually shows that Xist is recruited globally to nearly all autosomal genes, likely indicating an unspecific signal. Again, the sense and 0h controls should have been quantified along with biological replicates. Upon inspecting genome browser tracks of all regions reported in the manuscript (Rbm14, Srp9, Brf1, Cand2, Thra, Kmt2c, Kmt2e, Stau2, and Bcl7b), the signal is unspecific on all sites with the possible exception of Kmt2e. On all other loci, there is either a strong signal in the 0h ESC controls or more signal in some of the sense controls. This implies that peak calling is picking up false positive regions. How many peaks would have been picked up if the sense or the 0h controls were used for peak calling? It is likely that there would be a lot since there are also possible "peaks" (e.g., Fzd9) in control tracks. Further inspection of the data was not possible as the authors did not provide access to the raw fastq files. When inspecting results from past published experiments {Engreitz, 2013 #1839} reported regions were not bound by Xist. Thirdly, contrary to the authors' claim, deleting the B repeat does not lead to a loss of autosomal signal. Indeed, comparing Fig1A and Fig2B side by side clearly shows no difference in the autosomal signal, likely because the autosomal signal is CHART background. Properly quantifying the signal with separate replicates as well as the sense and 0h controls is vital. Overall current data together with published results indicate that CHART peak calling on autosomes is due to technical noise or artefacts.

(2) The RNA-seq analysis is also flawed and precludes strong statements. Firstly, the analysis frequently lacks statistical analysis (Fig3B, FigS2B-C) and is often based on visualizations (Fig 3D-G) without quantifications. Day 4 B-repeat deletion does not lead to a significant change in the expression of genes close to Xist signal (Fig3H, d14 does not fully show). Secondly, for all transcriptional analysis, it is important to show autosomal non-target genes, which is not always done. Indeed, both males and B repeat deletion will lead to transcriptional changes on autosomes as a secondary effect from different X inactivation status. The control set, if used, is inappropriate as it compares one randomly selected set of ~100 genes. This introduces sampling error and compares different classes of genes. Since Xist signal targets more active genes, it is important to always compare autosomal target genes to all other autosomal genes with similar basal expression patterns.

(3) The ChIP-seq analysis also has some problems. The authors claim that there is no positive correlation between genes close to Xist autosomal binding (10kb) compared to those 50kb away (Fig 3C, S2D); however, this analysis is based entirely on metagene visualization. Signal within the Xist binding sites should be quantified (not genes close by) and compared to other types of genomic loci and promoters. Focusing on the 50kb group only as controls is misleading. Secondly, the authors only look at PRC mark signal upon differentiation; what about the 0h timepoint, i.e., is there pre-marking? Most worryingly, the data analysis is not consistent between figures (see Fig3C vs 5H-I). In Fig5, the group of Xist targets was chosen as those within 100kb of Xist binding, which would encompass all the control regions from Fig3C. In this analysis, the authors report that there is Xist-dependent H3K27me3 deposition, and in fact, here the Xist autosomal targets have more of it than the controls. Overall, all of this analysis is misleading, and clear conclusions cannot be made.

All in all, because the fundamental observation is not robust (see point 1), all subsequent analyses are also affected. There are also multiple other inconsistencies within the analysis; however, they have not been included here for brevity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To follow-up on recent reports of Xist-autosome interaction the authors examine female (and male transgenic) mESCs and MEFs by CHARTseq. Upon finding that only 10% of reads map to X, they sought to identify reproducible alternative sites of Xist-binding, and identify ~100 autosomal Xist-binding sites and show a transient impact on expression.

Strengths:

The authors address a topical and interesting question with a series of models including developmental timepoints and utilize unbiased approaches (CHARTseq, RNAseq). For the CHARTseq they have controls of both sense probes and male cells; and indeed do detect considerable background with their controls. The use of deletions emphasizes that intact functional Xist is involved. The use of 'metagene' plots provides a visual summation of genic impact.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the result presentation has many 'sample' gene presentations (in contrast to the stronger 'metagene' summation of all genes). The manuscript often relies on discussion of prior X chromosomal studies, while the data generated would allow assessment of the X within this study to confirm concordance with prior results using the current methodology/cell lines. Many of the 'follow-up' analyses are in fact reprocessing and comparison of published datasets. The figure legends are limited, and sample size and/or source of control is not always clear. While similar numbers of autosomal Xist-binding sites were often observed, the presented data did not clarify how many were consistent across time-points/cell types. While there were multiple time points/lines assessed, only 2 replicates were generally done.

Aim achievement:

The authors do identify autosomal sites with enrichment of chromatin marks and evidence of silencing. More details regarding sample size and controls (both treatment, and most importantly choice of 'non-targets' - discussed in comments to authors) are required to determine if the results support the conclusions.

Specific scenarios for which I am concerned about the strength of evidence underlying the conclusion:

I found the conclusion "Thus, RepB is required not only for Xist to localize to the X- chromosome but also for its localization to the ~100 autosomal genes " (p5) in constrast to the statement 2 lines prior: "A similar number of Xist peaks across autosomes in ΔRepB cells was observed and the autosomal targets remained similar". Some quantitative statistics would assist in determining impact, both on autosomes and also X; perhaps similar to the quintile analysis done for expression.

It is stated that there is a significant suppression of X-linked genes with the autosomal transgenes; however, only an example is shown in Figure 4B. To support this statement, a full X chromosomal geneset should be shown in panels F and G, which should also list the number of replicates. As these are hybrid cells, perhaps allelic suppression could be monitored? Is Med14 usually subject to X inactivation in the Ctrl cells, and is the expression reduced from both X chromosomes or preferentially the active (or inactive) X chromosome?

The expression change for autosomes after transgene induction is barely significant; and it was not clear what was used as the Ctrl? This is a critical comparator as doxycycline alone can change expression patterns.

In the discussion there is the statement. "Genetic analysis coupled to transcriptomic analysis showed that Xist down-regulates the target autosomal genes without silencing them. This effect leads to clear sex difference - where female cells express the ~100 or so autosomal genes at a lower level than male cells (Figure 7H)." This sweeping statement fails to include that in MEFs there is no significant expression difference, in transgenics only borderline significance, and at d14 no significant expression difference. The down-regulation overall seems to be transient during development while targeting is ongoing?

Finally, I would have liked to see discussion of the consistency of the identified genes to support the conclusion that the autosomal sites are not merely the results of Xist diffusion.

The impact of Xist on autosomes is important for consideration of impact of changes in Xist expression with disease (notably cancers). Knowing the targets (if consistent) would enable assessment of such impact.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Yao et al use CHART to identify chromatin associated with Xist in female mouse ESCs, and, as control, male ESCs at various timepoints of differentiation. Besides binding of Xist to X chromosome regions they found significant binding to autosomes, concentrating mostly on promoter regions of around 100 autosomal genes, as elucidated by MACS. The authors went on to show that the RepB repeat is mostly responsible for these autosomal interactions using a female ESC line in which RepB is deleted. Evidence is provided that Xist interacts with active autosomal genes containing lower coverage of repressive marks H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub and that RepB dependent Xist binding leads to dampening of expression, but not silencing of autosomal genes. These results were confirmed by overexpression studies using transgenic ESCs with doxycycline-inducible Xist as well as via a small molecule inhibitor of Xist (X1), inducing/inhibiting the dampening of autosomal genes, respectively. Finally, using MEFs and Xist mutants RepB or RepE the authors provide evidence that Xist is bound to autosomal genes in cells after the XCI process but appears not to affect gene expression. The data presented appear generally clear and consistent and indicate some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist.

Strengths:

Regulation of autosomal gene expression by Xist is a "big deal" as misregulation of this lncRNA causes developmental defects and human disease. Moreover, this finding may explain sex-specific developmental differences between the sexes. The results in this manuscript identify specific mouse autosomal genes bound by Xist and decipher critical Xist regions that mediate this binding and gene dampening. The methods used in this study are appropriate, and the overall data presented appear convincing and are consistent, indicating some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist.

Weaknesses:

(1) The figure legends and/or descriptions of data are often very short lacking detail, and this unnecessarily impedes the reading of the manuscript, in particular the figures would benefit not only from more detailed descriptions/explanations of what has been done but also what is shown. This will facilitate the reading and overall comprehension by the reader. One out of many examples: In Fig S1B in the CHART data at d4 and d7 there is not only signal in female WT Xist antisense but also in female sense control. For a reader that is not an expert in XCI it would be helpful to point out in the legend that this signal corresponds to the lncRNA Tsix (I suppose), that is transcribed on the other strand.

(2) Different scales are used in the lower panels of Figures 1A and 2A, which makes it difficult to directly compare signals between the different differentiation stages.

(3) In this study some of the findings on mouse cells contrast previously published results in human ESCs: 1) Xist binding occurs preferentially to promoters in mice, not in human. 2) Binding of Xist is mostly detected in polycomb-depleted regions in mice but there is a positive correlation between Xist RNA and PRC2 marks in human ESCs. These differences are surprising but may be very interesting and relevant. While I am aware that this might be a difficult task, it would be helpful to experimentally address this issue in order to distinguish whether species specific and/or methodological differences between the studies are responsible for these differences.