The chromatin remodeller CHD4 regulates transcription factor binding to both prevent activation of silent enhancers and maintain active regulatory elements

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors performed an elegant investigation to clarify the roles of CHD4 in chromatin accessibility and transcription regulation. In addition to the common mechanisms of action through nucleosome repositioning and opening of transcriptionally active regions, the authors considered here a new angle of CHD4 action through modulating the off-rate of transcription factor binding. Their suggested scenario is that the action of CHD4 is context-dependent and is different for highly-active regions vs low-accessibility regions.

Strengths:

This is a very well-written paper that will be of interest to researchers working in this field. The authors performed a large amount of work with different types of NGS experiments and the corresponding computational analyses. The combination of biophysical measurements of the off-rate of protein-DNA binding with NGS experiments is particularly commendable.

Weaknesses:

This is a very strong paper. I have only very minor suggestions to improve the presentation:

(1) It might be good to further discuss potential molecular mechanisms for increasing the TF off rate (what happens at the mechanistic level).

(2) To improve readability, it would be good to make consistent font sizes on all figures to make sure that the smallest font sizes are readable.

(3) upDARs and downDARs - these abbreviations are defined in the figure legend but not in the main text.

1. Figure 3B - the on-figure legend is a bit unclear; the text legend does not mention the meaning of "DEG".

(5) The values of apparent dissociation rates shown in Figure 5 are a bit different from values previously reported in literature (e.g., see Okamoto et al., 20203, PMC10505915). Perhaps the authors could comment on this. Also, it would be helpful to add the actual equation that was used for the curve fitting to determine these values to the Methods section.

(6) Regarding the discussion about the functionality of low-affinity sites/low accessibility regions, the authors may wish to mention the recent debates on this (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08916-0; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.12.681120v1).

(7) It may be worth expanding figure legends a bit, because the definitions of some of the terms mentioned on the figures are not very easy to find in the text.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study leverages acute protein degradation of CHD4 to define its role in chromatin and gene regulation. Previous studies have relied on KO and/or RNA interference of this essential protein and, as such, are hampered by adaptation, cell population heterogeneity, cell proliferation, and indirect effects. The authors have established an AID2-based method to rapidly deplete the dMi-2 remodeller to circumvent these problems. CHD4 is gone within an hour, well before any effects on cell cycle or cell viability can manifest. This represents an important technical advance that, for the first time, allows a comprehensive analysis of the immediate and direct effect of CHD4 loss of function on chromatin structure and gene regulation.

Rapid CHD4 degradation is combined with ATAC-seq, CUT&RUN, (nascent) RNA-seq, and single-molecule microscopy to comprehensively characterise the impact on chromatin accessibility, histone modification, transcription, and transcription factor (NANOG, SOX2, KLF4) binding in mouse ES cells.

The data support the previously developed model that high levels of CHD4/NuRD maintain a degree of nucleosome density to limit TF binding at open regulatory regions (e.g., enhancers). The authors propose that CHD4 activity at these sites is an important prerequisite for enhancers to respond to novel signals that require an expanded or new set of TFs to bind.

What I find even more exciting and entirely novel is the finding that CHD4 removes TFs from regions of limited accessibility to repress cryptic enhancers and to suppress spurious transcription. These regions are characterised by low CHD4 binding and have so far never been thoroughly analysed. The authors correctly point out that the general assumption that chromatin regulators act on regions where they seem to be concentrated (i.e., have high ChIP-seq signals) runs the risk of overlooking important functions elsewhere. This insight is highly relevant beyond the CHD4 field and will prompt other chromatin researchers to look into low-level binding sites of chromatin regulators.

The biochemical and genomic data presented in this study are of high quality (I cannot judge single microscopy experiments due to my lack of expertise). This is an important and timely study that is of great interest to the chromatin field.

I have a number of comments that the authors might want to consider to improve the manuscript further:

(1) Figure 2 shows heat maps of RNA-seq results following a time course of CHD4 depletion (0, 1, 2 hours...). Usually, the red/blue colour scale is used to visualise differential expression (fold-difference). Here, genes are coloured in red or blue even at the 0-hour time point. This confused me initially until I discovered that instead of fold-difference, a z-score is plotted. I do not quite understand what it means when a gene that is coloured blue at the 0-hour time point changes to red at a later time point. Does this always represent an upregulation? I think this figure requires a better explanation.

(2) Figure 5D: NANOG, SOX2 binding at the KLF4 locus. The authors state that the enhancers 68, 57, and 55 show a gain in NANOG and SOX2 enrichment "from 30 minutes of CHD4 depletion". This is not obvious to me from looking at the figure. I can see an increase in signal from "WT" (I am assuming this corresponds to the 0 hours time point) to "30m", but then the signals seem to go down again towards the 4h time point. Can this be quantified? Can the authors discuss why TF binding seems to increase only temporarily (if this is the case)?

(3) The is no real discussion of HOW CHD4/NuRD counteracts TF binding (i.e. by what molecular mechanism). I understand that the data does not really inform us on this. Still, I believe it would be worthwhile for the authors to discuss some ideas, e.g., local nucleosome sliding vs. a direct (ATP-dependent?) action on the TF itself.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, an inducible degron approach is taken to investigate the function of the CHD4 chromatin remodelling complex. The cell lines and approaches used are well thought out, and the data appear to be of high quality. They show that loss of CHD4 results in rapid changes to chromatin accessibility at thousands of sites. Of these locations at which chromatin accessibility is decreased are strongly bound by CHD4 prior to activation of the degron, and so likely represent primary sites of action. Somewhat surprisingly, while chromatin accessibility is reduced at these sites, transcription factor occupancy is little changed. Following CHD4 degradation, occupancy of the key pluripotency transcription factors NANOG and SOX2 increases at many locations genome-wide wide and at many of these sites, chromatin accessibility increases. These represent important new insights into the function of CHD4 complexes.

Strengths:

The experimental approach is well-suited to providing insight into a complex regulator such as CHD4. The data generated to characterise how cells respond to the loss of CHD4 is of high quality. The study reveals major changes in transcription factor occupancy following CHD4 depletion.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness can be summarised as relating to the fact that authors interpret all rapid changes following CHD4 degradation as being a direct effect of the loss of CHD4 activity. The possibility that rapid indirect effects arise does not appear to have been given sufficient consideration. This is especially pertinent where effects are reported at sites where CHD4 occupancy is initially low.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) It might be good to further discuss potential molecular mechanisms for increasing the TF off rate (what happens at the mechanistic level).

This is now expanded in the Discussion

(2) To improve readability, it would be good to make consistent font sizes on all figures to make sure that the smallest font sizes are readable.

We have normalised figure text as much as is feasible.

(3) upDARs and downDARs - these abbreviations are defined in the figure legend but not in the main text.

We have removed references to these terms from the text and included a definition in the figure legend.

(4) Figure 3B - the on-figure legend is a bit unclear; the text legend does not mention the meaning of "DEG".

We have removed this panel as it was confusing and did not demonstrate any robust conclusion.

(5) The values of apparent dissociation rates shown in Figure 5 are a bit different from values previously reported in literature (e.g., see Okamoto et al., 20203, PMC10505915). Perhaps the authors could comment on this. Also, it would be helpful to add the actual equation that was used for the curve fitting to determine these values to the Methods section.

We have included an explanation of the curve fitting equation in the Methods as suggested.

The apparent dissociation rate observed is a sum of multiple rates of decay – true dissociation rate (𝑘_off), signal loss caused by photobleaching 𝑘_pb, and signal loss caused by defocusing/tracking error (𝑘_tl).

k_off^app= k_off + K_pb + k_tl

We are making conclusions about relative changes in k_off^app upon CHD4 depletion, not about the absolute magnitude of true k_off or TF residence times. Our conclusions extend to true k_off based on the assumption that K_pb and k_tl are equal across all samples imaged due to identical experimental conditions and analysis.

K_pb and k_tl vary hugely across experimental set-ups, especially with diZerent laser powers, so other k_off or k_off^app values reported in the literature would be expected to diZer from ours. Time-lapse experiments or independent determination of K_pb (and k_tl) would be required to make any statements about absolute values of k_off.

(6) Regarding the discussion about the functionality of low-affinity sites/low accessibility regions, the authors may wish to mention the recent debates on this (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08916-0; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.12.681120v1).

We have now included a discussion of this point and referenced both papers.

(7) It may be worth expanding figure legends a bit, because the definitions of some of the terms mentioned on the figures are not very easy to find in the text.

We have endeavoured to define all relevant terms in the figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) Figure 2 shows heat maps of RNA-seq results following a time course of CHD4 depletion (0, 1, 2 hours...). Usually, the red/blue colour scale is used to visualise differential expression (fold-difference). Here, genes are coloured in red or blue even at the 0-hour time point. This confused me initially until I discovered that instead of folddifference, a z-score is plotted. I do not quite understand what it means when a gene that is coloured blue at the 0-hour time point changes to red at a later time point. Does this always represent an upregulation? I think this figure requires a better explanation.

The heatmap displays z-scores, meaning expression for each gene has been centred and scaled across the entire time course. As a result, time zero is not a true baseline, it simply shows whether the gene’s expression at that moment is above or below its own mean. A transition from blue to red therefore indicates that the gene increases relative to its overall average, which typically corresponds to upregulation, but it doesn’t directly represent fold-change from the 0-hour time point. We have now included a brief explanation of this in the figure legend to make this point clear.

(2) Figure 5D: NANOG, SOX2 binding at the KLF4 locus. The authors state that the enhancers 68, 57, and 55 show a gain in NANOG and SOX2 enrichment "from 30 minutes of CHD4 depletion". This is not obvious to me from looking at the figure. I can see an increase in signal from "WT" (I am assuming this corresponds to the 0 hours time point) to "30m", but then the signals seem to go down again towards the 4h time point. Can this be quantified? Can the authors discuss why TF binding seems to increase only temporarily (if this is the case)?

We have edited the text to more accurately reflect what is going on in the screen shot. We have also replaced “WT” with “0” as this more accurately reflects the status of these cells.

(3) The is no real discussion of HOW CHD4/NuRD counteracts TF binding (i.e. by what molecular mechanism). I understand that the data does not really inform us on this. Still, I believe it would be worthwhile for the authors to discuss some ideas, e.g., local nucleosome sliding vs. a direct (ATP-dependent?) action on the TF itself.

We now include more speculation on this point in the Discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The main weakness can be summarised as relating to the fact that authors interpret all rapid changes following CHD4 degradation as being a direct effect of the loss of CHD4 activity. The possibility that rapid indirect effects arise does not appear to have been given sufficient consideration. This is especially pertinent where effects are reported at sites where CHD4 occupancy is initially low.

We acknowledge that we cannot definitively say any effect is a direct consequence of CHD4 depletion and have mitigated statements in the Results and Discussion.

Reviewing Editor Comments:

I am pleased to say all three experts had very complementary and complimentary comments on your paper - congratulations. Reviewer 3 does suggest toning down a few interpretations, which I suggest would help focus the manuscript on its greater strengths. I encourage a quick revision to this point, which will not go back to reviewers, before you request a version of record. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all three reviewers for excellent feedback on this paper.

As advised we have mitigated the points raised by the reviewers.