Sir2 and Fun30 regulate ribosomal DNA replication timing via Mcm helicase positioning and nucleosome occupancy

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper presents a mechanistic study of rDNA origin regulation in yeast by SIR2. Each of the ~180 tandemly repeated rDNA gene copies contains a potential replication origin. Early-efficient initiation of these origins is suppressed by Sir2, reducing competition with origins distributed throughout the genome for rate-limiting initiation factors. Previous studies by these authors showed that SIR2 deletion advances replication timing of rDNA origins by a complex mechanism of transcriptional de-repression of a local PolII promoter causing licensed origin proteins (MCMcomplexes) to re-localize (slide along the DNA) to a different (and altered) chromatin environment. In this study, they identify a chromatin remodeler, FUN30, that suppresses the sir2∆ effect, and remarkably, results in a contraction of the rDNA to about one-quarter it's normal length/number of repeats, implicating replication defects of the rDNA. Through examination of replication timing, MCM occupancy and nucleosome occupancy on the chromatin in sir2, fun30, and double mutants, they propose a model where nucleosome position relative to the licensed origin (MCM complexes) intrinsically determines origin timing/efficiency. While their interpretations of the data are largely reasonable and can be interpreted to support their model, a key weakness is the connection between Mcm ChEC signal disappearance and origin firing. While the cyclical chromatin association-dissociation of MCM proteins with potential origin sequences may be generally interpreted as licensing followed by firing, dissociation may also result from passive replication and as shown here, displacement by transcription and/or chromatin remodeling. Moreover, linking its disappearance from chromatin in the ChEC method with such precise resolution needs to be validated against an independent method to determine the initiation site(s). Differences in rDNA copy number and relative transcription levels also are not directly accounted for, obscuring a clearer interpretation of the results. Nevertheless, this paper makes a valuable advance with the finding of Fun30 involvement, which substantially reduces rDNA repeat number in sir2∆ background. The model they develop is compelling and I am inclined to agree, but I think the evidence on this specific point is purely correlative and a better method is needed to address the initiation site question. The authors deserve credit for their efforts to elucidate our obscure understanding of the intricacies of chromatin regulation. At a minimum, I suggest their conclusions on these points of concern should be softened and caveats discussed. Statistical analysis is lacking for some claims.

Strengths are the identification of FUN30 as suppressor, examination of specific mutants of FUN30 to distinguish likely functional involvement. Use of multiple methods to analyze replication and protein occupancies on chromatin. Development of a coherent model.

Weaknesses are failure to address copy number as a variable; insufficient validation of ChEC method relationship to exact initiation locus; lack of statistical analysis in some cases.

Additional background and discussion for public review:

This paper broadly addresses the mechanism(s) that regulate replication origin firing in different chromatin contexts. The rDNA origin is present in each of ~180 tandem repeats of the rDNA sequence, representing a high potential origin density per length of DNA (9.1kb repeat unit). However, the average origin efficiency of rDNA origins is relatively low (~20% in wild-type cells), which reduces the replication load on the overall genome by reducing competition with origins throughout the genome for limiting replication initiation factors. Deletion of histone deacetylase SIR2, which silences PolII transcription within the rDNA, results in increased early activation or the rDNA origins (and reduced rate of overall genome replication). Previous work by the authors showed that MCM complexes loaded onto the rDNA origins (origin licensing) were laterally displaced (sliding) along the rDNA, away from a well-positioned nucleosome on one side. The authors' major hypothesis throughout this work is that the new MCM location(s) are intrinsically more efficient configurations for origin firing. The authors identify a chromatin remodeling enzyme, FUN30, whose deletion appears to suppress the earlier activation of rDNA origins in sir2∆ cells. Indeed, it appears that the reduction of rDNA origin activity in sir2∆ fun30∆ cells is severe enough to results in a substantial reduction in the rDNA array repeat length (number of repeats); the reduced rDNA length presumably facilitates it's more stable replication and maintenance.

Analysis of replication by 2D gels is marginally convincing, using 2D gels for this purpose is very challenging and tricky to quantify. The more quantitative analysis by EdU incorporation is more convincing of the suppression of the earlier replication caused by SIR2 deletion.

To address the mechanism of suppression, they analyze MCM positioning using ChEC, which in G1 cells shows partial displacement of MCM from normal position A to positions B and C in sir2∆ cells and similar but more complete displacement away from A to positions B and C in sir2fun30 cells. During S-phase in the presence of hydroxyurea, which slows replication progression considerably (and blocks later origin firing) MCM signals redistribute, which is interpreted to represent origin firing and bidirectional movement of MCMs (only one direction is shown), some of which accumulate near the replication fork barrier, consistent with their interpretation. They observe that MCMs displaced (in G1) to sites B or C in sir2∆ cells, disappear more rapidly during S-phase, whereas the similar dynamic is not observed in sir2∆fun30∆. This is the main basis for their conclusion that the B and C sites are more permissive than A. While this may be the simplest interpretation, there are limitations with this assay that undermine a rigorous conclusion (additional points below). The main problem is that we know the MCM complexes are mobile so disappearance may reflect displacement by other means including transcription which is high is the sir2∆ background. Indeed, the double mutant has greater level of transcription per repeat unit which might explain more displaced from A in G1. Thus, displacement might not always represent origin firing. Because the sir2 background profoundly changes transcription, and the double mutant has a much smaller array length associated with higher transcription, how can we rule out greater accessibility at site A, for example in sir2∆, leading to more firing, which is suppressed in sir2 fun30 due to greater MCM displacement away from A?

I think the critical missing data to solidly support their conclusions is a definitive determination of the site(s) of initiation using a more direct method, such as strand specific sequencing of EdU or nascent strand analysis. More direct comparisons of the strains with lower copy number to rule out this facet. As discussed in detail below, copy number reduction is known to suppress at least part of the sir2∆ effect so this looms over the interpretations. I think they are probably correct in their overall model based on the simplest interpretation of the data but I think it remains to be rigorously established. I think they should soften their conclusions in this respect.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors follow up on their previous work showing that in the absence of the Sir2 deacetylase the MCM replicative helicase at the rDNA spacer region is repositioned to a region of low nucleosome occupancy. Here they show that the repositioned displaced MCMs have increased firing propensity relative to non-displaced MCMs. In addition, they show that activation of the repositioned MCMs and low nucleosome occupancy in the adjacent region depend on the chromatin remodeling activity of Fun30.

Strengths:

The paper provides new information on the role of a conserved chromatin remodeling protein in the regulation of origin firing and in addition provides evidence that not all loaded MCMs fire and that origin firing is regulated at a step downstream of MCM loading.

Weaknesses:

The relationship between the author's results and prior work on the role of Sir2 (and Fob1) in regulation of rDNA recombination and copy number maintenance is not explored, making it difficult to place the results in a broader context. Sir2 has previously been shown to be recruited by Fob1, which is also required for DSB formation and recombination-mediated changes in rDNA copy number. Are the changes that the authors observe specifically in fun30 sir2 cells related to this pathway? Is Fob1 required for the reduced rDNA copy number in fun30 sir2 double mutant cells?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Heterochromatin is characterized by low transcription activity and late replication timing, both dependent on the NAD-dependent protein deacetylase Sir2, the founding member of the sirtuins. This manuscript addresses the mechanism by which Sir2 delays replication timing at the rDNA in budding yeast. Previous work from the same laboratory (Foss et al. PLoS Genetics 15, e1008138) showed that Sir2 represses transcription-dependent displacement of the Mcm helicase in the rDNA. In this manuscript, the authors show convincingly that the repositioned Mcms fire earlier and that this early firing partly depends on the ATPase activity of the nucleosome remodeler Fun30. Using read-depth analysis of sorted G1/S cells, fun30 was the only chromatin remodeler mutant that somewhat delayed replication timing in sir2 mutants, while nhp10, chd1, isw1, htl1, swr1, isw2, and irc5 had not effect. The conclusion was corroborated with orthogonal assays including two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and analysis of EdU incorporation at early origins. Using an insightful analysis with an Mcm-MNase fusion (Mcm-ChEC), the authors show that the repositioned Mcms in sir2 mutants fire earlier than the Mcm at the normal position in wild type. This early firing at the repositioned Mcms is partially suppressed by Fun30. In addition, the authors show Fun30 affects nucleosome occupancy at the sites of the repositioned Mcm, providing a plausible mechanism for the effect of Fun30 on Mcm firing at that position. However, the results from the MNAse-seq and ChEC-seq assays are not fully congruent for the fun30 single mutant. Overall, the results support the conclusions providing a much better mechanistic understanding how Sir2 affects replication timing at rDNA,

Strengths

(1) The data clearly show that the repositioned Mcm helicase fires earlier than the Mcm in the wild type position.
(2) The study identifies a specific role for Fun30 in replication timing and an effect on nucleosome occupancy around the newly positioned Mcm helicase in sir2 cells.

Weaknesses

(1) It is unclear which strains were used in each experiment.
(2) The relevance of the fun30 phospho-site mutant (S20AS28A) is unclear.
(3) For some experiments (Figs. 3, 4, 6) it is unclear whether the data are reproducible and the differences significant. Information about the number of independent experiments and quantitation is lacking. This affects the interpretation, as fun30 seems to affect the +3 nucleosome much more than let on in the description.

Author response:

eLife assessment

This study is a detailed investigation of how chromatin structure influences replication origin function in yeast ribosomal DNA, with focus on the role of the histone deacetylase Sir2 and the chromatin remodeler Fun30. Convincing evidence shows that Sir2 does not affect origin licensing but rather affects local transcription and nucleosome positioning which correlates with increased origin firing. However, the evidence remains incomplete as the methods employed do not rigorously establish a key aspect of the mechanism, fully address some alternative models, or sufficiently relate to prior results. Overall, this is a valuable advance for the field that could be improved to establish a more robust paradigm.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper presents a mechanistic study of rDNA origin regulation in yeast by SIR2. Each of the ~180 tandemly repeated rDNA gene copies contains a potential replication origin. Early-efficient initiation of these origins is suppressed by Sir2, reducing competition with origins distributed throughout the genome for rate-limiting initiation factors. Previous studies by these authors showed that SIR2 deletion advances replication timing of rDNA origins by a complex mechanism of transcriptional de-repression of a local PolII promoter causing licensed origin proteins (MCMcomplexes) to re-localize (slide along the DNA) to a different (and altered) chromatin environment. In this study, they identify a chromatin remodeler, FUN30, that suppresses the sir2∆ effect, and remarkably, results in a contraction of the rDNA to about one-quarter it's normal length/number of repeats, implicating replication defects of the rDNA. Through examination of replication timing, MCM occupancy and nucleosome occupancy on the chromatin in sir2, fun30, and double mutants, they propose a model where nucleosome position relative to the licensed origin (MCM complexes) intrinsically determines origin timing/efficiency. While their interpretations of the data are largely reasonable and can be interpreted to support their model, a key weakness is the connection between Mcm ChEC signal disappearance and origin firing. While the cyclical chromatin association-dissociation of MCM proteins with potential origin sequences may be generally interpreted as licensing followed by firing, dissociation may also result from passive replication and as shown here, displacement by transcription and/or chromatin remodeling.

While it is true that both transcription and passive replication can cause the signal of MCM-ChEC to disappear, neither can cause selective disappearance of the displaced complex without affecting the non-displaced complex. Indeed, in the case of transcription, RNA polymerase transcribing C-pro would have to first dislodge the normally positioned MCM complex before even reaching the displaced complex. Furthermore, deletion of FUN30 leads to both more C-pro transcription and less disappearance of the displaced MCM complex. It is important to keep in mind that this cannot somehow reflect continuous replenishment of displaced MCMs with newly loaded MCMs, since the cells are in S phase and licensing is restricted to G1.

Moreover, linking its disappearance from chromatin in the ChEC method with such precise resolution needs to be validated against an independent method to determine the initiation site(s). Differences in rDNA copy number and relative transcription levels also are not directly accounted for, obscuring a clearer interpretation of the results.

Copy number reduction of the magnitude caused by deletion of SIR2 and FUN30 does not suppress the sir2D effect (i.e. early replication of the rDNA), but rather exacerbates it. In particular, deletion of SIR2 and FUN30 causes the rDNA to shrink to approximately 35 copies. Kwan et al., 2023 (PMID: 36842087) have shown that reduction of rDNA copy number to 35 causes a dramatic acceleration of rDNA replication in a SIR2 strain. Thus, the effect of rDNA size on replication timing reinforces our conclusion that deletion of FUN30 suppresses rDNA replication.

However, to address this concern directly, in the revision we will include 2 D gels in fob1 strains with equal number of repeats that allows to conclude that the effect of FUN30 deletion in suppressing rDNA origin firing is independent of either rDNA size or FOB1. The figure of the critical 2 D gels is shown below in the reply to reviewer 2.

Nevertheless, this paper makes a valuable advance with the finding of Fun30 involvement, which substantially reduces rDNA repeat number in sir2∆ background. The model they develop is compelling and I am inclined to agree, but I think the evidence on this specific point is purely correlative and a better method is needed to address the initiation site question. The authors deserve credit for their efforts to elucidate our obscure understanding of the intricacies of chromatin regulation. At a minimum, I suggest their conclusions on these points of concern should be softened and caveats discussed. Statistical analysis is lacking for some claims.

Strengths are the identification of FUN30 as suppressor, examination of specific mutants of FUN30 to distinguish likely functional involvement. Use of multiple methods to analyze replication and protein occupancies on chromatin. Development of a coherent model.

Weaknesses are failure to address copy number as a variable; insufficient validation of ChEC method relationship to exact initiation locus; lack of statistical analysis in some cases.

The two potential initiation sites that one would monitor (non-displaced and displaced) are separated by less than 150 base pairs, and other techniques simply do not have the resolution necessary to distinguish such differences. Furthermore, as we suggest in the manuscript, our results are consistent with a model in which it is only the displaced MCM complex that is activated, whether in sir2 or WT. If no genotype-dependent difference in initiation sites is even expected, it would be hard to interpret even the most precise replication-based assays. However, the reviewer is correct that this is a novel technique and that confirmation with a well-established technique is comforting, therefore we are performing ChIP experiments to corroborate, to the extent possible, the conclusions that we reached with ChEC.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing out that some statistical analyses were lacking, and we will correct this in a revised manuscript.

Additional background and discussion for public review:

This paper broadly addresses the mechanism(s) that regulate replication origin firing in different chromatin contexts. The rDNA origin is present in each of ~180 tandem repeats of the rDNA sequence, representing a high potential origin density per length of DNA (9.1kb repeat unit). However, the average origin efficiency of rDNA origins is relatively low (~20% in wild-type cells), which reduces the replication load on the overall genome by reducing competition with origins throughout the genome for limiting replication initiation factors. Deletion of histone deacetylase SIR2, which silences PolII transcription within the rDNA, results in increased early activation or the rDNA origins (and reduced rate of overall genome replication). Previous work by the authors showed that MCM complexes loaded onto the rDNA origins (origin licensing) were laterally displaced (sliding) along the rDNA, away from a well-positioned nucleosome on one side. The authors' major hypothesis throughout this work is that the new MCM location(s) are intrinsically more efficient configurations for origin firing. The authors identify a chromatin remodeling enzyme, FUN30, whose deletion appears to suppress the earlier activation of rDNA origins in sir2∆ cells. Indeed, it appears that the reduction of rDNA origin activity in sir2∆ fun30∆ cells is severe enough to results in a substantial reduction in the rDNA array repeat length (number of repeats); the reduced rDNA length presumably facilitates it's more stable replication and maintenance.

Analysis of replication by 2D gels is marginally convincing, using 2D gels for this purpose is very challenging and tricky to quantify. The more quantitative analysis by EdU incorporation is more convincing of the suppression of the earlier replication caused by SIR2 deletion.

To address the mechanism of suppression, they analyze MCM positioning using ChEC, which in G1 cells shows partial displacement of MCM from normal position A to positions B and C in sir2∆ cells and similar but more complete displacement away from A to positions B and C in sir2fun30 cells. During S-phase in the presence of hydroxyurea, which slows replication progression considerably (and blocks later origin firing) MCM signals redistribute, which is interpreted to represent origin firing and bidirectional movement of MCMs (only one direction is shown), some of which accumulate near the replication fork barrier, consistent with their interpretation. They observe that MCMs displaced (in G1) to sites B or C in sir2∆ cells, disappear more rapidly during S-phase, whereas the similar dynamic is not observed in sir2∆fun30∆. This is the main basis for their conclusion that the B and C sites are more permissive than A. While this may be the simplest interpretation, there are limitations with this assay that undermine a rigorous conclusion (additional points below). The main problem is that we know the MCM complexes are mobile so disappearance may reflect displacement by other means including transcription which is high is the sir2∆ background. Indeed, the double mutant has greater level of transcription per repeat unit which might explain more displaced from A in G1. Thus, displacement might not always represent origin firing. Because the sir2 background profoundly changes transcription, and the double mutant has a much smaller array length associated with higher transcription, how can we rule out greater accessibility at site A, for example in sir2∆, leading to more firing, which is suppressed in sir2 fun30 due to greater MCM displacement away from A?

I think the critical missing data to solidly support their conclusions is a definitive determination of the site(s) of initiation using a more direct method, such as strand specific sequencing of EdU or nascent strand analysis. More direct comparisons of the strains with lower copy number to rule out this facet. As discussed in detail below, copy number reduction is known to suppress at least part of the sir2∆ effect so this looms over the interpretations. I think they are probably correct in their overall model based on the simplest interpretation of the data but I think it remains to be rigorously established. I think they should soften their conclusions in this respect.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors follow up on their previous work showing that in the absence of the Sir2 deacetylase the MCM replicative helicase at the rDNA spacer region is repositioned to a region of low nucleosome occupancy. Here they show that the repositioned displaced MCMs have increased firing propensity relative to non-displaced MCMs. In addition, they show that activation of the repositioned MCMs and low nucleosome occupancy in the adjacent region depend on the chromatin remodeling activity of Fun30.

Strengths:

The paper provides new information on the role of a conserved chromatin remodeling protein in the regulation of origin firing and in addition provides evidence that not all loaded MCMs fire and that origin firing is regulated at a step downstream of MCM loading.

Weaknesses:

The relationship between the author's results and prior work on the role of Sir2 (and Fob1) in regulation of rDNA recombination and copy number maintenance is not explored, making it difficult to place the results in a broader context. Sir2 has previously been shown to be recruited by Fob1, which is also required for DSB formation and recombination-mediated changes in rDNA copy number. Are the changes that the authors observe specifically in fun30 sir2 cells related to this pathway? Is Fob1 required for the reduced rDNA copy number in fun30 sir2 double mutant cells?

Strains lacking SIR2 have unstable rDNA size, and FOB1 deletion stabilizes rDNA size in sir2 background. Likewise, FOB1 deletion influences the kinetics rDNA size reduction in sir2 fun30 cells. However, the main effect of Fun30 in sir2 cells we were interested in, suppression of rDNA replication, is preserved in fob1 background, arguing that the observed effect is independent of Fob1 (see figure below). Given that the main focus of the paper is regulation of rDNA origins activity and that these changes were independent of Fob1, we had elected not to include these results in the original manuscript but will gladly include them in the revision.

Besides refuting the possible role of Fob1 in the FUN30-mediated activation of rDNA origin firing in sir2 cells, the use of fob1 background enabled us compare the activation of rDNA origins in the sir2 and sir2 fun30 strains with equally short rDNA size. The 2-D gels demonstrate a dramatic suppression of rDNA origin activity upon deletion of FUN30 in the sir2 fob1 strains with 35 rDNA copies.

Author response image 1.

The deletion of FUN30 diminishes the replication bubble signal in a fob1 sir2 strain with 35 rDNA copies by more than tenfold. The single rARS signal, marked with the arrow, originates from the rightmost rDNA repeat. This specific rightmost rDNA NheI fragment is approximately 25 kb in size, distinctly larger than the 4.7 kb NheI 1N rARS-containing fragments that originate from the internal rDNA repeats.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Heterochromatin is characterized by low transcription activity and late replication timing, both dependent on the NAD-dependent protein deacetylase Sir2, the founding member of the sirtuins. This manuscript addresses the mechanism by which Sir2 delays replication timing at the rDNA in budding yeast. Previous work from the same laboratory (Foss et al. PLoS Genetics 15, e1008138) showed that Sir2 represses transcription-dependent displacement of the Mcm helicase in the rDNA. In this manuscript, the authors show convincingly that the repositioned Mcms fire earlier and that this early firing partly depends on the ATPase activity of the nucleosome remodeler Fun30. Using read-depth analysis of sorted G1/S cells, fun30 was the only chromatin remodeler mutant that somewhat delayed replication timing in sir2 mutants, while nhp10, chd1, isw1, htl1, swr1, isw2, and irc5 had not effect. The conclusion was corroborated with orthogonal assays including two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and analysis of EdU incorporation at early origins. Using an insightful analysis with an Mcm-MNase fusion (Mcm-ChEC), the authors show that the repositioned Mcms in sir2 mutants fire earlier than the Mcm at the normal position in wild type. This early firing at the repositioned Mcms is partially suppressed by Fun30. In addition, the authors show Fun30 affects nucleosome occupancy at the sites of the repositioned Mcm, providing a plausible mechanism for the effect of Fun30 on Mcm firing at that position. However, the results from the MNAse-seq and ChEC-seq assays are not fully congruent for the fun30 single mutant. Overall, the results support the conclusions providing a much better mechanistic understanding how Sir2 affects replication timing at rDNA.

The reason that the results for the fun30 single mutant appear incongruent, with a larger signal of the +2 nucleosome in the MNase-seq plot but a negligible signal in the ChEC-seq plot is the paucity of displaced Mcm in the fun30 single mutant. Given the relative absence of displaced MCMs, the MCM-MNase fusion protein can't "light up" the +2 nucleosome. We will comment on this in the revision to clarify this.

Strengths

(1) The data clearly show that the repositioned Mcm helicase fires earlier than the Mcm in the wild type position.

(2) The study identifies a specific role for Fun30 in replication timing and an effect on nucleosome occupancy around the newly positioned Mcm helicase in sir2 cells.

Weaknesses

(1) It is unclear which strains were used in each experiment.

(2) The relevance of the fun30 phospho-site mutant (S20AS28A) is unclear.

(3) For some experiments (Figs. 3, 4, 6) it is unclear whether the data are reproducible and the differences significant. Information about the number of independent experiments and quantitation is lacking. This affects the interpretation, as fun30 seems to affect the +3 nucleosome much more than let on in the description.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing out places in which our manuscript omitted key pieces of information (items 1 and 3), and we will fix these oversights in our revision.

With regard to point 2, we had written:

“Fun30 is also known to play a role in the DNA damage response; specifically, phosphorylation of Fun30 on S20 and S28 by CDK1 targets Fun30 to sites of DNA damage, where it promotes DNA resection (Chen et al. 2016; Bantele et al. 2017). To determine whether the replication phenotype that we observed might be a consequence of Fun30's role in the DNA damage response, we tested non-phosphorylatable mutants for the ability to suppress early replication of the rDNA in sir2; these mutations had no effect on the replication phenotype (Figure 2B), arguing against a primary role for Fun30

in DNA damage repair that somehow manifests itself in replication.”

We will expand on this to clarify our point in the revision.