Measuring Sister Chromatid Cohesion Protein Genome Occupancy in Drosophila melanogaster by ChIP-seq

A Two-Step Process of Effector Programming Governs CD4+ T Cell Fate Determination Induced by Antigenic Activation in the Steady State

Various processes induce and maintain immune tolerance, but effector T cells still arise under minimal perturbations of homeostasis through unclear mechanisms. We report that, contrary to the model postulating primarily tolerogenic mechanisms initiated under homeostatic conditions, effector programming is an integral part of T cell fate determination induced by antigenic activation in the steady state. This effector programming depends on a two-step process starting with induction of effector precursors that express Hopx and are imprinted with multiple instructions for their subsequent terminal effector differentiation. Such molecular circuits advancing specific terminal effector differentiation upon re-stimulation include programmed expression of interferon-γ, whose production then promotes expression of T-bet in the precursors. We further show that effector programming coincides with regulatory conversion among T cells sharing the same antigen specificity. However, conventional type 2 dendritic cells (cDC2) and T cell functions of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) increase effector precursor induction while decreasing the proportion of T cells that can become peripheral Foxp3⁺ regulatory T (pTreg) cells.

The mechanisms in the steady state that govern the formation of effector T cells with potentially autoimmune functions remain unclear. Opejin et al. reveal a two-step process starting with induction of effector precursors that express Hopx and are imprinted with multiple instructions for their subsequent terminal effector differentiation.

The core SWI/SNF catalytic subunit Brg1 regulates nephron progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation

Chromatin-remodeling complexes play critical roles in establishing gene expression patterns in response to developmental signals. How these epigenetic regulators determine the fate of progenitor cells during development of specific organs is not well understood. We found that genetic deletion of Brg1 (Smarca4), the core enzymatic protein in SWI/SNF, in nephron progenitor cells leads to severe renal hypoplasia. Nephron progenitor cells were depleted in Six2-Cre, Brg1^flx/flx mice due to reduced cell proliferation. This defect in self-renewal, together with impaired differentiation resulted in a profound nephron deficit in Brg1 mutant kidneys. Sall1, a transcription factor that is required for expansion and maintenance of nephron progenitors, associates with SWI/SNF. Brg1 and Sall1 bind promoters of many progenitor cell genes and regulate expression of key targets that promote their proliferation.

Cohesin occupancy and composition at enhancers and promoters are linked to DNA replication origin proximity in Drosophila

Cohesin consists of the SMC1-SMC3-Rad21 tripartite ring and the SA protein that interacts with Rad21. The Nipped-B protein loads cohesin topologically around chromosomes to mediate sister chromatid cohesion and facilitate long-range control of gene transcription. It is largely unknown how Nipped-B and cohesin associate specifically with gene promoters and transcriptional enhancers, or how sister chromatid cohesion is established. Here, we use genome-wide chromatin immunoprecipitation in Drosophila cells to show that SA and the Fs(1)h (BRD4) BET domain protein help recruit Nipped-B and cohesin to enhancers and DNA replication origins, whereas the MED30 subunit of the Mediator complex directs Nipped-B and Vtd in Drosophila (also known as Rad21) to promoters. All enhancers and their neighboring promoters are close to DNA replication origins and bind SA with proportional levels of cohesin subunits. Most promoters are far from origins and lack SA but bind Nipped-B and Rad21 with subproportional amounts of SMC1, indicating that they bind cohesin rings only part of the time. Genetic data show that Nipped-B and Rad21 function together with Fs(1)h to facilitate Drosophila development. These findings show that Nipped-B and cohesin are differentially targeted to enhancers and promoters, and suggest models for how SA and DNA replication help establish sister chromatid cohesion and facilitate enhancer-promoter communication. They indicate that SA is not an obligatory cohesin subunit but a factor that controls cohesin location on chromosomes.

Brca2, Pds5 and Wapl differentially control cohesin chromosome association and function

The cohesin complex topologically encircles chromosomes and mediates sister chromatid cohesion to ensure accurate chromosome segregation upon cell division. Cohesin also participates in DNA repair and gene transcription. The Nipped-B-Mau2 protein complex loads cohesin onto chromosomes and the Pds5-Wapl complex removes cohesin. Pds5 is also essential for sister chromatid cohesion, indicating that it has functions beyond cohesin removal. The Brca2 DNA repair protein interacts with Pds5, but the roles of this complex beyond DNA repair are unknown. Here we show that Brca2 opposes Pds5 function in sister chromatid cohesion by assaying precocious sister chromatid separation in metaphase spreads of cultured cells depleted for these proteins. By genome-wide chromatin immunoprecipitation we find that Pds5 facilitates SA cohesin subunit association with DNA replication origins and that Brca2 inhibits SA binding, mirroring their effects on sister chromatid cohesion. Cohesin binding is maximal at replication origins and extends outward to occupy active genes and regulatory sequences. Pds5 and Wapl, but not Brca2, limit the distance that cohesin extends from origins, thereby determining which active genes, enhancers and silencers bind cohesin. Using RNA-seq we find that Brca2, Pds5 and Wapl influence the expression of most genes sensitive to Nipped-B and cohesin, largely in the same direction. These findings demonstrate that Brca2 regulates sister chromatid cohesion and gene expression in addition to its canonical role in DNA repair and expand the known functions of accessory proteins in cohesin's diverse functions.

Polycomb repressive complex 1 modifies transcription of active genes

This study examines the role of Polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1) at active genes. The PRC1 and PRC2 complexes are crucial for epigenetic silencing during development of an organism. They are recruited to Polycomb response elements (PREs) and establish silenced domains over several kilobases. Recent studies show that PRC1 is also directly recruited to active genes by the cohesin complex. Cohesin participates broadly in control of gene transcription, but it is unknown whether cohesin-recruited PRC1 also plays a role in transcriptional control of active genes. We address this question using genome-wide RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq). The results show that PRC1 influences transcription of active genes, and a significant fraction of its effects are likely direct. The roles of different PRC1 subunits can also vary depending on the gene. Depletion of PRC1 subunits by RNA interference alters phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II (Pol II) and occupancy by the Spt5 pausing-elongation factor at most active genes. These effects on Pol II phosphorylation and Spt5 are likely linked to changes in elongation and RNA processing detected by nascent RNA-seq, although the mechanisms remain unresolved. The experiments also reveal that PRC1 facilitates association of Spt5 with enhancers and PREs. Reduced Spt5 levels at these regulatory sequences upon PRC1 depletion coincide with changes in Pol II occupancy and phosphorylation. Our findings indicate that, in addition to its repressive roles in epigenetic gene silencing, PRC1 broadly influences transcription of active genes and may suppress transcription of nonpromoter regulatory sequences.

A Sall1-NuRD interaction regulates multipotent nephron progenitors and is required for loop of Henle formation

The formation of the proper number of nephrons requires a tightly regulated balance between renal progenitor cell self-renewal and differentiation. The molecular pathways that regulate the transition from renal progenitor to renal vesicle are not well understood. Here, we show that Sall1interacts with the nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase complex (NuRD) to inhibit premature differentiation of nephron progenitor cells. Disruption of Sall1-NuRD in vivo in knock-in mice (ΔSRM) resulted in accelerated differentiation of nephron progenitors and bilateral renal hypoplasia. Transcriptional profiling of mutant kidneys revealed a striking pattern in which genes of the glomerular and proximal tubule lineages were either unchanged or upregulated, and those in the loop of Henle and distal tubule lineages were downregulated. These global changes in gene expression were accompanied by a significant decrease in THP-, NKCC2- and AQP1-positive loop of Henle nephron segments in mutant ΔSRM kidneys. These findings highlight an important function of Sall1-NuRD interaction in the regulation of Six2-positive multipotent renal progenitor cells and formation of the loop of Henle.