Developmental and housekeeping transcriptional programs in Drosophila require distinct chromatin remodelers

Chromatin enables precise and scalable gene regulation with factors of limited specificity

Biophysical constraints limit the specificity with which transcription factors (TFs) can target regulatory DNA. While individual nontarget binding events may be low affinity, the sheer number of such interactions could present a challenge for gene regulation by degrading its precision or possibly leading to an erroneous induction state. Chromatin can prevent nontarget binding by rendering DNA physically inaccessible to TFs, at the cost of energy-consuming remodeling orchestrated by pioneer factors (PFs). Under what conditions and by how much can chromatin reduce regulatory errors on a global scale? We use a theoretical approach to compare two scenarios for gene regulation: one that relies on TF binding to free DNA alone and one that uses a combination of TFs and chromatin-regulating PFs to achieve desired gene expression patterns. We find, first, that chromatin effectively silences groups of genes that should be simultaneously OFF, thereby allowing more accurate graded control of expression for the remaining ON genes. Second, chromatin buffers the deleterious consequences of nontarget binding as the number of OFF genes grows, permitting a substantial expansion in regulatory complexity. Third, chromatin-based regulation productively co-opts nontarget TF binding for ON genes in order to establish a "leaky" baseline expression level, which targeted activator or repressor binding subsequently up- or down-modulates. Thus, on a global scale, using chromatin simultaneously alleviates pressure for high specificity of regulatory interactions and enables an increase in genome size with minimal impact on global expression error.

CHD6 eviction of promoter nucleosomes maintains housekeeping transcriptional program in prostate cancer

CHD6, a member of the chromodomain helicase DNA-binding protein family, has been implicated in various diseases and tumors. However, its precise binding model of CHD6 on regulatory functional genes remains poorly understood. In this study, we discovered sharp peaks of CHD6, as the first member of CHD family for housekeeping process, binding only to the promoter region of genes in the C4-2 cell line. These genes, with conserved sharp CHD6 peaks across tumor cells, likely represent housekeeping genes ADNP and GOLGA5. Genes with sharp CHD6 peaks exhibit stable and low expression levels, sharing epigenetic features similar to housekeeping genes. Furthermore, this regulatory model also exists in both HEK293 cells and cardiomyocytes. Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that CHD6 binds to the promoter regions of housekeeping genes, regulating their histone modifications, chromatin structure, and gene expression.

A genome-wide screen identifies silencers with distinct chromatin properties and mechanisms of repression

Differential gene transcription enables development and homeostasis in all animals and is regulated by two major classes of distal cis-regulatory DNA elements (CREs): enhancers and silencers. Although enhancers have been thoroughly characterized, the properties and mechanisms of silencers remain largely unknown. By an unbiased genome-wide functional screen in Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells, we discover a class of silencers that bind one of three transcription factors (TFs) and are generally not included in chromatin-defined CRE catalogs as they mostly lack detectable DNA accessibility. The silencer-binding TF CG11247, which we term Saft, safeguards cell fate decisions in vivo and functions via a highly conserved domain we term zinc-finger-associated C-terminal (ZAC) and the corepressor G9a, independently of G9a's H3K9-methyltransferase activity. Overall, our identification of silencers with unexpected properties and mechanisms has important implications for the understanding and future study of repressive CREs, as well as the functional annotation of animal genomes.

Developmental and housekeeping transcriptional programs display distinct modes of enhancer-enhancer cooperativity in Drosophila

Genomic enhancers are key transcriptional regulators which, upon the binding of sequence-specific transcription factors, activate their cognate target promoters. Although enhancers have been extensively studied in isolation, a substantial number of genes have more than one simultaneously active enhancer, and it remains unclear how these cooperate to regulate transcription. Using Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells as a model, we assay the activities of more than a thousand individual enhancers and about a million enhancer pairs toward housekeeping and developmental core promoters with STARR-seq. We report that housekeeping and developmental enhancers show distinct modes of enhancer-enhancer cooperativity: while housekeeping enhancers are additive such that their combined activity mirrors the sum of their individual activities, developmental enhancers are super-additive and combine multiplicatively. Super-additivity between developmental enhancers is promiscuous and neither depends on the enhancers' endogenous genomic contexts nor on specific transcription factor motif signatures. However, it can be further boosted by Twist and Trl motifs and saturates for the highest levels of enhancer activity. These results have important implications for our understanding of gene regulation in complex multi-enhancer developmental loci and genomically clustered housekeeping genes, providing a rationale to interpret the transcriptional impact of non-coding mutations at different loci.

Regulatory landscape of enhancer-mediated transcriptional activation

Enhancers are noncoding regulatory elements that instruct spatial and temporal specificity of gene transcription in response to a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic signals during development. Although it has long been postulated that enhancers physically interact with target promoters through the formation of stable loops, recent studies have changed this static view: sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs) and coactivators are dynamically recruited to enhancers and assemble so-called transcription hubs. Dynamic assembly of transcription hubs appears to serve as a key scaffold to integrate regulatory information encoded by surrounding genome and biophysical properties of transcription machineries. In this review, we outline emerging new models of transcriptional regulation by enhancers and discuss future perspectives.

Proteome-scale tagging and functional screening in mammalian cells by ORFtag

The systematic determination of protein function is a key goal of modern biology, but remains challenging with current approaches. Here we present ORFtag, a versatile, cost-effective and highly efficient method for the massively parallel tagging and functional interrogation of proteins at the proteome scale. ORFtag uses retroviral vectors bearing a promoter, peptide tag and splice donor to generate fusions between the tag and endogenous open reading frames (ORFs). We demonstrate the utility of ORFtag through functional screens for transcriptional activators, repressors and posttranscriptional regulators in mouse embryonic stem cells. Each screen recovers known and identifies new regulators, including long ORFs inaccessible by other methods. Among other hits, we find that Zfp574 is a highly selective transcriptional activator and that oncogenic fusions often function as transactivators.

Genomic context-dependent histone H3K36 methylation by three Drosophila methyltransferases and implications for dedicated chromatin readers

Methylation of histone H3 at lysine 36 (H3K36me3) marks active chromatin. The mark is interpreted by epigenetic readers that assist transcription and safeguard the integrity of the chromatin fiber. The chromodomain protein MSL3 binds H3K36me3 to target X-chromosomal genes in male Drosophila for dosage compensation. The PWWP-domain protein JASPer recruits the JIL1 kinase to active chromatin on all chromosomes. Unexpectedly, depletion of K36me3 had variable, locus-specific effects on the interactions of those readers. This observation motivated a systematic and comprehensive study of K36 methylation in a defined cellular model. Contrasting prevailing models, we found that K36me1, K36me2 and K36me3 each contribute to distinct chromatin states. A gene-centric view of the changing K36 methylation landscape upon depletion of the three methyltransferases Set2, NSD and Ash1 revealed local, context-specific methylation signatures. Set2 catalyzes K36me3 predominantly at transcriptionally active euchromatin. NSD places K36me2/3 at defined loci within pericentric heterochromatin and on weakly transcribed euchromatic genes. Ash1 deposits K36me1 at regions with enhancer signatures. The genome-wide mapping of MSL3 and JASPer suggested that they bind K36me2 in addition to K36me3, which was confirmed by direct affinity measurement. This dual specificity attracts the readers to a broader range of chromosomal locations and increases the robustness of their actions.

Developmental and Housekeeping Genes: Two Types of Genetic Organization in the Drosophila Genome

We developed a procedure for locating genes on Drosophila melanogaster polytene chromosomes and described three types of chromosome structures (gray bands, black bands, and interbands), which differed markedly in morphological and genetic properties. This was reached through the use of our original methods of molecular and genetic analysis, electron microscopy, and bioinformatics data processing. Analysis of the genome-wide distribution of these properties led us to a bioinformatics model of the Drosophila genome organization, in which the genome was divided into two groups of genes. One was constituted by 65, in which the genome was divided into two groups, 62 genes that are expressed in most cell types during life cycle and perform basic cellular functions (the so-called "housekeeping genes"). The other one was made up of 3162 genes that are expressed only at particular stages of development ("developmental genes"). These two groups of genes are so different that we may state that the genome has two types of genetic organization. Different are the timings of their expression, chromatin packaging levels, the composition of activating and deactivating proteins, the sizes of these genes, the lengths of their introns, the organization of the promoter regions of the genes, the locations of origin recognition complexes (ORCs), and DNA replication timings.

SWI/SNF-dependent genes are defined by their chromatin landscape

SWI/SNF complexes are evolutionarily conserved, ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling machines. Here, we characterize the features of SWI/SNF-dependent genes using BRM014, an inhibitor of the ATPase activity of the complexes. We find that SWI/SNF activity is required to maintain chromatin accessibility and nucleosome occupancy for most enhancers but not for most promoters. SWI/SNF activity is needed for expression of genes with low to medium levels of expression that have promoters with (1) low chromatin accessibility, (2) low levels of active histone marks, (3) high H3K4me1/H3K4me3 ratio, (4) low nucleosomal phasing, and (5) enrichment in TATA-box motifs. These promoters are mostly occupied by the canonical Brahma-related gene 1/Brahma-associated factor (BAF) complex. These genes are surrounded by SWI/SNF-dependent enhancers and mainly encode signal transduction, developmental, and cell identity genes (with almost no housekeeping genes). Machine-learning models trained with different chromatin characteristics of promoters and their surrounding regulatory regions indicate that the chromatin landscape is a determinant for establishing SWI/SNF dependency.

The SWI/SNF nucleosome remodeler constrains enhancer activity during Drosophila wing development

Chromatin remodeling is central to the dynamic changes in gene expression that drive cell fate determination. During development, the sets of enhancers that are accessible for use change globally as cells transition between stages. While transcription factors and nucleosome remodelers are known to work together to control enhancer accessibility, it is unclear how the short stretches of DNA that they individually unmask yield the kilobase-sized accessible regions characteristic of active enhancers. Here, we performed a genetic screen to investigate the role of nucleosome remodelers in control of dynamic enhancer activity. We find that the Drosophila Switch/Sucrose Non-Fermenting complex, BAP, is required for repression of a temporally dynamic enhancer, brdisc. Contrary to expectations, we find that the BAP-specific subunit Osa is dispensable for mediating changes in chromatin accessibility between the early and late stages of wing development. Instead, we find that Osa is required to constrain the levels of brdisc activity when the enhancer is normally active. Genome-wide profiling reveals that Osa directly binds brdisc as well as thousands of other developmentally dynamic regulatory sites, including multiple genes encoding components and targets of the Notch signaling pathway. Transgenic reporter analyses demonstrate that Osa is required for activation and for constraint of different sets of target enhancers in the same cells. Moreover, Osa loss results in hyperactivation of the Notch ligand Delta and development of ectopic sensory structures patterned by Notch signaling early in development. Together, these findings indicate that proper constraint of enhancer activity is necessary for regulation of dose-dependent developmental events.

The BAF chromatin complex component SMARCC1 does not mediate GLI transcriptional repression of Hedgehog target genes in limb buds

Transcriptional responses to the Hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway are primarily modulated by GLI repression in the mouse limb. Previous studies suggested a role for the BAF chromatin remodeling complex in mediating GLI repression. Consistent with this possibility, the core BAF complex protein SMARCC1 is present at most active limb enhancers including the majority of GLI enhancers. However, in contrast to GLI repression which reduces chromatin accessibility, SMARCC1 maintains chromatin accessibility at most enhancers, including those bound by GLI. Moreover, SMARCC1 binding at GLI-regulated enhancers occurs independently of GLI3. Consistent with previous studies, some individual GLI target genes are mis-regulated in Smarcc1 conditional knockouts, though most GLI target genes are unaffected. Moreover, SMARCC1 is not necessary for mediating constitutive GLI repression in HH mutant limb buds. We conclude that SMARCC1 does not mediate GLI3 repression, which we propose utilizes alternative chromatin remodeling complexes.

The BAF chromatin complex component SMARCC1 does not mediate GLI transcriptional repression of Hedgehog target genes in limb buds

Transcriptional responses to the Hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway are primarily modulated by GLI repression in the mouse limb. Previous studies suggested a role for the BAF chromatin remodeling complex in mediating GLI repression. Consistent with this possibility, the core BAF complex protein SMARCC1 is present at most active limb enhancers including the majority of GLI enhancers. However, in contrast to GLI repression which reduces chromatin accessibility, SMARCC1 maintains chromatin accessibility at most enhancers, including those bound by GLI. Moreover, SMARCC1 binding at GLI-regulated enhancers occurs independently of GLI3. Consistent with previous studies, some individual GLI target genes are mis-regulated in Smarcc1 conditional knockouts, though most GLI target genes are unaffected. Moreover, SMARCC1 is not necessary for mediating constitutive GLI repression in HH mutant limb buds. We conclude that SMARCC1 does not mediate GLI3 repression, which we propose utilizes alternative chromatin remodeling complexes.

Widespread regulatory specificities between transcriptional co-repressors and enhancers in Drosophila

Gene expression is controlled by the precise activation and repression of transcription. Repression is mediated by specialized transcription factors (TFs) that recruit co-repressors (CoRs) to silence transcription, even in the presence of activating cues. However, whether CoRs can dominantly silence all enhancers or display distinct specificities is unclear. In this work, we report that most enhancers in Drosophila can be repressed by only a subset of CoRs, and enhancers classified by CoR sensitivity show distinct chromatin features, function, TF motifs, and binding. Distinct TF motifs render enhancers more resistant or sensitive to specific CoRs, as we demonstrate by motif mutagenesis and addition. These CoR-enhancer compatibilities constitute an additional layer of regulatory specificity that allows differential regulation at close genomic distances and is indicative of distinct mechanisms of transcriptional repression.

Human SMARCA5 is continuously required to maintain nucleosome spacing

Genetic models suggested that SMARCA5 was required for DNA-templated events including transcription, DNA replication, and DNA repair. We engineered a degron tag into the endogenous alleles of SMARCA5, a catalytic component of the imitation switch complexes in three different human cell lines to define the effects of rapid degradation of this key regulator. Degradation of SMARCA5 was associated with a rapid increase in global nucleosome repeat length, which may allow greater chromatin compaction. However, there were few changes in nascent transcription within the first 6 h of degradation. Nevertheless, we demonstrated a requirement for SMARCA5 to control nucleosome repeat length at G1/S and during the S phase. SMARCA5 co-localized with CTCF and H2A.Z, and we found a rapid loss of CTCF DNA binding and disruption of nucleosomal phasing around CTCF binding sites. This spatiotemporal analysis indicates that SMARCA5 is continuously required for maintaining nucleosomal spacing.

Deciphering the multi-scale, quantitative cis-regulatory code

Uncovering the cis-regulatory code that governs when and how much each gene is transcribed in a given genome and cellular state remains a central goal of biology. Here, we discuss major layers of regulation that influence how transcriptional outputs are encoded by DNA sequence and cellular context. We first discuss how transcription factors bind specific DNA sequences in a dosage-dependent and cooperative manner and then proceed to the cofactors that facilitate transcription factor function and mediate the activity of modular cis-regulatory elements such as enhancers, silencers, and promoters. We then consider the complex and poorly understood interplay of these diverse elements within regulatory landscapes and its relationships with chromatin states and nuclear organization. We propose that a mechanistically informed, quantitative model of transcriptional regulation that integrates these multiple regulatory layers will be the key to ultimately cracking the cis-regulatory code.

A Transcriptional Cofactor Regulatory Network for the C. elegans Intestine

Chromatin modifiers and transcriptional cofactors (collectively referred to as CFs) work with DNA-binding transcription factors (TFs) to regulate gene expression. In multicellular eukaryotes, distinct tissues each execute their own gene expression program for accurate differentiation and subsequent functionality. While the function of TFs in differential gene expression has been studied in detail in many systems, the contribution of CFs has remained less explored. Here we uncovered the contributions of CFs to gene regulation in the Caenorhabditis elegans intestine. We first annotated 366 CFs encoded by the C. elegans genome and assembled a library of 335 RNAi clones. Using this library, we analyzed the effects of individually depleting these CFs on the expression of 19 fluorescent transcriptional reporters in the intestine and identified 216 regulatory interactions. We found that different CFs interact specifically with different promoters, and that both essential and intestinally expressed CFs exhibit the highest proportion of interactions. We did not find all members of CF complexes acting on the same set of reporters but instead found diversity in the promoter targets of each complex component. Finally, we found that previously identified activation mechanisms for the acdh-1 promoter use different CFs and TFs. Overall, we demonstrate that CFs function specifically rather than ubiquitously at intestinal promoters and provide an RNAi resource for reverse genetic screens.