Hierarchical reactivation of transcription during mitosis-to-G1 transition by Brn2 and Ascl1 in neural stem cells

Dynamic phosphorylation of FOXA1 by Aurora B guides post-mitotic gene reactivation

FOXA1 serves as a crucial pioneer transcription factor during developmental processes and plays a pivotal role as a mitotic bookmarking factor to perpetuate gene expression profiles and maintain cellular identity. During mitosis, the majority of FOXA1 dissociates from specific DNA binding sites and redistributes to non-specific binding sites; however, the regulatory mechanisms governing molecular dynamics and activity of FOXA1 remain elusive. Here, we show that mitotic kinase Aurora B specifies the different DNA binding modes of FOXA1 and guides FOXA1 biomolecular condensation in mitosis. Mechanistically, Aurora B kinase phosphorylates FOXA1 at Serine 221 (S221) to liberate the specific, but not the non-specific, DNA binding. Interestingly, the phosphorylation of S221 attenuates the FOXA1 condensation that requires specific DNA binding. Importantly, perturbation of the dynamic phosphorylation impairs accurate gene reactivation and cell proliferation, suggesting that reversible mitotic protein phosphorylation emerges as a fundamental mechanism for the spatiotemporal control of mitotic bookmarking.

Exploring the reciprocity between pioneer factors and development

Development is regulated by coordinated changes in gene expression. Control of these changes in expression is largely governed by the binding of transcription factors to specific regulatory elements. However, the packaging of DNA into chromatin prevents the binding of many transcription factors. Pioneer factors overcome this barrier owing to unique properties that enable them to bind closed chromatin, promote accessibility and, in so doing, mediate binding of additional factors that activate gene expression. Because of these properties, pioneer factors act at the top of gene-regulatory networks and drive developmental transitions. Despite the ability to bind target motifs in closed chromatin, pioneer factors have cell type-specific chromatin occupancy and activity. Thus, developmental context clearly shapes pioneer-factor function. Here, we discuss this reciprocal interplay between pioneer factors and development: how pioneer factors control changes in cell fate and how cellular environment influences pioneer-factor binding and activity.

GATA2 mitotic bookmarking is required for definitive haematopoiesis

In mitosis, most transcription factors detach from chromatin, but some are retained and bookmark genomic sites. Mitotic bookmarking has been implicated in lineage inheritance, pluripotency and reprogramming. However, the biological significance of this mechanism in vivo remains unclear. Here, we address mitotic retention of the hemogenic factors GATA2, GFI1B and FOS during haematopoietic specification. We show that GATA2 remains bound to chromatin throughout mitosis, in contrast to GFI1B and FOS, via C-terminal zinc finger-mediated DNA binding. GATA2 bookmarks a subset of its interphase targets that are co-enriched for RUNX1 and other regulators of definitive haematopoiesis. Remarkably, homozygous mice harbouring the cyclin B1 mitosis degradation domain upstream Gata2 partially phenocopy knockout mice. Degradation of GATA2 at mitotic exit abolishes definitive haematopoiesis at aorta-gonad-mesonephros, placenta and foetal liver, but does not impair yolk sac haematopoiesis. Our findings implicate GATA2-mediated mitotic bookmarking as critical for definitive haematopoiesis and highlight a dependency on bookmarkers for lineage commitment.

Heat shock transcription factors demonstrate a distinct mode of interaction with mitotic chromosomes

A large number of transcription factors have been shown to bind and interact with mitotic chromosomes, which may promote the efficient reactivation of transcriptional programs following cell division. Although the DNA-binding domain (DBD) contributes strongly to TF behavior, the mitotic behaviors of TFs from the same DBD family may vary. To define the mechanisms governing TF behavior during mitosis in mouse embryonic stem cells, we examined two related TFs: Heat Shock Factor 1 and 2 (HSF1 and HSF2). We found that HSF2 maintains site-specific binding genome-wide during mitosis, whereas HSF1 binding is somewhat decreased. Surprisingly, live-cell imaging shows that both factors appear excluded from mitotic chromosomes to the same degree, and are similarly more dynamic in mitosis than in interphase. Exclusion from mitotic DNA is not due to extrinsic factors like nuclear import and export mechanisms. Rather, we found that the HSF DBDs can coat mitotic chromosomes, and that HSF2 DBD is able to establish site-specific binding. These data further confirm that site-specific binding and chromosome coating are independent properties, and that for some TFs, mitotic behavior is largely determined by the non-DBD regions.

Dynamics and regulation of mitotic chromatin accessibility bookmarking at single-cell resolution

Although mitotic chromosomes are highly compacted and transcriptionally inert, some active chromatin features are retained during mitosis to ensure the proper postmitotic reestablishment of maternal transcriptional programs, a phenomenon termed "mitotic bookmarking." However, the dynamics and regulation of mitotic bookmarking have not been systemically surveyed. Using single-cell transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing (scATAC-seq), we examined 6538 mitotic L02 human liver cells of variable stages and found that chromatin accessibility remained changing throughout cell division, with a constant decrease until metaphase and a gradual increase as chromosomes segregated. In particular, a subset of chromatin regions were identified to remain open throughout mitosis, and genes associated with these bookmarked regions are primarily linked to rapid reactivation upon mitotic exit. We also demonstrated that nuclear transcription factor Y subunit α (NF-YA) preferentially occupied bookmarked regions and contributed to transcriptional reactivation after mitosis. Our study uncovers the dynamic and regulatory blueprint of mitotic bookmarking.

Inhibition of Karyopherin β1-Mediated Nuclear Import Disrupts Oncogenic Lineage-Defining Transcription Factor Activity in Small Cell Lung Cancer

Genomic studies support the classification of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) into subtypes based on the expression of lineage-defining transcription factors ASCL1 and NEUROD1, which together are expressed in ∼86% of SCLC. ASCL1 and NEUROD1 activate SCLC oncogene expression, drive distinct transcriptional programs, and maintain the in vitro growth and oncogenic properties of ASCL1 or NEUROD1-expressing SCLC. ASCL1 is also required for tumor formation in SCLC mouse models. A strategy to inhibit the activity of these oncogenic drivers may therefore provide both a targeted therapy for the predominant SCLC subtypes and a tool to investigate the underlying lineage plasticity of established SCLC tumors. However, there are no known agents that inhibit ASCL1 or NEUROD1 function. In this study, we identify a novel strategy to pharmacologically target ASCL1 and NEUROD1 activity in SCLC by exploiting the nuclear localization required for the function of these transcription factors. Karyopherin β1 (KPNB1) was identified as a nuclear import receptor for both ASCL1 and NEUROD1 in SCLC, and inhibition of KPNB1 led to impaired ASCL1 and NEUROD1 nuclear accumulation and transcriptional activity. Pharmacologic targeting of KPNB1 preferentially disrupted the growth of ASCL1+ and NEUROD1+ SCLC cells in vitro and suppressed ASCL1+ tumor growth in vivo, an effect mediated by a combination of impaired ASCL1 downstream target expression, cell-cycle activity, and proteostasis. These findings broaden the support for targeting nuclear transport as an anticancer therapeutic strategy and have implications for targeting lineage-transcription factors in tumors beyond SCLC.

SIGNIFICANCE

The identification of KPNB1 as a nuclear import receptor for lineage-defining transcription factors in SCLC reveals a viable therapeutic strategy for cancer treatment.

Maintaining Transcriptional Specificity Through Mitosis

Virtually all cell types have the same DNA, yet each type exhibits its own cell-specific pattern of gene expression. During the brief period of mitosis, the chromosomes exhibit changes in protein composition and modifications, a marked condensation, and a consequent reduction in transcription. Yet as cells exit mitosis, they reactivate their cell-specific programs with high fidelity. Initially, the field focused on the subset of transcription factors that are selectively retained in, and hence bookmark, chromatin in mitosis. However, recent studies show that many transcription factors can be retained in mitotic chromatin and that, surprisingly, such retention can be due to nonspecific chromatin binding. Here, we review the latest studies focusing on low-level transcription via promoters, rather than enhancers, as contributing to mitotic memory, as well as new insights into chromosome structure dynamics, histone modifications, cell cycle signaling, and nuclear envelope proteins that together ensure the fidelity of gene expression through a round of mitosis.

Transcription factor Sp1 regulates mitotic chromosome assembly and segregation

Aneuploidy is a pervasive feature of cancer cells that results from chromosome missegregation. Several transcription factors have been associated with aneuploidy; however, no studies to date have demonstrated that mammalian transcription factors directly regulate chromosome segregation during mitosis. Here, we demonstrate that the ubiquitously expressed transcription factor specificity protein 1 (Sp1), which we have previously linked to aneuploidy, has a mitosis-specific role regulating chromosome segregation. We find that Sp1 localizes to mitotic centromeres and auxin-induced rapid Sp1 degradation at mitotic onset results in chromosome segregation errors and aberrant mitotic progression. Furthermore, rapid Sp1 degradation results in anomalous mitotic chromosome assembly characterized by loss of condensin complex I localization to mitotic chromosomes and chromosome condensation defects. Consistent with these defects, Sp1 degradation results in reduced chromosome passenger complex activity and histone H3 serine 10 phosphorylation during mitosis, which is essential for condensin complex I recruitment and chromosome condensation. Together, these data provide the first evidence of a mammalian transcription factor acting specifically during mitosis to regulate chromosome segregation.

Function and regulation of transcription factors during mitosis-to-G1 transition

During cell division, drastic cellular changes characteristic of mitosis result in the inactivation of the transcriptional machinery, and global downregulation of transcription. Sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs) have thus been considered mere bystanders, devoid of any regulatory function during mitosis. This view changed significantly in recent years, upon the conclusion that many TFs associate with condensed chromosomes during cell division, even occupying a fraction of their genomic target sites in mitotic chromatin. This finding was at the origin of the concept of mitotic bookmarking by TFs, proposed as a mechanism to propagate gene regulatory information across cell divisions, by facilitating the reactivation of specific bookmarked genes. While the underlying mechanisms and biological significance of this model remain elusive, recent developments in this fast-moving field have cast new light into TF activity during mitosis, beyond a bookmarking role. Here, we start by reviewing the most recent findings on the complex nature of TF-chromatin interactions during mitosis, and on mechanisms that may regulate them. Next, and in light of recent reports describing how transcription is reinitiated in temporally distinct waves during mitosis-to-G1 transition, we explore how TFs may contribute to defining this hierarchical gene expression process. Finally, we discuss how TF activity during mitotic exit may impact the acquisition of cell identity upon cell division, and propose a model that integrates dynamic changes in TF-chromatin interactions during this cell-cycle period, with the execution of cell-fate decisions.

Regulated interaction of ID2 with the anaphase-promoting complex links progression through mitosis with reactivation of cell-type-specific transcription

Tissue-specific transcriptional activity is silenced in mitotic cells but it remains unclear whether the mitotic regulatory machinery interacts with tissue-specific transcriptional programs. We show that such cross-talk involves the controlled interaction between core subunits of the anaphase-promoting complex (APC) and the ID2 substrate. The N-terminus of ID2 is independently and structurally compatible with a pocket composed of core APC/C subunits that may optimally orient ID2 onto the APCCDH1 complex. Phosphorylation of serine-5 by CDK1 prevented the association of ID2 with core APC, impaired ubiquitylation and stabilized ID2 protein at the mitosis-G1 transition leading to inhibition of basic Helix-Loop-Helix (bHLH)-mediated transcription. The serine-5 phospho-mimetic mutant of ID2 that inefficiently bound core APC remained stable during mitosis, delayed exit from mitosis and reloading of bHLH transcription factors on chromatin. It also locked cells into a "mitotic stem cell" transcriptional state resembling the pluripotent program of embryonic stem cells. The substrates of APCCDH1 SKP2 and Cyclin B1 share with ID2 the phosphorylation-dependent, D-box-independent interaction with core APC. These results reveal a new layer of control of the mechanism by which substrates are recognized by APC.

Pioneer factors as master regulators of the epigenome and cell fate

Pioneer factors are transcription factors with the unique ability to initiate opening of closed chromatin. The stability of cell identity relies on robust mechanisms that maintain the epigenome and chromatin accessibility to transcription factors. Pioneer factors counter these mechanisms to implement new cell fates through binding of DNA target sites in closed chromatin and introduction of active-chromatin histone modifications, primarily at enhancers. As master regulators of enhancer activation, pioneers are thus crucial for the implementation of correct cell fate decisions in development, and as such, they hold tremendous potential for therapy through cellular reprogramming. The power of pioneer factors to reshape the epigenome also presents an Achilles heel, as their misexpression has major pathological consequences, such as in cancer. In this Review, we discuss the emerging mechanisms of pioneer factor functions and their roles in cell fate specification, cellular reprogramming and cancer.

Function of Proneural Genes Ascl1 and Asense in Neurogenesis: How Similar Are They?

Proneural genes were initially identified in Drosophila, where pioneer work on these important regulators of neural development was performed, and from which the term proneural function was coined. Subsequently, their counterparts in vertebrates were identified, and their function in neural development extensively characterized. The function of proneural transcription factors in flies and vertebrates is, however, very distinct. In flies, proneural genes play an early role in neural induction, by endowing neural competence to ectodermal cells. In contrast, vertebrate proneural genes are expressed only after neural specification, in neural stem and progenitor cells, where they play key regulatory functions in quiescence, proliferation, and neuronal differentiation. An exception to this scenario is the Drosophila proneural gene asense, which has a late onset of expression in neural stem cells of the developing embryo and larvae, similar to its vertebrate counterparts. Although the role of Asense remains poorly investigated, its expression pattern is suggestive of functions more in line with those of vertebrate proneural genes. Here, we revise our current understanding of the multiple activities of Asense and of its closest vertebrate homologue Ascl1 in neural stem/progenitor cell biology, and discuss possible parallels between the two transcription factors in neurogenesis regulation.