P-element homing is facilitated by engrailed polycomb-group response elements in Drosophila melanogaster

Context-dependent role of Pho binding sites in Polycomb complex recruitment in Drosophila

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins maintain the silenced state of key developmental genes, but how these proteins are recruited to specific regions of the genome is still not completely understood. In Drosophila, PcG proteins are recruited to Polycomb response elements (PREs) comprised of a flexible array of sites for sequence-specific DNA binding proteins, "PcG recruiters," including Pho, Spps, Cg, and GAF. Pho is thought to play a central role in PcG recruitment. Early data showed that mutation of Pho binding sites in PREs in transgenes abrogated the ability of those PREs to repress gene expression. In contrast, genome-wide experiments in pho mutants or by Pho knockdown showed that PcG proteins can bind to PREs in the absence of Pho. Here, we directly addressed the importance of Pho binding sites in 2 engrailed (en) PREs at the endogenous locus and in transgenes. Our results show that Pho binding sites are required for PRE activity in transgenes with a single PRE. In a transgene, 2 PREs together lead to stronger, more stable repression and confer some resistance to the loss of Pho binding sites. Making the same mutation in Pho binding sites has little effect on PcG-protein binding at the endogenous en gene. Overall, our data support the model that Pho is important for PcG binding but emphasize how multiple PREs and chromatin environment increase the ability of PREs to function in the absence of Pho. This supports the view that multiple mechanisms contribute to PcG recruitment in Drosophila.

Formation of a Polycomb-Domain in the Absence of Strong Polycomb Response Elements

Polycomb group response elements (PREs) in Drosophila are DNA-elements that recruit Polycomb proteins (PcG) to chromatin and regulate gene expression. PREs are easily recognizable in the Drosophila genome as strong peaks of PcG-protein binding over discrete DNA fragments; many small but statistically significant PcG peaks are also observed in PcG domains. Surprisingly, in vivo deletion of the four characterized strong PREs from the PcG regulated invected-engrailed (inv-en) gene complex did not disrupt the formation of the H3K27me3 domain and did not affect inv-en expression in embryos or larvae suggesting the presence of redundant PcG recruitment mechanism. Further, the 3D-structure of the inv-en domain was only minimally altered by the deletion of the strong PREs. A reporter construct containing a 7.5kb en fragment that contains three weak peaks but no large PcG peaks forms an H3K27me3 domain and is PcG-regulated. Our data suggests a model for the recruitment of PcG-complexes to Drosophila genes via interactions with multiple, weak PREs spread throughout an H3K27me3 domain.

Determinants of Chromosome Architecture: Insulator Pairing in cis and in trans

The chromosomes of multicellular animals are organized into a series of topologically independent looped domains. This domain organization is critical for the proper utilization and propagation of the genetic information encoded by the chromosome. A special set of architectural elements, called boundaries or insulators, are responsible both for subdividing the chromatin into discrete domains and for determining the topological organization of these domains. Central to the architectural functions of insulators are homologous and heterologous insulator:insulator pairing interactions. The former (pairing between copies of the same insulator) dictates the process of homolog alignment and pairing in trans, while the latter (pairing between different insulators) defines the topology of looped domains in cis. To elucidate the principles governing these architectural functions, we use two insulators, Homie and Nhomie, that flank the Drosophila even skipped locus. We show that homologous insulator interactions in trans, between Homie on one homolog and Homie on the other, or between Nhomie on one homolog and Nhomie on the other, mediate transvection. Critically, these homologous insulator:insulator interactions are orientation-dependent. Consistent with a role in the alignment and pairing of homologs, self-pairing in trans is head-to-head. Head-to-head self-interactions in cis have been reported for other fly insulators, suggesting that this is a general principle of self-pairing. Homie and Nhomie not only pair with themselves, but with each other. Heterologous Homie-Nhomie interactions occur in cis, and we show that they serve to delimit a looped chromosomal domain that contains the even skipped transcription unit and its associated enhancers. The topology of this loop is defined by the heterologous pairing properties of Homie and Nhomie. Instead of being head-to-head, which would generate a circular loop, Homie-Nhomie pairing is head-to-tail. Head-to-tail pairing in cis generates a stem-loop, a configuration much like that observed in classical lampbrush chromosomes. These pairing principles provide a mechanistic underpinning for the observed topologies within and between chromosomes.

The chromosomes of multicellular animals are organized into a series of topologically independent looped domains. This domain organization is critical for the proper utilization and propagation of the genetic information encoded by the chromosome. A special set of architectural elements, called boundaries or insulators, are responsible for both subdividing the chromatin fiber into discrete domains, and determining the topological organization of these domains. Central to the architectural functions of insulators are heterologous and homologous insulator:insulator pairing interactions. In Drosophila, the former defines the topology of individual looped domains in cis, while the latter dictates the process of homolog alignment and pairing in trans. Here we use two insulators from the even skipped locus to elucidate the principles governing these two architectural functions. These principles align with several longstanding observations, and resolve a number of conundrums regarding chromosome topology and function.

The Little Fly that Could: Wizardry and Artistry of Drosophila Genomics

For more than 100 years now, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has been at the forefront of our endeavors to unlock the secrets of the genome. From the pioneering studies of chromosomes and heredity by Morgan and his colleagues, to the generation of fly models for human disease, Drosophila research has been at the forefront of genetics and genomics. We present a broad overview of some of the most powerful genomics tools that keep Drosophila research at the cutting edge of modern biomedical research.

Epigenetic control of mobile DNA as an interface between experience and genome change

Mobile DNA in the genome is subject to RNA-targeted epigenetic control. This control regulates the activity of transposons, retrotransposons and genomic proviruses. Many different life history experiences alter the activities of mobile DNA and the expression of genetic loci regulated by nearby insertions. The same experiences induce alterations in epigenetic formatting and lead to trans-generational modifications of genome expression and stability. These observations lead to the hypothesis that epigenetic formatting directed by non-coding RNA provides a molecular interface between life history events and genome alteration.

Architectural and functional diversity of polycomb group response elements in Drosophila

Polycomb group response elements (PREs) play an essential role in gene regulation by the Polycomb group (PcG) repressor proteins in Drosophila. PREs are required for the recruitment and maintenance of repression by the PcG proteins. PREs are made up of binding sites for multiple DNA-binding proteins, but it is still unclear what combination(s) of binding sites is required for PRE activity. Here we compare the binding sites and activities of two closely linked yet separable PREs of the Drosophila engrailed (en) gene, PRE1 and PRE2. Both PRE1 and PRE2 contain binding sites for multiple PRE-DNA-binding proteins, but the number, arrangement, and spacing of the sites differs between the two PREs. These differences have functional consequences. Both PRE1 and PRE2 mediate pairing-sensitive silencing of mini-white, a functional assay for PcG repression; however, PRE1 requires two binding sites for Pleiohomeotic (Pho), whereas PRE2 requires only one Pho-binding site for this activity. Furthermore, for full pairing-sensitive silencing activity, PRE1 requires an AT-rich region not found in PRE2. These two PREs behave differently in a PRE embryonic and larval reporter construct inserted at an identical location in the genome. Our data illustrate the diversity of architecture and function of PREs.

The border between the ultrabithorax and abdominal-A regulatory domains in the Drosophila bithorax complex

The bithorax complex in Drosophila melanogaster includes three homeobox-containing genes--Ultrabithorax (Ubx), abdominal--A (abd-A), and Abdominal-B (Abd-B)-which are required for the proper differentiation of the posterior 10 segments of the body. Each of these genes has multiple distinct regulatory regions; there is one for each segmental unit of the body plan where the genes are expressed. One additional protein- coding gene in the bithorax complex, Glut3, a sugar-transporter homolog, can be deleted without phenotype. We focus here on the upstream regulatory region for Ubx, the bithoraxoid (bxd) domain, and its border with the adjacent infraabdominal-2 (iab-2) domain, which controls abdA. These two domains can be defined by the phenotypes of rearrangement breakpoints, and by the expression patterns of enhancer traps. In D. virilis, the homeotic cluster is split between Ubx and abd-A, and so the border can also be located by a sequence comparison between species. When the border region is deleted in melanogaster, the flies show a dominant phenotype called Front-ultraabdominal (Fub); the first abdominal segment is transformed into a copy of the second abdominal segment. Thus, the border blocks the spread of activation from the bxd domain into the iab-2 domain.

Polycomb group response elements in Drosophila and vertebrates

Polycomb group genes (PcG) encode a group of about 16 proteins that were first identified in Drosophila as repressors of homeotic genes. PcG proteins are present in all metazoans and are best characterized as transcriptional repressors. In Drosophila, these proteins are known as epigenetic regulators because they remember, but do not establish, the patterned expression state of homeotic genes throughout development. PcG proteins, in general, are not DNA binding proteins, but act in protein complexes to repress transcription at specific target genes. How are PcG proteins recruited to the DNA? In Drosophila, there are specific regulatory DNA elements called Polycomb group response elements (PREs) that bring PcG protein complexes to the DNA. Drosophila PREs are made up of binding sites for a complex array of DNA binding proteins. Functional PRE assays in transgenes have shown that PREs act in the context of other regulatory DNA and PRE activity is highly dependent on genomic context. Drosophila PREs tend to regulate genes with a complex array of regulatory DNA in a cell or tissue-specific fashion and it is the interplay between regulatory DNA that dictates PRE function. In mammals, PcG proteins are more diverse and there are multiple ways to recruit PcG complexes, including RNA-mediated recruitment. In this review, we discuss evidence for PREs in vertebrates and explore similarities and differences between Drosophila and vertebrate PREs.