Role of the Chromosome Architectural Factor SMCHD1 in X-Chromosome Inactivation, Gene Regulation, and Disease in Humans

DUX4 double whammy: The transcription factor that causes a rare muscular dystrophy also kills the precursors of the human nose

SMCHD1 mutations cause congenital arhinia (absent nose) and a muscular dystrophy called FSHD2. In FSHD2, loss of SMCHD1 repressive activity causes expression of double homeobox 4 (DUX4) in muscle tissue, where it is toxic. Studies of arhinia patients suggest a primary defect in nasal placode cells (human nose progenitors). Here, we show that upon SMCHD1 ablation, DUX4 becomes derepressed in H9 human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) as they differentiate toward a placode cell fate, triggering cell death. Arhinia and FSHD2 patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) express DUX4 when converted to placode cells and demonstrate variable degrees of cell death, suggesting an environmental disease modifier. HSV-1 may be one such modifier as herpesvirus infection amplifies DUX4 expression in SMCHD1 KO hESC and patient iPSC. These studies suggest that arhinia, like FSHD2, is due to compromised SMCHD1 repressive activity in a cell-specific context and provide evidence for an environmental modifier.

Contribution of genetic and epigenetic changes to escape from X-chromosome inactivation

Background

X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) is the epigenetic inactivation of one of two X chromosomes in XX eutherian mammals. The inactive X chromosome is the result of multiple silencing pathways that act in concert to deposit chromatin changes, including DNA methylation and histone modifications. Yet over 15% of genes escape or variably escape from inactivation and continue to be expressed from the otherwise inactive X chromosome. To the extent that they have been studied, epigenetic marks correlate with this expression.

Results

Using publicly available data, we compared XCI status calls with DNA methylation, H3K4me1, H3K4me3, H3K9me3, H3K27ac, H3K27me3 and H3K36me3. At genes subject to XCI we found heterochromatic marks enriched, and euchromatic marks depleted on the inactive X when compared to the active X. Genes escaping XCI were more similar between the active and inactive X. Using sample-specific XCI status calls, we found some marks differed significantly with variable XCI status, but which marks were significant was not consistent between genes. A model trained to predict XCI status from these epigenetic marks obtained over 75% accuracy for genes escaping and over 90% for genes subject to XCI. This model made novel XCI status calls for genes without allelic differences or CpG islands required for other methods. Examining these calls across a domain of variably escaping genes, we saw XCI status vary across individual genes rather than at the domain level. Lastly, we compared XCI status calls to genetic polymorphisms, finding multiple loci associated with XCI status changes at variably escaping genes, but none individually sufficient to induce an XCI status change.

Conclusion

The control of expression from the inactive X chromosome is multifaceted, but ultimately regulated at the individual gene level with detectable but limited impact of distant polymorphisms. On the inactive X, at silenced genes euchromatic marks are depleted while heterochromatic marks are enriched. Genes escaping inactivation show a less significant enrichment of heterochromatic marks and depletion of H3K27ac. Combining all examined marks improved XCI status prediction, particularly for genes without CpG islands or polymorphisms, as no single feature is a consistent feature of silenced or expressed genes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13072-021-00404-9.