From Structural Variation of Gene Molecules to Chromatin Dynamics and Transcriptional Bursting

TATA and paused promoters active in differentiated tissues have distinct expression characteristics

Core promoter types differ in the extent to which RNA polymerase II (Pol II) pauses after initiation, but how this affects their tissue-specific gene expression characteristics is not well understood. While promoters with Pol II pausing elements are active throughout development, TATA promoters are highly active in differentiated tissues. We therefore used a genomics approach on late-stage Drosophila embryos to analyze the properties of promoter types. Using tissue-specific Pol II ChIP-seq, we found that paused promoters have high levels of paused Pol II throughout the embryo, even in tissues where the gene is not expressed, while TATA promoters only show Pol II occupancy when the gene is active. The promoter types are associated with different chromatin accessibility in ATAC-seq data and have different expression characteristics in single-cell RNA-seq data. The two promoter types may therefore be optimized for different properties: paused promoters show more consistent expression when active, while TATA promoters have lower background expression when inactive. We propose that tissue-specific genes have evolved to use two different strategies for their differential expression across tissues.

A matter of time: Using dynamics and theory to uncover mechanisms of transcriptional bursting

Eukaryotic transcription generally occurs in bursts of activity lasting minutes to hours; however, state-of-the-art measurements have revealed that many of the molecular processes that underlie bursting, such as transcription factor binding to DNA, unfold on timescales of seconds. This temporal disconnect lies at the heart of a broader challenge in physical biology of predicting transcriptional outcomes and cellular decision-making from the dynamics of underlying molecular processes. Here, we review how new dynamical information about the processes underlying transcriptional control can be combined with theoretical models that predict not only averaged transcriptional dynamics, but also their variability, to formulate testable hypotheses about the molecular mechanisms underlying transcriptional bursting and control.

Signaling Mechanism of Transcriptional Bursting: A Technical Resolution-Independent Study

Simple Summary

Following changing cellular signals, various genes adjust their activities and initiate transcripts with the right rates. The precision of such a transcriptional response has a fundamental role in the survival and development of lives. Quite unexpectedly, gene transcription has been uncovered to occur in sporadic bursts, rather than in a continuous manner. This has raised a provoking issue of how the bursting transmits regulatory signals, and it remains controversial whether the burst size, frequency, or both, take the role of signal transmission. Here, this study showed that only the burst frequency was subject to modulation by activators that carry the regulatory signals. A higher activator concentration led to a larger frequency, whereas the size remains unchanged. When very high, the burst cluster emerged, which may be mistaken as a large burst. This work thus supports the conclusion that transcription regulation is in a “digital” way.

Abstract

Gene transcription has been uncovered to occur in sporadic bursts. However, due to technical difficulties in differentiating individual transcription initiation events, it remains debated as to whether the burst size, frequency, or both are subject to modulation by transcriptional activators. Here, to bypass technical constraints, we addressed this issue by introducing two independent theoretical methods including analytical research based on the classic two-model and information entropy research based on the architecture of transcription apparatus. Both methods connect the signaling mechanism of transcriptional bursting to the characteristics of transcriptional uncertainty (i.e., the differences in transcriptional levels of the same genes that are equally activated). By comparing the theoretical predictions with abundant experimental data collected from published papers, the results exclusively support frequency modulation. To further validate this conclusion, we showed that the data that appeared to support size modulation essentially supported frequency modulation taking into account the existence of burst clusters. This work provides a unified scheme that reconciles the debate on burst signaling.

Epigenetic Regulation of S100A9 and S100A12 Expression in Monocyte-Macrophage System in Hyperglycemic Conditions

The number of diabetic patients in Europe and world-wide is growing. Diabetes confers a 2-fold higher risk for vascular disease. Lack of insulin production (Type 1 diabetes, T1D) or lack of insulin responsiveness (Type 2 diabetes, T2D) causes systemic metabolic changes such as hyperglycemia (HG) which contribute to the pathology of diabetes. Monocytes and macrophages are key innate immune cells that control inflammatory reactions associated with diabetic vascular complications. Inflammatory programming of macrophages is regulated and maintained by epigenetic mechanisms, in particular histone modifications. The aim of our study was to identify the epigenetic mechanisms involved in the hyperglycemia-mediated macrophage activation. Using Affymetrix microarray profiling and RT-qPCR we identified that hyperglycemia increased the expression of S100A9 and S100A12 in primary human macrophages. Expression of S100A12 was sustained after glucose levels were normalized. Glucose augmented the response of macrophages to Toll-like receptor (TLR)-ligands Palmatic acid (PA) and Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) i.e., pro-inflammatory stimulation. The abundance of activating histone Histone 3 Lysine 4 methylation marks (H3K4me1, H3K4me3) and general acetylation on histone 3 (AceH3) with the promoters of these genes was analyzed by chromatin immunoprecipitation. Hyperglycemia increased acetylation of histones bound to the promoters of S100A9 and S100A12 in M1 macrophages. In contrast, hyperglycemia caused a reduction in total H3 which correlated with the increased expression of both S100 genes. The inhibition of histone methyltransferases SET domain-containing protein (SET)7/9 and SET and MYND domain-containing protein (SMYD)3 showed that these specifically regulated S100A12 expression. We conclude that hyperglycemia upregulates expression of S100A9, S100A12 via epigenetic regulation and induces an activating histone code on the respective gene promoters in M1 macrophages. Mechanistically, this regulation relies on action of histone methyltransferases SMYD3 and SET7/9. The results define an important role for epigenetic regulation in macrophage mediated inflammation in diabetic conditions.

Gene transcription in bursting: a unified mode for realizing accuracy and stochasticity

There is accumulating evidence that, from bacteria to mammalian cells, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) are produced in intermittent bursts - a much 'noisier' process than traditionally thought. Based on quantitative measurements at individual promoters, diverse phenomenological models have been proposed for transcriptional bursting. Nevertheless, the underlying molecular mechanisms and significance for cellular signalling remain elusive. Here, we review recent progress, address the above issues and illuminate our viewpoints with simulation results. Despite being widely used in modelling and in interpreting experimental data, the traditional two-state model is far from adequate to describe or infer the molecular basis and stochastic principles of transcription. In bacteria, DNA supercoiling contributes to the bursting of those genes that express at high levels and are topologically constrained in short loops; moreover, low-affinity cis-regulatory elements and unstable protein complexes can play a key role in transcriptional regulation. Integrating data on the architecture, kinetics, and transcriptional input-output function is a promising approach to uncovering the underlying dynamic mechanism. For eukaryotes, distinct bursting features described by the multi-scale and continuum models coincide with those predicted by four theoretically derived principles that govern how the transcription apparatus operates dynamically. This consistency suggests a unified framework for comprehending bursting dynamics at the level of the structural and kinetic basis of transcription. Moreover, the existing models can be unified by a generic model. Remarkably, transcriptional bursting enables regulatory information to be transmitted in a digital manner, with the burst frequency representing the strength of regulatory signals. Such a mode guarantees high fidelity for precise transcriptional regulation and also provides sufficient randomness for realizing cellular heterogeneity.

L1 retrotransposon antisense RNA within ASAR lncRNAs controls chromosome-wide replication timing

Proper chromosome duplication is critical for genome integrity and normal cellular function. Platt et al. show that the lncRNA genes ASAR6 and ASAR15 control chromosome-wide replication timing via the antisense strand of L1 retrotransposons located within ASAR6 and ASAR15 RNAs.

Mammalian cells replicate their chromosomes via a temporal replication program. The ASAR6 and ASAR15 genes were identified as loci that when disrupted result in delayed replication and condensation of entire human chromosomes. ASAR6 and ASAR15 are monoallelically expressed long noncoding RNAs that remain associated with the chromosome from which they are transcribed. The chromosome-wide effects of ASAR6 map to the antisense strand of an L1 retrotransposon within ASAR6 RNA, deletion or inversion of which delayed replication of human chromosome 6. Furthermore, ectopic integration of ASAR6 or ASAR15 transgenes into mouse chromosomes resulted in delayed replication and condensation, an increase in H3K27me3, coating of the mouse chromosome with ASAR RNA, and a loss of mouse Cot-1 RNA expression in cis. Targeting the antisense strand of the L1 within ectopically expressed ASAR6 RNA restored normal replication timing. Our results provide direct evidence that L1 antisense RNA plays a functional role in chromosome-wide replication timing of mammalian chromosomes.

Initial high-resolution microscopic mapping of active and inactive regulatory sequences proves non-random 3D arrangements in chromatin domain clusters

BACKGROUND

The association of active transcription regulatory elements (TREs) with DNAse I hypersensitivity (DHS[+]) and an 'open' local chromatin configuration has long been known. However, the 3D topography of TREs within the nuclear landscape of individual cells in relation to their active or inactive status has remained elusive. Here, we explored the 3D nuclear topography of active and inactive TREs in the context of a recently proposed model for a functionally defined nuclear architecture, where an active and an inactive nuclear compartment (ANC-INC) form two spatially co-aligned and functionally interacting networks.

RESULTS

Using 3D structured illumination microscopy, we performed 3D FISH with differently labeled DNA probe sets targeting either sites with DHS[+], apparently active TREs, or DHS[-] sites harboring inactive TREs. Using an in-house image analysis tool, DNA targets were quantitatively mapped on chromatin compaction shaped 3D nuclear landscapes. Our analyses present evidence for a radial 3D organization of chromatin domain clusters (CDCs) with layers of increasing chromatin compaction from the periphery to the CDC core. Segments harboring active TREs are significantly enriched at the decondensed periphery of CDCs with loops penetrating into interchromatin compartment channels, constituting the ANC. In contrast, segments lacking active TREs (DHS[-]) are enriched toward the compacted interior of CDCs (INC).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results add further evidence in support of the ANC-INC network model. The different 3D topographies of DHS[+] and DHS[-] sites suggest positional changes of TREs between the ANC and INC depending on their functional state, which might provide additional protection against an inappropriate activation. Our finding of a structural organization of CDCs based on radially arranged layers of different chromatin compaction levels indicates a complex higher-order chromatin organization beyond a dichotomic classification of chromatin into an 'open,' active and 'closed,' inactive state.

On the way of revealing coactivator complexes cross-talk during transcriptional activation

Transcriptional activation is a complex, multistage process implemented by hundreds of proteins. Many transcriptional proteins are organized into coactivator complexes, which participate in transcription regulation at numerous genes and are a driver of this process. The molecular action mechanisms of coactivator complexes remain largely understudied. Relevant publications usually deal with the involvement of these complexes in the entire process of transcription, and only a few studies are aimed to elucidate their functions at its particular stages. This review summarizes available information on the participation of key coactivator complexes in transcriptional activation. The timing of coactivator complex binding/removal has been used for restructuring previously described information about the transcriptional process. Several major stages of transcriptional activation have been distinguished based on the presence of covalent histone modifications and general transcriptional factors, and the recruitment and/or removal phases have been determined for each coactivator included in analysis. Recruitment of Mediator, SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable and NUcleosome Remodeling Factor complexes during transcription activation has been investigated thoroughly; CHD and INOsitol auxotrophy 80 families are less well studied. In most cases, the molecular mechanisms responsible for the removal of certain coactivator complexes after the termination of their functions at the promoters are still not understood. On the basis of the summarized information, we propose a scheme that illustrates the involvement of coactivator complexes in different stages of the transcription activation process. This scheme may help to gain a deeper insight into the molecular mechanism of functioning of coactivator complexes, find novel participants of the process, and reveal novel structural or functional connections between different coactivators.