Genome-wide methylation and expression differences in HPV(+) and HPV(?) squamous cell carcinoma cell lines are consistent with divergent mechanisms of carcinogenesis

Oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) are associated with nearly all cervical cancers and are increasingly important in the etiology of oropharyngeal tumors. HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) have distinct risk profiles and appreciate a prognostic advantage compared to HPV-negative HNSCC. Promoter hypermethylation is widely recognized as a mechanism in the progression of HNSCC, but the extent to which this mechanism is consistent between HPV(+) and HPV(−) tumors is unknown. To investigate the epigenetic regulation of gene expression in HPV-induced and carcinogen-induced cancers, we examined genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression in HPV(+) and HPV(−) SCC cell lines. We used two platforms: the Illumina Infinium Methylation BeadArray and tiling arrays, and confirmed illustrative examples with pyrosequencing and quantitative PCR. These analyses indicate that HPV(+) cell lines have higher DNA methylation in genic and LINE-1 regions than HPV(−) cell lines. Differentially methylated loci between HPV(+) and HPV(−) cell lines significantly correlated with HPV-typed HNSCC primary tumor DNA methylation levels. Novel findings include higher promoter methylation of polycomb repressive complex 2 target genes in HPV(+) cells compared to HPV(−) cells and increased expression of DNMT3A in HPV(+) cells. Additionally, CDKN2A and KRT8 were identified as interaction hubs among genes with higher methylation and lower expression in HPV(−) cells. Conversely, RUNX2, IRS-1 and CCNA1 were major hubs with higher methylation and lower expression in HPV(+) cells. Distinct HPV(+) and HPV(−) epigenetic profiles should provide clues to novel targets for development of individualized therapeutic strategies.Key words: epigenetics, human papillomavirus, HNSCC, DNA methylation, squamous cell carcinoma, gene expression, microarrays, illumina infinium humanmethylation27 beadarray     

Non-germ Line Restoration of Genomic Imprinting for a Small Subset of Imprinted Genes in Ubiquitin-like PHD and RING Finger Domain-Containing 1 (Uhrf1) Null Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

The underlying mechanism for the establishment and maintenance of differential DNA methylation in imprinted genes is largely unknown. Previous studies using Dnmt1 knock-out embryonic stem (ES) cells demonstrated that, although re-expression of DNMT1 restored DNA methylation in the non-imprinted regions, the methylation patterns of imprinted genes could be restored only through germ line passage. Knock-out of Uhrf1, an accessory factor essential for DNMT1-mediated DNA methylation, in mouse ES cells also led to impaired global DNA methylation and loss of genomic imprinting. Here, we demonstrate that, although re-expression of UHRF1 in Uhrf1^−/− ES cells restored DNA methylation for the bulk genome but not for most of the imprinted genes, it did rescue DNA methylation for the imprinted H19, Nnat, and Dlk1 genes. Analysis of histone modifications at the differential methylated regions of the imprinted genes by ChIP assays revealed that for the imprinted genes whose DNA methylation could be restored upon re-expression of UHRF1, the active histone markers (especially H3K4me3) were maintained at considerably low levels, and low levels were maintained even in Uhrf1^−/− ES cells. In contrast, for the imprinted genes whose DNA methylation could not be restored upon UHRF1 re-expression, the active histone markers (especially H3K4me3) were relatively high and became even higher in Uhrf1^−/− ES cells. Our study thus supports a role for histone modifications in determining the establishment of imprinting-related DNA methylation and demonstrates that mouse ES cells can be a valuable model for mechanistic study of the establishment and maintenance of differential DNA methylation in imprinted genes.     

Exchange between Escherichia coli polymerases II and III on a processivity clamp

Escherichia coli has three DNA polymerases implicated in the bypass of DNA damage, a process called translesion synthesis (TLS) that alleviates replication stalling. Although these polymerases are specialized for different DNA lesions, it is unclear if they interact differently with the replication machinery. Of the three, DNA polymerase (Pol) II remains the most enigmatic. Here we report a stable ternary complex of Pol II, the replicative polymerase Pol III core complex and the dimeric processivity clamp, β. Single-molecule experiments reveal that the interactions of Pol II and Pol III with β allow for rapid exchange during DNA synthesis. As with another TLS polymerase, Pol IV, increasing concentrations of Pol II displace the Pol III core during DNA synthesis in a minimal reconstitution of primer extension. However, in contrast to Pol IV, Pol II is inefficient at disrupting rolling-circle synthesis by the fully reconstituted Pol III replisome. Together, these data suggest a β-mediated mechanism of exchange between Pol II and Pol III that occurs outside the replication fork.     

An atypical epigenetic mechanism affects uniparental expression of Pol IV-dependent siRNAs

Background

Small RNAs generated by RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV) are the most abundant class of small RNAs in flowering plants. In Arabidopsis thaliana Pol IV-dependent short interfering (p4-si)RNAs are imprinted and accumulate specifically from maternal chromosomes in the developing seeds. Imprinted expression of protein-coding genes is controlled by differential DNA or histone methylation placed in gametes. To identify epigenetic factors required for maternal-specific expression of p4-siRNAs we analyzed the effect of a series of candidate mutations, including those required for genomic imprinting of protein-coding genes, on uniparental expression of a representative p4-siRNA locus.

Results

Paternal alleles of imprinted genes are marked by DNA or histone methylation placed by DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 or the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2. Here we demonstrate that repression of paternal p4-siRNA expression at locus 08002 is not controlled by either of these mechanisms. Similarly, loss of several chromatin modification enzymes, including a histone acetyltransferase, a histone methyltransferase, and two nucleosome remodeling proteins, does not affect maternal expression of locus 08002. Maternal alleles of imprinted genes are hypomethylated by DEMETER DNA glycosylase, yet expression of p4-siRNAs occurs irrespective of demethylation by DEMETER or related glycosylases.

Conclusions

Differential DNA methylation and other chromatin modifications associated with epigenetic silencing are not required for maternal-specific expression of p4-siRNAs at locus 08002. These data indicate that there is an as yet unknown epigenetic mechanism causing maternal-specific p4-siRNA expression that is distinct from the well-characterized mechanisms associated with DNA methylation or the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2.