Whole-genome analysis of histone H3 lysine 4 and lysine 27 methylation in human embryonic stem cells

We mapped Polycomb-associated H3K27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) and Trithorax-associated H3K4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) across the whole genome in human embryonic stem (ES) cells. The vast majority of H3K27me3 colocalized on genes modified with H3K4me3. These commodified genes displayed low expression levels and were enriched in developmental function. Another significant set of genes lacked both modifications and was also expressed at low levels in ES cells but was enriched for gene function in physiological responses rather than development. Commodified genes could change expression levels rapidly during differentiation, but so could a substantial number of genes in other modification categories. SOX2, POU5F1, and NANOG, pluripotency-associated genes, shifted from modification by H3K4me3 alone to colocalization of both modifications as they were repressed during differentiation. Our results demonstrate that H3K27me3 modifications change during early differentiation, both relieving existing repressive domains and imparting new ones, and that colocalization with H3K4me3 is not restricted to pluripotent cells.     

Natural and artificial routes to pluripotency

Pluripotent cells of the blastocyst inner cell mass (ICM) and their in vitro derivatives, embryonic stem (ES) cells, contain genomes in an epigenetic state that are poised for subsequent differentiation. Their chromatin is hyperdynamic in nature and relatively uncondensed. In addition, a large number of genes are expressed at low levels in both ICM and ES cells. Also, the chromatin of naturally pluripotent cells contains specialized histone modification patterns such as bivalent domains, which mark genes destined for later developmentally-regulated expression states. Female pluripotent cells contain X chromosomes that have yet to undergo the process of X chromosome inactivation. Collectively, these features of very early embyronic chromatin are required for the successful specification and production of differentiated cell lineages. Artificial reprogramming methods such as somatic nuclear transfer (SCNT), ES cell fusion-mediated reprogramming (FMR), and induced pluripotency (iPS) yield pluripotent cells that recapitulate many features of naturally pluripotent cells, including many of their epigenetic features. However, the route to pluripotent epigenomic states in artificial pluripotent cells differs drastically from that of their natural counterparts. Here, we compare and contrast the differing routes to pluripotency under natural and artificial conditions. In addition, we discuss the intrinsically metastable nature of the pluripotent epigenome and consider epigenetic aspects of reprogramming that may lead to incomplete or inaccurate reprogrammed states. Artificial methods of reprogramming hold immense promise for the development of autologous cell graft sources and for the development of cell culture models for human genetic disorders. However, the utility of artificially reprogrammed cells is highly dependent on the fidelity of the reprogramming process and it is therefore critically important to assess the epigenetic similarities between embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells.     

Crosstalk Between DNA and Histones: Tet’s New Role in Embryonic Stem Cells

Embryonic stem (ES) cells are characterized by the expression of an extensive and interconnected network of pluripotency factors which are downregulated in specialized cells. Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, are also important in maintaining this pluripotency program in ES cells and in guiding correct differentiation of the developing embryo. Methylation of the cytosine base of DNA blocks gene expression in all cell types and further modifications of methylated cytosine have recently been discovered. These new modifications, putative intermediates in a pathway to erase DNA methylation marks, are catalyzed by the ten-eleven translocation (Tet) proteins, specifically by Tet1 and Tet2 in ES cells. Surprisingly, Tet1 shows repressive along with active effects on gene expression depending on its distribution throughout the genome and co-localization with Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2). PRC2 di- and tri-methylates lysine 27 of histone 3 (H3K27me2/3 activity), marking genes for repression. In ES cells, almost all gene loci containing the repressive H3K27me3 modification also bear the active H3K4me3 modification, creating “bivalent domains” which mark important developmental regulators for timely activation. Incorporation of Tet1 into the bivalent domain paradigm is a new and exciting development in the epigenetics field, and the ramifications of this novel crosstalk between DNA and histone modifications need to be further investigated. This knowledge would aid reprogramming of specialized cells back into pluripotent stem cells and advance understanding of epigenetic perturbations in cancer.     

Chromatin remodeling and bivalent histone modifications in embryonic stem cells

Pluripotent embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are characterized by distinct epigenetic features including a relative enrichment of histone modifications related to active chromatin. Among these is tri‐methylation of lysine 4 on histone H3 (H3K4me3). Several thousands of the H3K4me3‐enriched promoters in pluripotent cells also contain a repressive histone mark, namely H3K27me3, a situation referred to as “bivalency”. While bivalent promoters are not unique to pluripotent cells, they are relatively enriched in these cell types, largely marking developmental and lineage‐specific genes which are silent but poised for immediate action. The H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 modifications are catalyzed by lysine methyltransferases which are usually found within, although not entirely limited to, the Trithorax group (TrxG) and Polycomb group (PcG) protein complexes, respectively, but these do not provide selective bivalent specificity. Recent studies highlight the family of ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling proteins as regulators of bivalent domains. Here, we discuss bivalency in general, describe the machineries that catalyze bivalent chromatin domains, and portray the emerging connection between bivalency and the action of different families of chromatin remodelers, namely INO80, esBAF, and NuRD, in pluripotent cells. We posit that chromatin remodeling proteins may enable “bivalent specificity”, often selectively acting on, or selectively depleted from, bivalent domains.