Enhanced targeted DNA methylation of the CMV and endogenous promoters with dCas9-DNMT3A3L entails distinct subsequent histone modification changes in CHO cells

With the emergence of new CRISPR/dCas9 tools that enable site specific modulation of DNA methylation and histone modifications, more detailed investigations of the contribution of epigenetic regulation to the precise phenotype of cells in culture, including recombinant production subclones, is now possible. These also allow a wide range of applications in metabolic engineering once the impact of such epigenetic modifications on the chromatin state is available.In this study, enhanced DNA methylation tools were targeted to a recombinant viral promoter (CMV), an endogenous promoter that is silenced in its native state in CHO cells, but had been reactivated previously (β-galactoside α-2,6-sialyltransferase 1) and an active endogenous promoter (α-1,6-fucosyltransferase), respectively. Comparative ChIP-analysis of histone modifications revealed a general loss of active promoter histone marks and the acquisition of distinct repressive heterochromatin marks after targeted methylation. On the other hand, targeted demethylation resulted in autologous acquisition of active promoter histone marks and loss of repressive heterochromatin marks. These data suggest that DNA methylation directs the removal or deposition of specific histone marks associated with either active, poised or silenced chromatin. Moreover, we show that de novo methylation of the CMV promoter results in reduced transgene expression in CHO cells. Although targeted DNA methylation is not efficient, the transgene is repressed, thus offering an explanation for seemingly conflicting reports about the source of CMV promoter instability in CHO cells.Importantly, modulation of epigenetic marks enables to nudge the cell into a specific gene expression pattern or phenotype, which is stabilized in the cell by autologous addition of further epigenetic marks. Such engineering strategies have the added advantage of being reversible and potentially tunable to not only turn on or off a targeted gene, but also to achieve the setting of a desirable expression level.     

Glutathione-S-transferase pi 1(GSTP1) gene silencing in prostate cancer cells is reversed by the histone deacetylase inhibitor depsipeptide

Gene silencing by epigenetic mechanisms is frequent in prostate cancer (PCA). The link between DNA hypermethylation and histone modifications is not completely understood. We chose the GSTP1 gene which is silenced by hypermethylation to analyze the effect of the histone deacetylase inhibitor depsipeptide on DNA methylation and histone modifications at the GSTP1 promoter site. Prostate cell lines (PC-3, LNCaP, and BPH-1) were treated with depsipeptide; apoptosis (FACS analysis), GSTP1 mRNA levels (quantitative real-time PCR), DNA hypermethylation (methylation-specific PCR), and histone modifications (chromatin immunoprecipitation) were studied. Depsipeptide induced apoptosis in PCA cells, but not a cell cycle arrest. Depispeptide reversed DNA hypermethylation and repressive histone modifications (reduction of H3K9me2/3 and H3K27me2/3; increase of H3K18Ac), thereby inducing GSTP1 mRNA re-expression. Successful therapy requires both, DNA demethylation and activating histone modifications, to induce complete gene expression of epigenetically silenced genes and depsipeptide fulfils both criteria.     

Hairpin RNAs derived from RNA polymerase II and polymerase III promoter-directed transgenes are processed differently in plants

RNA polymerase III (Pol III) as well as Pol II (35S) promoters are able to drive hairpin RNA (hpRNA) expression and induce target gene silencing in plants. siRNAs of 21 nt are the predominant species in a 35S Pol II line, whereas 24- and/or 22-nucleotide (nt) siRNAs are produced by a Pol III line. The 35S line accumulated the loop of the hpRNA, in contrast to full-length hpRNA in the Pol III line. These suggest that Pol II and Pol III-transcribed hpRNAs are processed by different pathways. One Pol III transgene produced only 24-nt siRNAs but silenced the target gene efficiently, indicating that the 24-nt siRNAs can direct mRNA degradation; specific cleavage was confirmed by 5' rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE). Both Pol II- and Pol III-directed hpRNA transgenes induced cytosine methylation in the target DNA. The extent of methylation is not correlated with the level of 21-nt siRNAs, suggesting that they are not effective inducers of DNA methylation. The promoter of a U6 transgene was significantly methylated, whereas the promoter of the endogenous U6 gene was almost free of cytosine methylation, suggesting that endogenous sequences are more resistant to de novo DNA methylation than are transgene constructs.     

Promoter DNA methylation couples genome-defence mechanisms to epigenetic reprogramming in the mouse germline

Mouse primordial germ cells (PGCs) erase global DNA methylation (5mC) as part of the comprehensive epigenetic reprogramming that occurs during PGC development. 5mC plays an important role in maintaining stable gene silencing and repression of transposable elements (TE) but it is not clear how the extensive loss of DNA methylation impacts on gene expression and TE repression in developing PGCs. Using a novel epigenetic disruption and recovery screen and genetic analyses, we identified a core set of germline-specific genes that are dependent exclusively on promoter DNA methylation for initiation and maintenance of developmental silencing. These gene promoters appear to possess a specialised chromatin environment that does not acquire any of the repressive H3K27me3, H3K9me2, H3K9me3 or H4K20me3 histone modifications when silenced by DNA methylation. Intriguingly, this methylation-dependent subset is highly enriched in genes with roles in suppressing TE activity in germ cells. We show that the mechanism for developmental regulation of the germline genome-defence genes involves DNMT3B-dependent de novo DNA methylation. These genes are then activated by lineage-specific promoter demethylation during distinct global epigenetic reprogramming events in migratory (～E8.5) and post-migratory (E10.5-11.5) PGCs. We propose that genes involved in genome defence are developmentally regulated primarily by promoter DNA methylation as a sensory mechanism that is coupled to the potential for TE activation during global 5mC erasure, thereby acting as a failsafe to ensure TE suppression and maintain genomic integrity in the germline.