Functional Anatomy of Polycomb and Trithorax Chromatin Landscapes in Drosophila Embryos

Polycomb group (PcG) and trithorax group (trxG) proteins are conserved chromatin factors that regulate key developmental genes throughout development. In Drosophila, PcG and trxG factors bind to regulatory DNA elements called PcG and trxG response elements (PREs and TREs). Several DNA binding proteins have been suggested to recruit PcG proteins to PREs, but the DNA sequences necessary and sufficient to define PREs are largely unknown. Here, we used chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) on chip assays to map the chromosomal distribution of Drosophila PcG proteins, the N- and C-terminal fragments of the Trithorax (TRX) protein and four candidate DNA-binding factors for PcG recruitment. In addition, we mapped histone modifications associated with PcG-dependent silencing and TRX-mediated activation. PcG proteins colocalize in large regions that may be defined as polycomb domains and colocalize with recruiters to form several hundreds of putative PREs. Strikingly, the majority of PcG recruiter binding sites are associated with H3K4me3 and not with PcG binding, suggesting that recruiter proteins have a dual function in activation as well as silencing. One major discriminant between activation and silencing is the strong binding of Pleiohomeotic (PHO) to silenced regions, whereas its homolog Pleiohomeotic-like (PHOL) binds preferentially to active promoters. In addition, the C-terminal fragment of TRX (TRX-C) showed high affinity to PcG binding sites, whereas the N-terminal fragment (TRX-N) bound mainly to active promoter regions trimethylated on H3K4. Our results indicate that DNA binding proteins serve as platforms to assist PcG and trxG binding. Furthermore, several DNA sequence features discriminate between PcG- and TRX-N–bound regions, indicating that underlying DNA sequence contains critical information to drive PREs and TREs towards silencing or activation.     

The enhancer of trithorax and polycomb corto interacts with cyclin G in Drosophila

Background

Polycomb (PcG) and trithorax (trxG) genes encode proteins involved in the maintenance of gene expression patterns, notably Hox genes, throughout development. PcG proteins are required for long-term gene repression whereas TrxG proteins are positive regulators that counteract PcG action. PcG and TrxG proteins form large complexes that bind chromatin at overlapping sites called Polycomb and Trithorax Response Elements (PRE/TRE). A third class of proteins, so-called “Enhancers of Trithorax and Polycomb” (ETP), interacts with either complexes, behaving sometimes as repressors and sometimes as activators. The role of ETP proteins is largely unknown.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In a two-hybrid screen, we identified Cyclin G (CycG) as a partner of the Drosophila ETP Corto. Inactivation of CycG by RNA interference highlights its essential role during development. We show here that Corto and CycG directly interact and bind to each other in embryos and S2 cells. Moreover, CycG is targeted to polytene chromosomes where it co-localizes at multiple sites with Corto and with the PcG factor Polyhomeotic (PH). We observed that corto is involved in maintaining Abd-B repression outside its normal expression domain in embryos. This could be achieved by association between Corto and CycG since both proteins bind the regulatory element iab-7 PRE and the promoter of the Abd-B gene.

Conclusions/Significance

Our results suggest that CycG could regulate the activity of Corto at chromatin and thus be involved in changing Corto from an Enhancer of TrxG into an Enhancer of PcG.     

GAGA facilitates binding of Pleiohomeotic to a chromatinized Polycomb response element

Polycomb response elements (PREs) are chromosomal elements, typically comprising thousands of base pairs of poorly defined sequences that confer the maintenance of gene expression patterns by Polycomb group (PcG) repressors and trithorax group (trxG) activators. Genetic studies have indicated a synergistic requirement for the trxG protein GAGA and the PcG protein Pleiohomeotic (PHO) in silencing at several PREs. However, the molecular basis of this cooperation remains unknown. Here, using DNaseI footprinting analysis, we provide a high-resolution map of sites for the sequence- specific DNA-binding PcG protein PHO, trxG proteins GAGA and Zeste and the gap protein Hunchback (HB) on the 1.6 kb Ultrabithorax (Ubx) PRE. Although these binding elements are present throughout the PRE, they display clear patterns of clustering, suggestive of functional collaboration at the level of PRE binding. We found that while GAGA could efficiently bind to a chromatinized PRE, PHO alone was incapable of binding to chromatin. However, PHO binding to chromatin, but not naked DNA, was strongly facilitated by GAGA, indicating interdependence between GAGA and PHO already at the level of PRE binding. These results provide a biochemical explanation for the in vivo cooperation between GAGA and PHO and suggest that PRE function involves the integrated activities of genetically antagonistic trxG and PcG proteins.     

Interdependence of PRC1 and PRC2 for recruitment to Polycomb Response Elements

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic repressors essential for control of development and cell differentiation. They form multiple complexes of which PRC1 and PRC2 are evolutionary conserved and obligatory for repression. The targeting of PRC1 and PRC2 is poorly understood and was proposed to be hierarchical and involve tri-methylation of histone H3 (H3K27me3) and/or monoubiquitylation of histone H2A (H2AK118ub). Here, we present a strict test of this hypothesis using the Drosophila model. We discover that neither H3K27me3 nor H2AK118ub is required for targeting PRC complexes to Polycomb Response Elements (PREs). We find that PRC1 can bind PREs in the absence of PRC2 but at many PREs PRC2 requires PRC1 to be targeted. We show that one role of H3K27me3 is to allow PcG complexes anchored at PREs to interact with surrounding chromatin. In contrast, the bulk of H2AK118ub is unrelated to PcG repression. These findings radically change our view of how PcG repression is targeted and suggest that PRC1 and PRC2 can communicate independently of histone modifications.     

Regulation of Polycomb group genes Psc and Su(z)2 in Drosophila melanogaster

Certain Polycomb group (PcG) genes are themselves targets of PcG complexes. Two of these constitute the Drosophila Psc-Su(z)2 locus, a region whose chromatin is enriched for H3K27me3 and contains several putative Polycomb response elements (PREs) that bind PcG proteins. To understand how PcG mechanisms regulate this region, the repressive function of the PcG protein binding sites was analyzed using reporter gene constructs. We find that at least two of these are functional PREs that can silence a reporter gene in a PcG-dependent manner. One of these two can also display anti-silencing activity, dependent on the context. A PcG protein binding site near the Psc promoter behaves not as a silencer but as a down-regulation module that is actually stimulated by the Pc gene product but not by other PcG products. Deletion of one of the PREs increases the expression level of Psc and Su(z)2 by twofold at late embryonic stages. We present evidence suggesting that the Psc-Su(z)2 locus is flanked by insulator elements that may protect neighboring genes from inappropriate silencing. Deletion of one of these regions results in extension of the domain of H3K27me3 into a region containing other genes, whose expression becomes silenced in the early embryo.     

Natural variation of H3K27me3 distribution between two Arabidopsis accessions and its association with flanking transposable elements

Background

Histone H3 lysine 27 tri-methylation and lysine 9 di-methylation are independent repressive chromatin modifications in Arabidopsis thaliana. H3K27me3 is established and maintained by Polycomb repressive complexes whereas H3K9me2 is catalyzed by SUVH histone methyltransferases. Both modifications can spread to flanking regions after initialization and were shown to be mutually exclusive in Arabidopsis.

Results

We analyzed the extent of natural variation of H3K27me3 in the two accessions Landsberg erecta (Ler) and Columbia (Col) and their F1 hybrids. The majority of H3K27me3 target genes in Col were unchanged in Ler and F1 hybrids. A small number of Ler-specific targets were detected and confirmed. Consistent with a cis-regulatory mechanism for establishing H3K27me3, differential targets showed allele-specific H3K27me3 in hybrids. Five Ler-specific targets showed the active mark H3K4me3 in Col and for this group, differential H3K27me3 enrichment accorded to expression variation. On the other hand, the majority of Ler-specific targets were not expressed in Col, Ler or 17 other accessions. Instead of H3K27me3, the antagonistic mark H3K9me2 and other heterochromatic features were observed at these loci in Col. These loci were frequently flanked by transposable elements, which were often missing in the Ler genome assembly.

Conclusion

There is little variation in H3K27me3 occupancy within the species, although H3K27me3 targets were previously shown as overrepresented among differentially expressed genes. The existing variation in H3K27me3 seems mostly explained by flanking polymorphic transposable elements. These could nucleate heterochromatin, which then spreads into neighboring H3K27me3 genes, thus converting them to H3K9me2 targets.     

Progressive polycomb assembly on H3K27me3 compartments generates polycomb bodies with developmentally regulated motion

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are conserved chromatin factors that maintain silencing of key developmental genes outside of their expression domains. Recent genome-wide analyses showed a Polycomb (PC) distribution with binding to discrete PcG response elements (PREs). Within the cell nucleus, PcG proteins localize in structures called PC bodies that contain PcG-silenced genes, and it has been recently shown that PREs form local and long-range spatial networks. Here, we studied the nuclear distribution of two PcG proteins, PC and Polyhomeotic (PH). Thanks to a combination of immunostaining, immuno-FISH, and live imaging of GFP fusion proteins, we could analyze the formation and the mobility of PC bodies during fly embryogenesis as well as compare their behavior to that of the condensed fraction of euchromatin. Immuno-FISH experiments show that PC bodies mainly correspond to 3D structural counterparts of the linear genomic domains identified in genome-wide studies. During early embryogenesis, PC and PH progressively accumulate within PC bodies, which form nuclear structures localized on distinct euchromatin domains containing histone H3 tri-methylated on K27. Time-lapse analysis indicates that two types of motion influence the displacement of PC bodies and chromatin domains containing H2Av-GFP. First, chromatin domains and PC bodies coordinately undergo long-range motions that may correspond to the movement of whole chromosome territories. Second, each PC body and chromatin domain has its own fast and highly constrained motion. In this motion regime, PC bodies move within volumes slightly larger than those of condensed chromatin domains. Moreover, both types of domains move within volumes much smaller than chromosome territories, strongly restricting their possibility of interaction with other nuclear structures. The fast motion of PC bodies and chromatin domains observed during early embryogenesis strongly decreases in late developmental stages, indicating a possible contribution of chromatin dynamics in the maintenance of stable gene silencing.     

Architectural and Functional Diversity of Polycomb Group Response Elements in Drosophila

Polycomb group response elements (PREs) play an essential role in gene regulation by the Polycomb group (PcG) repressor proteins in Drosophila. PREs are required for the recruitment and maintenance of repression by the PcG proteins. PREs are made up of binding sites for multiple DNA-binding proteins, but it is still unclear what combination(s) of binding sites is required for PRE activity. Here we compare the binding sites and activities of two closely linked yet separable PREs of the Drosophila engrailed (en) gene, PRE1 and PRE2. Both PRE1 and PRE2 contain binding sites for multiple PRE–DNA-binding proteins, but the number, arrangement, and spacing of the sites differs between the two PREs. These differences have functional consequences. Both PRE1 and PRE2 mediate pairing-sensitive silencing of mini-white, a functional assay for PcG repression; however, PRE1 requires two binding sites for Pleiohomeotic (Pho), whereas PRE2 requires only one Pho-binding site for this activity. Furthermore, for full pairing-sensitive silencing activity, PRE1 requires an AT-rich region not found in PRE2. These two PREs behave differently in a PRE embryonic and larval reporter construct inserted at an identical location in the genome. Our data illustrate the diversity of architecture and function of PREs.