Umeå University's logo

Polycomb group proteins mediate epigenetic repression via multisubunit complexes, including canonical Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1), which monoubiquitylates histone H2A and binds histone H3 trimethylated at lysine-27 (H3K27me3). The RING1 subunit of PRC1, critical for H2A ubiquitylation, forms other complexes. These variant RING1 complexes also ubiquitylate H2A but cannot bind H3K27me3, and their role in epigenetic repression is debated. Using Drosophila genetics, we found that canonical PRC1 and variant RING1 complexes ubiquitylate H2A at distinct genomic regions. We established that the Drosophila PCGF protein specific for variant RING1 complexes, which we named Siesta, is not required for epigenetic repression of developmental genes but controls larval locomotion independently of H2A ubiquitylation. Leveraging a massively parallel transgenic approach, we demonstrated that H2A ubiquitylation has minimal impact on transcriptional repression. Our findings imply that Siesta-RING1 complexes operate outside the Polycomb regulatory system and that the popular PRC1 classification will benefit from revision.

Development of multicellular animals requires epigenetic repression by Polycomb group proteins. The latter assemble in multi-subunit complexes, of which two kinds, Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) and Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2), act together to repress key developmental genes. How PRC1 and PRC2 recognize specific genes remains an open question. Here we report the identification of several hundreds of DNA elements that tether canonical PRC1 to human developmental genes. We use the term tether to describe a process leading to a prominent presence of canonical PRC1 at certain genomic sites, although the complex is unlikely to interact with DNA directly. Detailed analysis indicates that sequence features associated with PRC1 tethering differ from those that favour PRC2 binding. Throughout the genome, the two kinds of sequence features mix in different proportions to yield a gamut of DNA elements that range from those tethering predominantly PRC1 or PRC2 to ones capable of tethering both complexes. The emerging picture is similar to the paradigmatic targeting of Polycomb complexes by Polycomb Response Elements (PREs) of Drosophila but providing for greater plasticity. [GRAPHICS]

Drosophila insulators were the first DNA elements found to regulate gene expression by delimiting chromatin contacts. We still do not know how many of them exist and what impact they have on the Drosophila genome folding. Contrary to vertebrates, there is no evidence that fly insulators block cohesin-mediated chromatin loop extrusion. Therefore, their mechanism of action remains uncertain. To bridge these gaps, we mapped chromatin contacts in Drosophila cells lacking the key insulator proteins CTCF and Cp190. With this approach, we found hundreds of insulator elements. Their study indicates that Drosophila insulators play a minor role in the overall genome folding but affect chromatin contacts locally at many loci. Our observations argue that Cp190 promotes cobinding of other insulator proteins and that the model, where Drosophila insulators block chromatin contacts by forming loops, needs revision. Our insulator catalog provides an important resource to study mechanisms of genome folding.

Polycomb repression is critical for metazoan development. Equally important but less studied is the Trithorax system, which safeguards Polycomb target genes from the repression in cells where they have to remain active. It was proposed that the Trithorax system acts via methylation of histone H3 at lysine 4 and lysine 36 (H3K36), thereby inhibiting histone methyltransferase activity of the Polycomb complexes. Here we test this hypothesis by asking whether the Trithorax group protein Ash1 requires H3K36 methylation to counteract Polycomb repression. We show that Ash1 is the only Drosophila H3K36-specific methyltransferase necessary to prevent excessive Polycomb repression of homeotic genes. Unexpectedly, our experiments reveal no correlation between the extent of H3K36 methylation and the resistance to Polycomb repression. Furthermore, we find that complete substitution of the zygotic histone H3 with a variant in which lysine 36 is replaced by arginine does not cause excessive repression of homeotic genes. Our results suggest that the model, where the Trithorax group proteins methylate histone H3 to inhibit the histone methyltransferase activity of the Polycomb complexes, needs revision.

Antagonistic functions of Polycomb and Trithorax proteins are essential for proper development of all metazoans. While the Polycomb proteins maintain the repressed state of many key developmental genes, the Trithorax proteins ensure that these genes stay active in cells where they have to be expressed. Ash1 is the Trithorax protein that was proposed to counteract Polycomb repression by methylating lysine 36 of histone H3. However, it was recently shown that genetic replacement of Drosophila histone H3 with the variant that carried Arginine instead of Lysine at position 36 did not impair the ability of Ash1 to counteract Polycomb repression. This argues that Ash1 counteracts Polycomb repression by methylating yet unknown substrate(s) and that it is time to look beyond Ash1 methyltransferase SET domain, at other evolutionary conserved parts of the protein that received little attention. Here we used Drosophila genetics to demonstrate that Ash1 requires each of the BAH, PHD and SET domains to counteract Polycomb repression, while AT hooks are dispensable. Our findings argue that, in vivo, Ash1 acts as a multimer. Thereby it can combine the input of the SET domain and PHD-BAH cassette residing in different peptides. Finally, using new loss of function alleles, we show that zygotic Ash1 is required to prevent erroneous repression of homeotic genes of the bithorax complex in the embryo.

Polycomb group proteins are essential epigenetic repressors. They form multiple protein complexes of which two kinds, PRC1 and PRC2, are indispensable for repression. Although much is known about their biochemical properties, how mammalian PRC1 and PRC2 are targeted to specific genes is poorly understood. Here, we establish the cyclin D2 (CCND2) oncogene as a simple model to address this question. We provide the evidence that the targeting of PRC1 to CCND2 involves a dedicated PRC1-targeting element (PTE). The PTE appears to act in concert with an adjacent cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) island to arrange for the robust binding of PRC1 and PRC2 to repressed CCND2. Our findings pave the way to identify sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins implicated in the targeting of mammalian PRC1 complexes and provide novel link between polycomb repression and cancer.

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins epigenetically repress key developmental genes and thereby control alternative cell fates. PcG proteins act as complexes that can modify histones and these histone modifications play a role in transmitting the memory of the repressed state as cells divide. Here we consider mainstream models that link histone modifications to hierarchical recruitment of PcG complexes and compare them to results of a direct test of interdependence between PcG complexes for recruitment to Drosophila genes. The direct test indicates that PcG complexes do not rely on histone modifications to recognize their target genes but use them to stabilize the interactions within large chromatin domains. It also shows that multiple strategies are used to coordinate the targeting of PcG complexes to different genes, which may make the repression of these genes more or less robust.

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.

Polycomb group (PcG) complexes PRC1 and PRC2 are well known for silencing specific developmental genes. PRC2 is a methyltransferase targeting histone H3K27 and producing H3K27me3, essential for stable silencing. Less well known but quantitatively much more important is the genome-wide role of PRC2 that dimethylates similar to 70% of total H3K27. We show that H3K27me2 occurs in inverse proportion to transcriptional activity in most non-PcG target genes and intergenic regions and is governed by opposing roaming activities of PRC2 and complexes containing the H3K27 demethylase UTX. Surprisingly, loss of H3K27me2 results in global transcriptional derepression proportionally greatest in silent or weakly transcribed intergenic and genic regions and accompanied by an increase of H3K27ac and H3K4me1. H3K27me2 therefore sets a threshold that prevents random, unscheduled transcription all over the genome and even limits the activity of highly transcribed genes. PRC1-type complexes also have global roles. Unexpectedly, we find a pervasive distribution of histone H2A ubiquitylated at lysine 118 (H2AK118ub) outside of canonical PcG target regions, dependent on the RING/Sce subunit of PRC1-type complexes. We show, however, that H2AK118ub does not mediate the global PRC2 activity or the global repression and is predominantly produced by a new complex involving L(3) 73Ah, a homolog of mammalian PCGF3.

Polycomb Group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic repressors that control metazoan development and cell differentiation. In Drosophila, PcG proteins form five distinct complexes targeted to genes by Polycomb Response Elements (PREs). Of all PcG complexes PhoRC is the only one that contains a sequence-specific DNA binding subunit (PHO or PHOL), which led to a model that places PhoRC at the base of the recruitment hierarchy. Here we demonstrate that in vivo PHO is preferred to PHOL as a subunit of PhoRC and that PHO and PHOL associate with PREs and a subset of transcriptionally active promoters. Although the binding to the promoter sites depends on the quality of recognition sequences, the binding to PREs does not. Instead, the efficient recruitment of PhoRC to PREs requires the SFMBT subunit and crosstalk with Polycomb Repressive Complex 1. We find that human YY1 protein, the ortholog of PHO, binds sites at active promoters in the human genome but does not bind most PcG target genes, presumably because the interactions involved in the targeting to Drosophila PREs are lost in the mammalian lineage. We conclude that the recruitment of PhoRC to PREs is based on combinatorial interactions and propose that such a recruitment strategy is important to attenuate the binding of PcG proteins when the target genes are transcriptionally active. Our findings allow the appropriate placement of PhoRC in the PcG recruitment hierarchy and provide a rationale to explain why YY1 is unlikely to serve as a general recruiter of mammalian Polycomb complexes despite its reported ability to participate in PcG repression in flies.