How regulatory sequences evolve in fruit flies

An IMP-Brandeis collaboration reveals the evolution of regulatory sequences in Drosophilids

By Yuliya Sytnikova and Nelson Lau

Enhancers are cis-regulatory DNA sequences that influence the promoters of genes, but identifying enhancers is not a straightforward process. Previously, the Stark lab developed a method for genome-wide enhancer detection called STARR-seq, (Arnold, Gerlach et al. 2013), that allowed them to identify thousands of enhancer sequences around the Drosophila melanogaster genome. In the most recent issue of Nature Genetics, a collaboration between the Stark lab of the IMP (Institute of Molecular Pathology) in Vienna, Austria, and the Lau lab at Brandeis University examines this hypothesis by studying the conservation of enhancer regulatory regions during Drosophilid fly evolution.

To ask if enhancers from D. melanogaster enhancers are also conserved in other Drosophila species in their sequences and locations, the Stark lab extended the STARR-Seq approach to D.yakuba and D.ananassae, which are separated from D.melanogaster by 11 and 40 million years ago, respectively (Arnold, Gerlach et al. 2014). Interestingly, this study also revealed hundreds of new sequences that gained enhancer function differentially between D.yakuba, D.ananassae, and D.melanogaster.

However, to test if these new sequences meaningfully direct different gene expression changes, the Lau lab conducted a targeted mRNA profiling experiment in purified endogenous follicle cells from D.yakuba and D.ananassae. The Stark lab had initiated the STARR-Seq analysis in an Ovarian Somatic Cell (OSC) line, which originated from the follicle cells of D.melanogaster, therefore the profiling of endogenous follicle cells from D.yakuba and D.ananassae was critical. The Lau lab achieved this using a methodology they developed for profiling Piwi-interacting RNAs from these cells (Matts, Synikova et al. 2013).

Figure 6: Evolution of enhancer activity in OSCs and gene expression in follicle cells in vivo.

nature_genetic_fig6

Arnold CD, Gerlach D, Spies D, Matts JA, Sytnikova YA, Pagani M, Lau NC, Stark A. Nat Genet. 2014 Jun 8. doi: 10.1038/ng.3009. [Epub ahead of print] Quantitative genome-wide enhancer activity maps for five Drosophila species show functional enhancer conservation and turnover during cis-regulatory evolution.

Matts JA, Sytnikova Y, Chirn GW, Igloi GL, Lau NC. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1093:123-36. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-694-8_10. Small RNA library construction from minute biological samples.

 

Eapen wins HHMI International Student Research Fellowship

Vinay Eapen from the Haber Lab in Biology has been awarded an HHMI International Student Research Fellowship. These fellowships, highly sought-after, are among the few available to international students studying at major research universities in the US – there were only 42 recipients nationwide. Eapen is a graduate student entering his fourth year in the Molecular and Cell Biology PhD program at Brandeis, and already has 4 publications from Brandeis to his credit resulting from his studies of the DNA damage checkpoint and autophagy in yeast.

 

Med School and Grad School in the Lone Star State

Wensink lab alum Mien-Chie Hung (PhD ’84), who is currently Ruth Legett Jones Distinguished Chair at  The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, will give seminar on Monday, Dec 3 at noon in Rosenstiel 118 on “Novel signaling pathways in cancer cells and their crosstalk to predict resistance for target therapy“.  He will also meet with interested students on Monday Dec. 3 in the Alumni Lounge in Usdan at 7 PM; there will be pizza.   He will talk with undergrads, prospective grad and med students about medical schools and graduate schools in Texas Medical Center including MD Anderson, UT Health Science Center and Baylor.

It’s not all transcription! New insights on how biological rhythms are generated

Sleepy during the day? Hungry at night? You should check your biological clock!

As in every organism, humans are exposed to daily variations of their environment. There is obviously the day/night cycle, but significant variations of temperature and humidity also occur in temperate regions of the globe. To survive to these environmental changes, organisms have evolved so that their biology, biochemistry, physiology and behavior are rhythmically regulated on a 24hr-basis. Humans are no exception, and most (if not all) of our biological functions are set to function optimally at the most appropriate time of the day. For example, the physiology of muscle cells is rhythmic so that their capacity of coping with physical activity is maximal during the day.

A lot of progress has been made over the last two decades to uncover the molecular underpinnings of circadian (for circa, about and dies, day) rhythms. To keep the story short, in all eukaryotes the circadian system relies on transcriptional feedback loops that operate at the level of individual cells (see figure 1). In mammals, these loops are composed of the two transcription factors CLK and BMAL1, which act as a heterodimeric complex to activate the expression of the transcriptional repressors Period (Per1, Per2 and Per3) and Cryptochrome (Cry1 and Cry2). When expressed, these repressor proteins are post-translationally modified (e.g., phosphorylation) and feedback to inhibit the transcriptional activity of CLK:BMAL1. As a result, transcription of Per and Cry genes is shut-off. The progressive degradation of the PER and CRY proteins then leads to a new cycle of CLK:BMAL1-mediated transcription. Importantly, these transcriptional oscillations regulate the rhythmic expression of a large fraction of the transcriptome (up to 10-15% of all mRNAs). These output genes, also called “clock-controlled genes”, are rhythmically regulated in a tissue-specific manner, and are responsible for the daily oscillations of biological functions.

As in other biological systems, it is generally assumed that daily variations of mRNA levels are a direct consequence of transcription regulation. However, there is growing evidence that post-transcriptional events such as mRNA splicing, polyadenylation, nuclear export and half-life also contribute to changes in the amount of mRNA expressed by particular genes. Such post-transcriptional processes are known to have a role in other areas of cell biology but until very recently this had not been studied in detail at a genome-wide level.

This is the question addressed by Jerome Menet, Joseph Rodriguez, Katharine Abruzzi and Michael Rosbash, in a paper recently published at eLife (Menet et al., 2012). The authors directly assayed rhythmic transcription by measuring the amount of nascent RNA being produced at a given time, six times a day, across all the genes in mouse liver cells using a high-throughput sequencing approach called Nascent-Seq (see figure 2). They compared this with the amount of liver mRNA expressed at six time points of the day. Although the authors found that many genes exhibit rhythmic mRNA expression in the mouse liver, about 70% of them did not show comparable transcriptional rhythms. Post-transcriptional regulations have therefore a major role in the circadian system of mice. Interestingly, similar experiments performed by Joe Rodriguez in the Rosbash lab using Drosophila as the model system led to the same conclusions, suggesting that the contribution of post-transcriptional events to the generation of circadian rhythms is common to all animals (Rodriguez et al., in press).

To assess the contribution of the core molecular clock to genome-wide transcriptional rhythms, Menet et al. also examined how rhythmic CLK:BMAL1 DNA binding directly affects the transcription of its target genes. They found that although maximal binding occurs at an apparently uniform phase, the peak transcriptional phases of CLK:BMAL1 target genes are heterogeneous, which indicates a disconnect between CLK:BMAL1 DNA binding and its transcriptional output.

The data taken together reveal novel regulatory features of rhythmic gene expression and illustrate the potential of Nascent-Seq as a genome-wide assay technique for exploring a range of questions related to gene expression and gene regulation.

Menet JS, Rodriguez J, Abruzzi KC, Rosbash M. Nascent-Seq Reveals Novel Features of Mouse Circadian Transcriptional Regulation. elife. 2012;1:e00011. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00011.

Rodriguez J, Tang CHA, Khodor YL, Vodala S, Menet JS, Rosbash M. Post-transcriptional events regulate genome-wide rhythmic gene expression in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (In press).

Looking for Fun(30)

A recent paper from the Haber lab by Eapen et al., “The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Chromatin Remodeler Fun30 Regulates DNA End Resection and Checkpoint Deactivation“, is the most read paper from the journal Molecular and Cell Biology for October 2012. Join the fun, read the paper!

Damaged DNA and self-eating (autophagy) in budding yeast.

Chromosome double-strand breaks (DSBs) threaten the integrity of the genome. Cells respond to DSBs by activating the DNA damage checkpoint that blocks cells prior to mitosis, allowing more time for the repair of damaged DNA. When the DSB can be repaired, the cell cycle checkpoint is turned off so that cells can resume cell cycle progression, a process termed recovery. If the DSB remains unrepaired, G2/M arrest persists for a long time but eventually cells adapt and – despite the persistent DNA damage – complete mitosis and divide. Much of our understanding of the DNA damage response has come from the study of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, where it is possible to create DSB damage synchronously in all cells of the population. This can be accomplished either by uncapping telomeres, exposing their normally protected ends or by creating a single, defined DSB by inducing the site-specific HO endonuclease. From such studies, it was possible to identify a highly evolutionarily conserved DNA damage sensing and signaling cascade that is initiated by Mec1, the yeast homolog of mammalian ATR protein kinase (reviewed in Ref. (1)). Yeast genetic approaches revealed a number of adaptation-defective mutants, a subset of which also are recovery-defective. Previous studies also demonstrated that triggering the DNA damage checkpoint affects not only mitosis and the efficiency of DNA repair within the nucleus; it also affects cytoplasmic responses (2, 3). In a new paper from the Haber lab published in PNAS, we uncovered mutations in the Golgi-Associated Retrograde Protein (GARP) complex that are adaptation-defective. We show that the defect in these mutants can be mimicked by activating the cytoplasm-to-vacuole (CVT) pathway of autophagy that prevents the nuclear accumulation of separase, Esp1, in the nucleus, thus preventing the cells both adapting and recovering from DSB damage.

In budding yeast, a single unrepaired double-strand break (DSB) triggers the Mec1-dependent cell cycle arrest prior to anaphase for 12-15 before they adapt. Adaptation is accompanied by the loss of hyperphosphorylation of Rad53, yeast’s Chk2 homolog.  Rad53 remains phosphorylated in a number of adaptation-defective mutations, including deletion of the two PP2C phosphatases, ptc2ptc3D, that normally dephosphorylate Rad53.  Adaptation is also blocked by ablating a number of proteins with diverse roles in DSB repair, including srs2D, rdh54D as well as by a mutation in yeast’s polo kinase cdc5-ad.

In our paper, we find that hyperactivation of the cytoplasm-to-vacuole (CVT) autophagy pathway causes the permanent G2/M arrest of cells with a single DSB that is reflected in the nuclear exclusion of both separase, Esp1, and its chaperone/inhibitor, securin, Pds1(See figure).  Autophagy in response to DNA damage can be induced in three different ways: (1) by deleting members of the Golgi-Associated Retrograde Protein complex (GARP) such as vps51D; (2) by adding rapamycin; or (3) by overexpressing a dominant-negative ATG13-8SA mutation.  The permanent checkpoint-mediated arrest in any of these three conditions can be overcome in three ways: (1) by blocking autophagy with mutations such as atg1D, atg5D or atg11D; (2) by deleting the vacuolar protease Prb1 or its activator, Pep4; or (3) by driving Esp1 into the nucleus with a SV40 nuclear localization signal.  In contrast, these same alterations fail to suppress the adaptation defects of ptc2ptc3D or cdc5-ad.  Transient accumulation of Pds1 in the vaucole is also seen in wild type cells lacking PEP4 after induction of a DSB.  Unlike other adaptation-defective mutations, G2/M arrest persists even as the DNA damage-dependent phosphorylation of Rad53 diminishes, suggesting that cells have become unable to activate separase to initiate anaphase after DNA damage.  In addition, we have found that cells fail to recover when VPS51 is deleted or when ATG13-8SA is overexpressed.

Increased autophagy causes the delocalization of both Pds1 (securin) and Esp1 (separase) from the nucleus in checkpoint-arrested budding yeast cells. A. GFP-tagged Pds1 and Esp1 localize to the nucleus at the neck of G2/M-arrested wild type (WT) cells that have suffered a single unrepaired chromosome double-strand break (DSB). Both rdh54Δ and vps51Δ prevent cells from adapting and resuming cell cycle progression, but only ablating Vps51 – part of the Golgi-associated retrograde protein (GARP) complex – causes the mislocalization of Pds1 and Esp1 and the partial degradation of Pds1 by vacuolar proteases. Preventing degradation of Pds1 (and possibly other mitotic regulators) results in the suppression of permanent arrest and the relocalization of sufficient Esp1 into the nucleus to release cells from their pre-anaphase arrest. A similar suppression of arrest in vps51Δ cells is obtained by disabling autophagy (not shown). B. Induction of autophagy by overexpression of ATG13-8SA (6) prevents adaptation in wild type cells. Expression of ATG13-SA was induced at the same time that a single, unrepairable DSB was created. Whereas normal cells adapt by 24 h, increased autophagy prevents cells from progressing beyond the G2/M stage of the cell cycle. Deletion of the PEP4 gene that activates vacuolar proteases or ATG1 that is required for autophagy suppresses the arrest and allows cells to divide and resume cell cycle progression.

Taken together with other recent results (4, 5), these observations emphasize that the DNA damage response can trigger the mislocalisation and cytoplasmic proteolysis of important nuclear proteins that regulate DNA repair and cell cycle progression. These results broaden our perspective on the ways in which cells respond to DNA damage and delay cell cycle progression while such damage persists.

Ex MCB grad Farokh Dotiwala, current MCB grad Vinay Eapen and ex-postdoc Jake Harrison were the co-first authors on this paper. Assistant professor Satoshi Yoshida also contributed significantly to this project.

Dotiwala F(*), Eapen VV(*), Harrison JC(*), Arbel-Eden A, Ranade V, Yoshida S & Haber JE (2012) DNA damage checkpoint triggers autophagy to regulate the initiation of anaphase, PNAS (Published online before print November 19, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218065109)

1.         Harrison JC & Haber JE (2006) Surviving the breakup: the DNA damage checkpoint. Annu Rev Genet 40:209-235.
2.         Dotiwala F, Haase J, Arbel-Eden A, Bloom K, & Haber JE (2007) The yeast DNA damage checkpoint proteins control a cytoplasmic response to DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(27):11358-11363.
3.         Smolka MB, et al. (2006) An FHA domain-mediated protein interaction network of Rad53 reveals its role in polarized cell growth. J Cell Biol 175(5):743-753.
4.         Robert T, et al. (2011) HDACs link the DNA damage response, processing of double-strand breaks and autophagy. Nature 471(7336):74-79.
5.         Dyavaiah M, Rooney JP, Chittur SV, Lin Q, & Begley TJ (2011) Autophagy-dependent regulation of the DNA damage response protein ribonucleotide reductase 1. Mol Cancer Res 9(4):462-475.
6.         Kamada Y (2010) Prime-numbered Atg proteins act at the primary step in autophagy: unphosphorylatable Atg13 can induce autophagy without TOR inactivation. Autophagy 6(3):415-416.

Protected by Akismet
Blog with WordPress

Welcome Guest | Login (Brandeis Members Only)