Gene expression in time and space: additive vs hierarchical organization of cis-regulatory regions

A mutator-derived prognostic eRNA signature provides insight into the pathogenesis of breast cancer

Abundant evidence suggests that enhancer RNA (eRNA) is closely related to tumorigenesis, and the role of eRNA transcription in promoting genomic instability in cancers is gradually unveiled. However, research on the evaluation of the prognostic value and molecular mechanisms of genomic instability associated eRNAs in breast cancer is long overdue. Here, we integratively analyzed eRNA expression and somatic mutation profiles in breast cancer genome. We identified genomic instability associated eRNAs and developed a prognostic signature based on these eRNAs with the area under the curve (AUC) around 0.8 at 9-year survival. We further found the prognostic value of this signature is independent of common clinical factors and is better than TP53 status. Higher expression of genomic instability associated genes in the high-risk group was observed, suggesting that this eRNA signature may serve as an indicator of genomic instability in breast cancer. We found prognostic eRNA co-expressed genes are mainly enriched in Gene set 'Breast Cancer 8P12-P11 Amplicon', Gene set 'Metabolism of lipids' and GO process 'Ubiquitin protein ligase binding'. Furthermore, 11 eRNA-signature regulated genes are identified by assessing promoter-enhancer interaction. Among these genes, F11R, BHLHE40, and NECTIN4 are previously reported oncogenes and EGOT is a tumor suppressor gene, indicating the direct roles of eRNAs in tumorigenesis.

Three-dimensional genome architectural CCCTC-binding factor makes choice in duplicated enhancers at Pcdhα locus

During development, gene expression is spatiotemporally regulated by long-distance chromatin interactions between distal enhancers and target promoters. However, how specificity of the interactions between enhancers and promoters is achieved remains largely unknown. As there are far more enhancers than promoters in mammalian genomes, the complexities of enhancer choice during gene regulation remain obscure. CTCF, the CCCTC-binding factor that directionally binds to a vast range of genomic sites known as CBSs (CTCF-binding sites), mediates oriented chromatin looping between a substantial set of distal enhancers and target promoters. To investigate mechanisms by which CTCF engages in enhancer choice, we used CRISPR/Cas9-based DNA-fragment editing to duplicate CBS-containing enhancers and promoters in the native genomic locus of the clustered Pcdhα genes. We found that the promoter is regulated by the proximal one among duplicated enhancers and that this choice is dependent on CTCF-mediated directional enhancer-promoter looping. In addition, gene expression is unaltered upon the switch of enhancers. Moreover, after promoter duplication, only the proximal promoter is chosen by CTCF-mediated directional chromatin looping to contact with the distal enhancer. Finally, we demonstrated that both enhancer activation and chromatin looping with the promoter are essential for gene expression. These findings have important implications regarding the role of CTCF in specific interactions between enhancers and promoters as well as developmental regulation of gene expression by enhancer switching.

Boundaries mediate long-distance interactions between enhancers and promoters in the Drosophila Bithorax complex

Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of the best model systems for studying the role of boundaries (insulators) in gene regulation. Expression of three homeotic genes, Ubx, abd-A, and Abd-B, is orchestrated by nine parasegment-specific regulatory domains. These domains are flanked by boundary elements, which function to block crosstalk between adjacent domains, ensuring that they can act autonomously. Paradoxically, seven of the BX-C regulatory domains are separated from their gene target by at least one boundary, and must “jump over” the intervening boundaries. To understand the jumping mechanism, the Mcp boundary was replaced with Fab-7 and Fab-8. Mcp is located between the iab-4 and iab-5 domains, and defines the border between the set of regulatory domains controlling abd-A and Abd-B. When Mcp is replaced by Fab-7 or Fab-8, they direct the iab-4 domain (which regulates abd-A) to inappropriately activate Abd-B in abdominal segment A4. For the Fab-8 replacement, ectopic induction was only observed when it was inserted in the same orientation as the endogenous Fab-8 boundary. A similar orientation dependence for bypass activity was observed when Fab-7 was replaced by Fab-8. Thus, boundaries perform two opposite functions in the context of BX-C–they block crosstalk between neighboring regulatory domains, but at the same time actively facilitate long distance communication between the regulatory domains and their respective target genes.

Drosophila bithorax complex (BX-C) is one of a few examples demonstrating in vivo role of boundary/insulator elements in organization of independent chromatin domains. BX-C contains three HOX genes, whose parasegment-specific pattern is controlled by cis-regulatory domains flanked by boundary/insulator elements. Since the boundaries ensure autonomy of adjacent domains, the presence of these elements poses a paradox: how do the domains bypass the intervening boundaries and contact their proper regulatory targets? According to the textbook model, BX-C regulatory domains are able to bypass boundaries because they harbor special promoter targeting sequences. However, contrary to this model, we show here that the boundaries themselves play an active role in directing regulatory domains to their appropriate HOX gene promoter.

Enhancer and super-enhancer: Positive regulators in gene transcription

Enhancer is a positive regulator for spatiotemporal development in eukaryotes. As a cluster, super-enhancer is closely related to cell identity- and fate-determined processes. Both of them function tightly depending on their targeted transcription factors, cofactors, and genes through distal genomic interactions. They have been recognized as critical components and played positive roles in transcriptional regulatory network or factory. Recent advances of next-generation sequencing have dramatically expanded our ability and knowledge to interrogate the molecular mechanism of enhancer and super-enhancer for transcription. Here, we review the history, importance, advances and challenges on enhancer and super-enhancer field. This will benefit our understanding of their function mechanism for transcription underlying precise gene expression.

Enhancer talk

Enhancers are short noncoding segments of DNA (100-1000 bp) that control the temporal and spatial activity of genes in an orientation-independent manner. They can be separated from their target genes by large distances and are thus known as distal regulatory elements. One consequence of the variability in the distance separating enhancers and their target promoters is that it is difficult to determine which elements are involved in the regulation of a particular gene. Moreover, enhancers can be found in clusters in which multiple regulatory elements control expression of the same target gene. However, little is known about how the individual elements contribute to gene expression. Here, we describe how chromatin conformation promotes and constraints enhancer activity. Further, we discuss enhancer clusters and what is known about the contribution of individual elements to the regulation of target genes. Finally, we examine the reliability of different methods used to identify enhancers.

Ever-Changing Landscapes: Transcriptional Enhancers in Development and Evolution

A class of cis-regulatory elements, called enhancers, play a central role in orchestrating spatiotemporally precise gene-expression programs during development. Consequently, divergence in enhancer sequence and activity is thought to be an important mediator of inter- and intra-species phenotypic variation. Here, we give an overview of emerging principles of enhancer function, current models of enhancer architecture, genomic substrates from which enhancers emerge during evolution, and the influence of three-dimensional genome organization on long-range gene regulation. We discuss intricate relationships between distinct elements within complex regulatory landscapes and consider their potential impact on specificity and robustness of transcriptional regulation.

The boundary paradox in the Bithorax complex

The parasegment-specific expression of the three Drosophila Bithorax complex homeotic genes is orchestrated by nine functionally autonomous regulatory domains. Functional autonomy depends upon special elements called boundaries or insulators that are located between each domain. The boundaries ensure the independent activity of each domain by blocking adventitious interactions with initiators, enhancers and silencers in the neighboring domains. However, this blocking activity poses a regulatory paradox--the Bithorax boundaries are also able to insulate promoters from regulatory interactions with enhancers and silencers and six of the nine Bithorax regulatory domains are separated from their target genes by at least one boundary element. Here we consider several mechanisms that have been suggested for how the Bithorax regulatory domains are able to bypass intervening boundary elements and direct the appropriate parasegment-specific temporal and spatial expression of their target gene.

The open for business model of the bithorax complex in Drosophila

After nearly 30 years of effort, Ed Lewis published his 1978 landmark paper in which he described the analysis of a series of mutations that affect the identity of the segments that form along the anterior-posterior (AP) axis of the fly (Lewis 1978). The mutations behaved in a non-canonical fashion in complementation tests, forming what Ed Lewis called a "pseudo-allelic" series. Because of this, he never thought that the mutations represented segment-specific genes. As all of these mutations were grouped to a particular area of the Drosophila third chromosome, the locus became known of as the bithorax complex (BX-C). One of the key findings of Lewis' article was that it revealed for the first time, to a wide scientific audience, that there was a remarkable correlation between the order of the segment-specific mutations along the chromosome and the order of the segments they affected along the AP axis. In Ed Lewis' eyes, the mutants he discovered affected "segment-specific functions" that were sequentially activated along the chromosome as one moves from anterior to posterior along the body axis (the colinearity concept now cited in elementary biology textbooks). The nature of the "segment-specific functions" started to become clear when the BX-C was cloned through the pioneering chromosomal walk initiated in the mid 1980s by the Hogness and Bender laboratories (Bender et al. 1983a; Karch et al. 1985). Through this molecular biology effort, and along with genetic characterizations performed by Gines Morata's group in Madrid (Sanchez-Herrero et al. 1985) and Robert Whittle's in Sussex (Tiong et al. 1985), it soon became clear that the whole BX-C encoded only three protein-coding genes (Ubx, abd-A, and Abd-B). Later, immunostaining against the Ubx protein hinted that the segment-specific functions could, in fact, be cis-regulatory elements regulating the expression of the three protein-coding genes. In 1987, Peifer, Karch, and Bender proposed a comprehensive model of the functioning of the BX-C, in which the "segment-specific functions" appear as segment-specific enhancers regulating, Ubx, abd-A, or Abd-B (Peifer et al. 1987). Key to their model was that the segmental address of these enhancers was not an inherent ability of the enhancers themselves, but was determined by the chromosomal location in which they lay. In their view, the sequential activation of the segment-specific functions resulted from the sequential opening of chromatin domains along the chromosome as one moves from anterior to posterior. This model soon became known of as the open for business model. While the open for business model is quite easy to visualize at a conceptual level, molecular evidence to validate this model has been missing for almost 30 years. The recent publication describing the outstanding, joint effort from the Bender and Kingston laboratories now provides the missing proof to support this model (Bowman et al. 2014). The purpose of this article is to review the open for business model and take the reader through the genetic arguments that led to its elaboration.

Shadow enhancers enable Hunchback bifunctionality in the Drosophila embryo

Hunchback (Hb) is a bifunctional transcription factor that activates and represses distinct enhancers. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that Hb can activate and repress the same enhancer. Computational models predicted that Hb bifunctionally regulates the even-skipped (eve) stripe 3+7 enhancer (eve3+7) in Drosophila blastoderm embryos. We measured and modeled eve expression at cellular resolution under multiple genetic perturbations and found that the eve3+7 enhancer could not explain endogenous eve stripe 7 behavior. Instead, we found that eve stripe 7 is controlled by two enhancers: the canonical eve3+7 and a sequence encompassing the minimal eve stripe 2 enhancer (eve2+7). Hb bifunctionally regulates eve stripe 7, but it executes these two activities on different pieces of regulatory DNA--it activates the eve2+7 enhancer and represses the eve3+7 enhancer. These two "shadow enhancers" use different regulatory logic to create the same pattern.

Highly conserved ENY2/Sus1 protein binds to Drosophila CTCF and is required for barrier activity

Chromatin insulators affect interactions between promoters and enhancers/silencers and function as barriers for the spreading of repressive chromatin. Drosophila insulator protein dCTCF marks active promoters and boundaries of many histone H3K27 trimethylation domains associated with repressed chromatin. In particular, dCTCF binds to such boundaries between the parasegment-specific regulatory domains of the Bithorax complex. Here we demonstrate that the evolutionarily conserved protein ENY2 is recruited to the zinc-finger domain of dCTCF and is required for the barrier activity of dCTCF-dependent insulators in transgenic lines. Inactivation of ENY2 by RNAi in BG3 cells leads to the spreading of H3K27 trimethylation and Pc protein at several dCTCF boundaries. The results suggest that evolutionarily conserved ENY2 is responsible for barrier activity mediated by the dCTCF protein.

Targeted Chromatin Capture (T2C): a novel high resolution high throughput method to detect genomic interactions and regulatory elements

Background

Significant efforts have recently been put into the investigation of the spatial organization and the chromatin-interaction networks of genomes. Chromosome conformation capture (3C) technology and its derivatives are important tools used in this effort. However, many of these have limitations, such as being limited to one viewpoint, expensive with moderate to low resolution, and/or requiring a large sequencing effort. Techniques like Hi-C provide a genome-wide analysis. However, it requires massive sequencing effort with considerable costs. Here we describe a new technique termed Targeted Chromatin Capture (T2C), to interrogate large selected regions of the genome. T2C provides an unbiased view of the spatial organization of selected loci at superior resolution (single restriction fragment resolution, from 2 to 6 kbp) at much lower costs than Hi-C due to the lower sequencing effort.

Results

We applied T2C on well-known model regions, the mouse β-globin locus and the human H19/IGF2 locus. In both cases we identified all known chromatin interactions. Furthermore, we compared the human H19/IGF2 locus data obtained from different chromatin conformation capturing methods with T2C data. We observed the same compartmentalization of the locus, but at a much higher resolution (single restriction fragments vs. the common 40 kbp bins) and higher coverage. Moreover, we compared the β-globin locus in two different biological samples (mouse primary erythroid cells and mouse fetal brain), where it is either actively transcribed or not, to identify possible transcriptional dependent interactions. We identified the known interactions in the β-globin locus and the same topological domains in both mouse primary erythroid cells and in mouse fetal brain with the latter having fewer interactions probably due to the inactivity of the locus. Furthermore, we show that interactions due to the important chromatin proteins, Ldb1 and Ctcf, in both tissues can be analyzed easily to reveal their role on transcriptional interactions and genome folding.

Conclusions

T2C is an efficient, easy, and affordable with high (restriction fragment) resolution tool to address both genome compartmentalization and chromatin-interaction networks for specific genomic regions at high resolution for both clinical and non-clinical research.

The architecture of gene expression: integrating dispersed cis-regulatory modules into coherent regulatory domains

Specificity and precision of expression are essential for the genes that regulate developmental processes. The specialized cis-acting modules, such as enhancers, that define gene expression patterns can be distributed across large regions, raising questions about the nature of the mechanisms that underline their action. Recent data has exposed the structural 3D context in which these long-range enhancers are operating. Here, we present how these studies shed new light on principles driving long-distance regulatory relationships. We discuss the molecular mechanisms that enable and accompany the action of long-range acting elements and the integration of multiple distributed regulatory inputs into the coherent and specific regulatory programs that are key to embryonic development.

Genome-scale functional characterization of Drosophila developmental enhancers in vivo

Transcriptional enhancers are crucial regulators of gene expression and animal development and the characterization of their genomic organization, spatiotemporal activities and sequence properties is a key goal in modern biology. Here we characterize the in vivo activity of 7,705 Drosophila melanogaster enhancer candidates covering 13.5% of the non-coding non-repetitive genome throughout embryogenesis. 3,557 (46%) candidates are active, suggesting a high density with 50,000 to 100,000 developmental enhancers genome-wide. The vast majority of enhancers display specific spatial patterns that are highly dynamic during development. Most appear to regulate their neighbouring genes, suggesting that the cis-regulatory genome is organized locally into domains, which are supported by chromosomal domains, insulator binding and genome evolution. However, 12 to 21 per cent of enhancers appear to skip non-expressed neighbours and regulate a more distal gene. Finally, we computationally identify cis-regulatory motifs that are predictive and required for enhancer activity, as we validate experimentally. This work provides global insights into the organization of an animal regulatory genome and the make-up of enhancer sequences and confirms and generalizes principles from previous studies. All enhancer patterns are annotated manually with a controlled vocabulary and all results are available through a web interface (http://enhancers.starklab.org), including the raw images of all microscopy slides for manual inspection at arbitrary zoom levels.

Quantitative modeling of a gene's expression from its intergenic sequence

Modeling a gene's expression from its intergenic locus and trans-regulatory context is a fundamental goal in computational biology. Owing to the distributed nature of cis-regulatory information and the poorly understood mechanisms that integrate such information, gene locus modeling is a more challenging task than modeling individual enhancers. Here we report the first quantitative model of a gene's expression pattern as a function of its locus. We model the expression readout of a locus in two tiers: 1) combinatorial regulation by transcription factors bound to each enhancer is predicted by a thermodynamics-based model and 2) independent contributions from multiple enhancers are linearly combined to fit the gene expression pattern. The model does not require any prior knowledge about enhancers contributing toward a gene's expression. We demonstrate that the model captures the complex multi-domain expression patterns of anterior-posterior patterning genes in the early Drosophila embryo. Altogether, we model the expression patterns of 27 genes; these include several gap genes, pair-rule genes, and anterior, posterior, trunk, and terminal genes. We find that the model-selected enhancers for each gene overlap strongly with its experimentally characterized enhancers. Our findings also suggest the presence of sequence-segments in the locus that would contribute ectopic expression patterns and hence were "shut down" by the model. We applied our model to identify the transcription factors responsible for forming the stripe boundaries of the studied genes. The resulting network of regulatory interactions exhibits a high level of agreement with known regulatory influences on the target genes. Finally, we analyzed whether and why our assumption of enhancer independence was necessary for the genes we studied. We found a deterioration of expression when binding sites in one enhancer were allowed to influence the readout of another enhancer. Thus, interference between enhancer activities was a possible factor necessitating enhancer independence in our model.

Topology of mammalian developmental enhancers and their regulatory landscapes

How a complex animal can arise from a fertilized egg is one of the oldest and most fascinating questions of biology, the answer to which is encoded in the genome. Body shape and organ development, and their integration into a functional organism all depend on the precise expression of genes in space and time. The orchestration of transcription relies mostly on surrounding control sequences such as enhancers, millions of which form complex regulatory landscapes in the non-coding genome. Recent research shows that high-order chromosome structures make an important contribution to enhancer functionality by triggering their physical interactions with target genes.

Effective blocking of the white enhancer requires cooperation between two main mechanisms suggested for the insulator function

Chromatin insulators block the action of transcriptional enhancers when interposed between an enhancer and a promoter. In this study, we examined the role of chromatin loops formed by two unrelated insulators, gypsy and Fab-7, in their enhancer-blocking activity. To test for this activity, we selected the white reporter gene that is activated by the eye-specific enhancer. The results showed that one copy of the gypsy or Fab-7 insulator failed to block the eye enhancer in most of genomic sites, whereas a chromatin loop formed by two gypsy insulators flanking either the eye enhancer or the reporter completely blocked white stimulation by the enhancer. However, strong enhancer blocking was achieved due not only to chromatin loop formation but also to the direct interaction of the gypsy insulator with the eye enhancer, which was confirmed by the 3C assay. In particular, it was observed that Mod(mdg4)-67.2, a component of the gypsy insulator, interacted with the Zeste protein, which is critical for the eye enhancer–white promoter communication. These results suggest that efficient enhancer blocking depends on the combination of two factors: chromatin loop formation by paired insulators, which generates physical constraints for enhancer–promoter communication, and the direct interaction of proteins recruited to an insulator and to the enhancer–promoter pair.

The mechanism underlying enhancer blocking by insulators is unclear. Current models suggest that insulator proteins block enhancers either by formation of chromatin loops or by direct interaction with protein complexes bound to the enhancers and promoters. Here, we tested the role of a chromatin loop in blocking the activity of two Drosophila insulators, gypsy and Fab-7. Both insulators failed to effectively block the interaction between the eye enhancer and the white promoter at most of genomic sites. Insertion of an additional gypsy copy either upstream of the eye enhancer or downstream from the white gene led to complete blocking of the enhancer–promoter communication. In contrast, flanking of the eye enhancer by Fab-7 insulators only weakly improved enhancer blocking. Such a difference in enhancer blocking may be explained by finding that Mod(mdg4)-67.2, a component of gypsy insulator, directly interacts with the Zeste protein, which is critical for enhancer–promoter communication in the white gene.

Polycomb group response elements in Drosophila and vertebrates

Polycomb group genes (PcG) encode a group of about 16 proteins that were first identified in Drosophila as repressors of homeotic genes. PcG proteins are present in all metazoans and are best characterized as transcriptional repressors. In Drosophila, these proteins are known as epigenetic regulators because they remember, but do not establish, the patterned expression state of homeotic genes throughout development. PcG proteins, in general, are not DNA binding proteins, but act in protein complexes to repress transcription at specific target genes. How are PcG proteins recruited to the DNA? In Drosophila, there are specific regulatory DNA elements called Polycomb group response elements (PREs) that bring PcG protein complexes to the DNA. Drosophila PREs are made up of binding sites for a complex array of DNA binding proteins. Functional PRE assays in transgenes have shown that PREs act in the context of other regulatory DNA and PRE activity is highly dependent on genomic context. Drosophila PREs tend to regulate genes with a complex array of regulatory DNA in a cell or tissue-specific fashion and it is the interplay between regulatory DNA that dictates PRE function. In mammals, PcG proteins are more diverse and there are multiple ways to recruit PcG complexes, including RNA-mediated recruitment. In this review, we discuss evidence for PREs in vertebrates and explore similarities and differences between Drosophila and vertebrate PREs.

In silico analyses of pericycle cell populations reinforce their relation with associated vasculature in Arabidopsis

In Arabidopsis, lateral root initiation occurs in a subset of pericycle cells at the xylem pole that will divide asymmetrically to give rise to a new lateral root organ. While lateral roots never develop at the phloem pole, it is unclear how the interaction with xylem and phloem poles determines the distinct pericycle identities with different competences. Nevertheless, pericycle cells at these poles are marked by differences in size, by ultrastructural features and by specific proteins and gene expression. Here, we provide transcriptional evidence that pericycle cells are intimately associated with their vascular tissue instead of being a separate concentric layer. This has implications for the identification of cell- and tissue-specific promoters that are necessary to drive and/or alter gene expression locally, avoiding pleiotropic effects. We were able to identify a small set of genes that display specific expression in the phloem or xylem pole pericycle cells, and we were able to identify motifs that are likely to drive expression in either one of those tissues.

Landscapes and archipelagos: spatial organization of gene regulation in vertebrates

Vertebrate genes controlling critical developmental processes are often regulated by complex sets of global enhancer sequences, located at a distance, within neighboring gene deserts. Recent technological advances have made it possible to investigate the spatial organization of these 'regulatory landscapes'. The integration of such datasets with information on chromatin status, transcriptional activity and nuclear localization of these loci, as well as the effects of genetic modifications thereof, may bring a more comprehensive understanding of tissue- and/or stage-specific gene regulation in both normal and pathological contexts. Here, we review the impact of recent technological advances on our understanding of large-scale gene regulation in vertebrates, by focusing on paradigmatic gene loci.

Shadow enhancers: frequently asked questions about distributed cis-regulatory information and enhancer redundancy

This paper, in the form of a frequently asked questions page (FAQ), addresses outstanding questions about "shadow enhancers", quasi-redundant cis-regulatory elements, and their proposed roles in transcriptional control. Questions include: What exactly are shadow enhancers? How many genes have shadow/redundant/distributed enhancers? How redundant are these elements? What is the function of distributed enhancers? How modular are enhancers? Is it useful to study a single enhancer in isolation? In addition, a revised definition of "shadow enhancers" is proposed, and possible mechanisms of shadow enhancer function and evolution are discussed.

Enhancers and silencers: an integrated and simple model for their function

Regulatory DNA elements such as enhancers, silencers and insulators are embedded in metazoan genomes, and they control gene expression during development. Although they fulfil different roles, they share specific properties. Herein we discuss some examples and a parsimonious model for their function is proposed. All are transcription units that tether their target promoters close to, or distant from, transcriptional hot spots (or 'factories').

A dynamic network of morphogens and transcription factors patterns the fly leg

Animal appendages require a proximodistal (PD) axis, which forms orthogonally from the two main body axes, anteroposterior and dorsoventral. In this review, we discuss recent advances that begin to provide insights into the molecular mechanisms controlling PD axis formation in the Drosophila leg. In this case, two morphogens, Wingless (Wg) and Decapentaplegic (Dpp), initiate a genetic cascade that, together with growth of the leg imaginal disc, establishes the PD axis. The analysis of cis-regulatory modules (CRMs) that control the expression of genes at different positions along the PD axis has been particularly valuable in dissecting this complex process. From these experiments, it appears that only one concentration of Wg and Dpp are required to initiate PD axis formation by inducing the expression of Distal-less (Dll), a homeodomain-encoding gene that is required for leg development. Once Dll is turned on, it activates the medially expressed gene dachshund (dac). Cross-regulation between Dll and dac, together with cell proliferation in the growing leg imaginal disc, results in the formation of a rudimentary PD axis. Wg and Dpp also initiate the expression of ligands for the EGFR pathway, which in turn induces the expression of a series of target genes that pattern the distal-most portion of the leg.