The Ino80 complex mediates epigenetic centromere propagation via active removal of histone H3

Conformational switching of Arp5 subunit regulates INO80 chromatin remodeling

The INO80 chromatin remodeler is a versatile enzyme capable of several functions, including spacing nucleosomes equal distances apart, precise positioning of nucleosomes based on DNA shape/sequence and exchanging histone dimers. Within INO80, the Arp5 subunit plays a central role in INO80 remodeling, evidenced by its interactions with the histone octamer, nucleosomal and extranucleosomal DNA, and its necessity in linking INO80's ATPase activity to nucleosome movement. We find two distinct regions of Arp5 binding near the acidic pocket of nucleosomes. One region has an arginine anchor that binds nucleosomes and is vital for INO80 mobilizing nucleosomes. The other region has a hydrophobic/acid patch of Leu and Asp that binds free histone H2A-H2B dimers. These two regions have different roles in remodeling nucleosomes as seen both in vitro and in vivo and the hydrophobic/acidic patch of Arp5 is likely needed for displacing DNA from the H2A-H2B surface and dimer exchange by INO80.

Conformational switching of Arp5 subunit differentially regulates INO80 chromatin remodeling

The INO80 chromatin remodeler is a versatile enzyme capable of several functions, including spacing nucleosomes equal distances apart, precise positioning of nucleosomes based on DNA shape/sequence and exchanging histone dimers. Within INO80, the Arp5 subunit plays a central role in INO80 remodeling, evidenced by its interactions with the histone octamer, nucleosomal and extranucleosomal DNA, and its necessity in linking INO80's ATPase activity to nucleosome movement. Our investigation reveals that the grappler domain of Arp5 interacts with the acidic pocket of nucleosomes through two distinct mechanisms: an arginine anchor or a hydrophobic/acidic patch. These two modes of binding serve distinct functions within INO80 as shown in vivo by mutations in these regions resulting in varying phenotypes and in vitro by diverse effects on nucleosome mobilization. Our findings suggest that the hydrophobic/acidic patch of Arp5 is likely important for dimer exchange by INO80, while the arginine anchor is crucial for mobilizing nucleosomes.

Humanization reveals pervasive incompatibility of yeast and human kinetochore components

Kinetochores assemble on centromeres to drive chromosome segregation in eukaryotic cells. Humans and budding yeast share most of the structural subunits of the kinetochore, whereas protein sequences have diverged considerably. The conserved centromeric histone H3 variant, CenH3 (CENP-A in humans and Cse4 in budding yeast), marks the site for kinetochore assembly in most species. A previous effort to complement Cse4 in yeast with human CENP-A was unsuccessful; however, co-complementation with the human core nucleosome was not attempted. Previously, our lab successfully humanized the core nucleosome in yeast; however, this severely affected cellular growth. We hypothesized that yeast Cse4 is incompatible with humanized nucleosomes and that the kinetochore represented a limiting factor for efficient histone humanization. Thus, we argued that including the human CENP-A or a Cse4-CENP-A chimera might improve histone humanization and facilitate kinetochore function in humanized yeast. The opposite was true: CENP-A expression reduced histone humanization efficiency, was toxic to yeast, and disrupted cell cycle progression and kinetochore function in wild-type (WT) cells. Suppressors of CENP-A toxicity included gene deletions of subunits of 3 conserved chromatin remodeling complexes, highlighting their role in CenH3 chromatin positioning. Finally, we attempted to complement the subunits of the NDC80 kinetochore complex, individually and in combination, without success, in contrast to a previous study indicating complementation by the human NDC80/HEC1 gene. Our results suggest that limited protein sequence similarity between yeast and human components in this very complex structure leads to failure of complementation.

The versatility of the proteasome in gene expression and silencing: Unraveling proteolytic and non-proteolytic functions

The 26S proteasome consists of a 20S core particle and a 19S regulatory particle and critically regulates gene expression and silencing through both proteolytic and non-proteolytic functions. The 20S core particle mediates proteolysis, while the 19S regulatory particle performs non-proteolytic functions. The proteasome plays a role in regulating gene expression in euchromatin by modifying histones, activating transcription, initiating and terminating transcription, mRNA export, and maintaining transcriptome integrity. In gene silencing, the proteasome modulates the heterochromatin formation, spreading, and subtelomere silencing by degrading specific proteins and interacting with anti-silencing factors such as Epe1, Mst2, and Leo1. This review discusses the proteolytic and non-proteolytic functions of the proteasome in regulating gene expression and gene silencing-related heterochromatin formation. This article is part of a special issue on the regulation of gene expression and genome integrity by the ubiquitin-proteasome system.

The ins and outs of CENP-A: Chromatin dynamics of the centromere-specific histone

Centromeres are highly specialised chromosome domains defined by the presence of an epigenetic mark, the specific histone H3 variant called CENP-A (centromere protein A). They constitute the genomic regions on which kinetochores form and when defective cause segregation defects that can lead to aneuploidy and cancer. Here, we discuss how CENP-A is established and maintained to propagate centromere identity while subjected to dynamic chromatin remodelling during essential cellular processes like DNA repair, replication, and transcription. We highlight parallels and identify conserved mechanisms between different model organism with a particular focus on 1) the establishment of CENP-A at centromeres, 2) CENP-A maintenance during transcription and replication, and 3) the mechanisms that help preventing CENP-A localization at non-centromeric sites. We then give examples of how timely loading of new CENP-A to the centromere, maintenance of old CENP-A during S-phase and transcription, and removal of CENP-A at non-centromeric sites are coordinated and controlled by an intricate network of factors whose identity is slowly being unravelled.

The chromatin remodeler Ino80 mediates RNAPII pausing site determination

BACKGROUND

Promoter-proximal pausing of RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) is a critical step for the precise regulation of gene expression. Despite the apparent close relationship between promoter-proximal pausing and nucleosome, the role of chromatin remodeler governing this step has mainly remained elusive.

RESULTS

Here, we report highly confined RNAPII enrichments downstream of the transcriptional start site in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using PRO-seq experiments. This non-uniform distribution of RNAPII exhibits both similar and different characteristics with promoter-proximal pausing in Schizosaccharomyces pombe and metazoans. Interestingly, we find that Ino80p knockdown causes a significant upstream transition of promoter-proximal RNAPII for a subset of genes, relocating RNAPII from the main pausing site to the alternative pausing site. The proper positioning of RNAPII is largely dependent on nucleosome context. We reveal that the alternative pausing site is closely associated with the + 1 nucleosome, and nucleosome architecture around the main pausing site of these genes is highly phased. In addition, Ino80p knockdown results in an increase in fuzziness and a decrease in stability of the + 1 nucleosome. Furthermore, the loss of INO80 also leads to the shift of promoter-proximal RNAPII toward the alternative pausing site in mouse embryonic stem cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our collective results, we hypothesize that the highly conserved chromatin remodeler Ino80p is essential in establishing intact RNAPII pausing during early transcription elongation in various organisms, from budding yeast to mouse.

Recent insights into mechanisms preventing ectopic centromere formation

The centromere is a specialized chromosomal structure essential for chromosome segregation. Centromere dysfunction leads to chromosome segregation errors and genome instability. In most eukaryotes, centromere identity is specified epigenetically by CENP-A, a centromere-specific histone H3 variant. CENP-A replaces histone H3 in centromeres, and nucleates the assembly of the kinetochore complex. Mislocalization of CENP-A to non-centromeric regions causes ectopic assembly of CENP-A chromatin, which has a devastating impact on chromosome segregation and has been linked to a variety of human cancers. How non-centromeric regions are protected from CENP-A misincorporation in normal cells is largely unexplored. Here, we review the most recent advances on the mechanisms underlying the prevention of ectopic centromere formation, and discuss the implications in human disease.

Schizosaccharomyces pombe DNA translocases Rrp1 and Rrp2 have distinct roles at centromeres and telomeres that ensure genome stability

The regulation of telomere and centromere structure and function is essential for maintaining genome integrity. Schizosaccharomyces pombe Rrp1 and Rrp2 are orthologues of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Uls1, a SWI2/SNF2 DNA translocase and SUMO-targeted ubiquitin ligase. Here, we show that Rrp1 or Rrp2 overproduction leads to chromosome instability and growth defects, a reduction in global histone levels and mislocalisation of centromere-specific histone Cnp1. These phenotypes depend on putative DNA translocase activities of Rrp1 and Rrp2, suggesting that Rrp1 and Rrp2 may be involved in modulating nucleosome dynamics. Furthermore, we confirm that Rrp2, but not Rrp1, acts at telomeres, reflecting a previously described interaction between Rrp2 and Top2. In conclusion, we identify roles for Rrp1 and Rrp2 in maintaining centromere function by modulating histone dynamics, contributing to the preservation of genome stability during vegetative cell growth.

Hap2-Ino80-facilitated transcription promotes de novo establishment of CENP-A chromatin

Centromeres are maintained epigenetically by the presence of CENP-A, an evolutionarily conserved histone H3 variant, which directs kinetochore assembly and hence centromere function. To identify factors that promote assembly of CENP-A chromatin, we affinity-selected solubilized fission yeast CENP-A^Cnp1 chromatin. All subunits of the Ino80 complex were enriched, including the auxiliary subunit Hap2. Chromatin association of Hap2 is Ies4-dependent. In addition to a role in maintenance of CENP-A^Cnp1 chromatin integrity at endogenous centromeres, Hap2 is required for de novo assembly of CENP-A^Cnp1 chromatin on naïve centromere DNA and promotes H3 turnover on centromere regions and other loci prone to CENP-A^Cnp1 deposition. Prior to CENP-A^Cnp1 chromatin assembly, Hap2 facilitates transcription from centromere DNA. These analyses suggest that Hap2-Ino80 destabilizes H3 nucleosomes on centromere DNA through transcription-coupled histone H3 turnover, driving the replacement of resident H3 nucleosomes with CENP-A^Cnp1 nucleosomes. These inherent properties define centromere DNA by directing a program that mediates CENP-A^Cnp1 assembly on appropriate sequences.

Centromere repositioning causes inversion of meiosis and generates a reproductive barrier

Mutations in inner kinetochore components induce centromere repositioning without alteration in the centromeric DNA sequence, revealing a feedback mechanism underlying the high epigenetic stability of the centromere. This also provides a desirable experimental system to explore the functional significance of centromere positioning in meiosis. We discovered that in a heterozygotic meiosis, a repositioned centromere generates a reproductive barrier, suggesting a functional role of evolutionary new centromeres in speciation; furthermore, in a homozygotic meiosis, chromosomes carrying repositioned centromeres frequently undergo the 2 stages of meiotic segregation in an inverted order, demonstrating high flexibility in the meiotic process.

The chromosomal position of each centromere is determined epigenetically and is highly stable, whereas incremental cases have supported the occurrence of centromere repositioning on an evolutionary time scale (evolutionary new centromeres, ENCs), which is thought to be important in speciation. The mechanisms underlying the high stability of centromeres and its functional significance largely remain an enigma. Here, in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, we identify a feedback mechanism: The kinetochore, whose assembly is guided by the centromere, in turn, enforces centromere stability. Upon going through meiosis, specific inner kinetochore mutations induce centromere repositioning—inactivation of the original centromere and formation of a new centromere elsewhere—in 1 of the 3 chromosomes at random. Repositioned centromeres reside asymmetrically in the pericentromeric regions and cells carrying them are competent in mitosis and homozygotic meiosis. However, when cells carrying a repositioned centromere are crossed with those carrying the original centromere, the progeny suffer severe lethality due to defects in meiotic chromosome segregation. Thus, repositioned centromeres constitute a reproductive barrier that could initiate genetic divergence between 2 populations with mismatched centromeres, documenting a functional role of ENCs in speciation. Surprisingly, homozygotic repositioned centromeres tend to undergo meiosis in an inverted order—that is, sister chromatids segregate first, and homologous chromosomes separate second—whereas the original centromeres on other chromosomes in the same cell undergo meiosis in the canonical order, revealing hidden flexibility in the perceived rigid process of meiosis.

Chromosome Dynamics in Response to DNA Damage

Recent advances in both the technologies used to measure chromatin movement and the biophysical analysis used to model them have yielded a fuller understanding of chromatin dynamics and the polymer structure that underlies it. Changes in nucleosome packing, checkpoint kinase activation, the cell cycle, chromosomal tethers, and external forces acting on nuclei in response to external and internal stimuli can alter the basal mobility of DNA in interphase nuclei of yeast or mammalian cells. Although chromatin movement is assumed to be necessary for many DNA-based processes, including gene activation by distal enhancer–promoter interaction or sequence-based homology searches during double-strand break repair, experimental evidence supporting an essential role in these activities is sparse. Nonetheless, high-resolution tracking of chromatin dynamics has led to instructive models of the higher-order folding and flexibility of the chromatin polymer. Key regulators of chromatin motion in physiological conditions or after damage induction are reviewed here.