Allelic chromatin structure precedes imprinted expression of Kcnk9 during neurogenesis

A biallelically active embryonic enhancer dictates GNAS imprinting through allele-specific conformations

Genomic imprinting controls parental allele-specific gene expression via epigenetic mechanisms. Abnormal imprinting at the GNAS gene causes multiple phenotypes, including pseudohypoparathyroidism type-1B (PHP1B), a disorder of multihormone resistance. Microdeletions affecting the neighboring STX16 gene ablate an imprinting control region (STX16-ICR) of GNAS and lead to PHP1B upon maternal but not paternal inheritance. Mechanisms behind this imprinted inheritance mode remain unknown. Here, we show that the STX16-ICR forms different chromatin conformations with each GNAS parental allele and enhances two GNAS promoters in human embryonic stem cells. When these cells differentiate toward proximal renal tubule cells, STX16-ICR loses its effect, accompanied by a transition to a somatic cell-specific GNAS imprinting status. The activity of STX16-ICR depends on an OCT4 motif, whose disruption impacts transcript levels differentially on each allele. Therefore, a biallelically active embryonic enhancer dictates GNAS imprinting via different chromatin conformations, underlying the allele-specific pathogenicity of STX16-ICR microdeletions.

Differential 3D genome architecture and imprinted gene expression: cause or consequence?

Imprinted genes provide an attractive paradigm to unravel links between transcription and genome architecture. The parental allele-specific expression of these essential genes - which are clustered in chromosomal domains - is mediated by parental methylation imprints at key regulatory DNA sequences. Recent chromatin conformation capture (3C)-based studies show differential organization of topologically associating domains between the parental chromosomes at imprinted domains, in embryonic stem and differentiated cells. At several imprinted domains, differentially methylated regions show allelic binding of the insulator protein CTCF, and linked focal retention of cohesin, at the non-methylated allele only. This generates differential patterns of chromatin looping between the parental chromosomes, already in the early embryo, and thereby facilitates the allelic gene expression. Recent research evokes also the opposite scenario, in which allelic transcription contributes to the differential genome organization, similarly as reported for imprinted X chromosome inactivation. This may occur through epigenetic effects on CTCF binding, through structural effects of RNA Polymerase II, or through imprinted long non-coding RNAs that have chromatin repressive functions. The emerging picture is that epigenetically-controlled differential genome architecture precedes and facilitates imprinted gene expression during development, and that at some domains, conversely, the mono-allelic gene expression also influences genome architecture.

Establishment and maintenance of random monoallelic expression

This Review elucidates the regulatory principles of random monoallelic expression by focusing on two well-studied examples: the X-chromosome inactivation regulator Xist and the olfactory receptor gene family. Although the choice of a single X chromosome or olfactory receptor occurs in different developmental contexts, common gene regulatory principles guide monoallelic expression in both systems. In both cases, an event breaks the symmetry between genetically and epigenetically identical copies of the gene, leading to the expression of one single random allele, stabilized through negative feedback control. Although many regulatory steps that govern the establishment and maintenance of monoallelic expression have been identified, key pieces of the puzzle are still missing. We provide an overview of the current knowledge and models for the monoallelic expression of Xist and olfactory receptors. We discuss their similarities and differences, and highlight open questions and approaches that could guide the study of other monoallelically expressed genes.

Biallelic non-productive enhancer-promoter interactions precede imprinted expression of Kcnk9 during mouse neural commitment

It is only partially understood how constitutive allelic methylation at imprinting control regions (ICRs) interacts with other regulation levels to drive timely parental allele-specific expression along large imprinted domains. The Peg13-Kcnk9 domain is an imprinted domain with important brain functions. To gain insights into its regulation during neural commitment, we performed an integrative analysis of its allele-specific epigenetic, transcriptomic, and cis-spatial organization using a mouse stem cell-based corticogenesis model that recapitulates the control of imprinted gene expression during neurodevelopment. We found that, despite an allelic higher-order chromatin structure associated with the paternally CTCF-bound Peg13 ICR, enhancer-Kcnk9 promoter contacts occurred on both alleles, although they were productive only on the maternal allele. This observation challenges the canonical model in which CTCF binding isolates the enhancer and its target gene on either side and suggests a more nuanced role for allelic CTCF binding at some ICRs.

Folding makes an imprint

Imprinted gene clusters are confined genomic regions containing genes with parent-of-origin-dependent transcriptional activity. In this issue of Genes & Development, Loftus and colleagues (pp. 829-843) made use of an insightful combination of descriptive approaches, genetic manipulations, and epigenome-editing approaches to show that differences in nuclear topology precede the onset of imprinted expression at the Peg13-Kcnk9 locus. Furthermore, the investigators provide data in line with a model suggesting that parent-of-origin-specific topological differences could be responsible for parent-of-origin-specific enhancer activity and thus imprinted expression.