Chromosomal distribution of PcG proteins during Drosophila development - PubMed (original) (raw)
Chromosomal distribution of PcG proteins during Drosophila development
Nicolas Nègre et al. PLoS Biol. 2006 Jun.
Abstract
Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are able to maintain the memory of silent transcriptional states of homeotic genes throughout development. In Drosophila, they form multimeric complexes that bind to specific DNA regulatory elements named PcG response elements (PREs). To date, few PREs have been identified and the chromosomal distribution of PcG proteins during development is unknown. We used chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) with genomic tiling path microarrays to analyze the binding profile of the PcG proteins Polycomb (PC) and Polyhomeotic (PH) across 10 Mb of euchromatin. We also analyzed the distribution of GAGA factor (GAF), a sequence-specific DNA binding protein that is found at most previously identified PREs. Our data show that PC and PH often bind to clustered regions within large loci that encode transcription factors which play multiple roles in developmental patterning and in the regulation of cell proliferation. GAF co-localizes with PC and PH to a limited extent, suggesting that GAF is not a necessary component of chromatin at PREs. Finally, the chromosome-association profile of PC and PH changes during development, suggesting that the function of these proteins in the regulation of some of their target genes might be more dynamic than previously anticipated.
Figures
Figure 1. Evaluation of the ChIP Quality
Comparison of protein mapping using ChIP versus DamID. The graph represents the FC of GAF binding on the_Adh_ region obtained by ChIP at the embryonic stage (upper panel in blue) and with DamID in cultured Kc cells as described in [ 40] (lower panel in red). Pearson's correlation coefficient between the two distributions is indicated at the bottom of the graph.
Figure 2. ChIP on Chip Mapping of the PH Protein Using MY Microarrays
(A) Schematic representation of the four_Drosophila_ chromosomes, with the Montpellier tiling path assembly shown in red, and the Yale tiling path regions shown in light blue. (B) The distribution of the PH protein along the tiling path of the X chromosome in_Drosophila_ embryos. Numbers 1 to 4 indicate the regions for which FISH probes used in Figure 3 were designed. The_ph_ locus is a known PcG target that served as a positive control. The other arrows point to the major binding sites. Below the graphs, a scheme of the corresponding chromosomal region is shown; with the cytological location of known PH bands in polytene chromosomes indicated as red ovals. (C) The distribution of the PH protein along the Adh region of Chromosome 2L in_Drosophila_ embryos. Symbols are as in (B).
Figure 3. Immuno-FISH Mapping of PcG Protein Binding at Four Different Target Loci
DAPI labeling of DNA is shown in light blue. The immunostainings of PC and PH (as indicated to the right of each row) are shown in red. DNA FISH staining is shown in green, and the merge of the red and the green channels is shown in right panels. The name and cytological position for each probe is indicated on the right. The numbers identifying the probes used correspond to those indicated in Figure 2. 1 corresponds to the_bifid_ gene locus, 2 to the CG4136 locus, 3 to the_mab-2_ locus, and 4 to the_cut_ locus. The arrows point to the bands that co-localize with the FISH signal.
Figure 4. Developmental Comparison of the Distribution Profiles of PC, PH, and GAF
PC is shown in light blue, PH in blue, and GAF in red. All signals that are not significantly enriched are set to one in these graphs. Thus, only the significant targets detected by RDAM at FDR 10% are shown. The correlation coefficient for each comparison is indicated above the graph. (A) A comparison between PH and PC at the embryonic stage shows the extensive overlap between the two proteins. (B) A comparison between GAF and PH in embryos shows the fundamentally different distribution profile for the two proteins. (C) Comparison between the distributions of PC in embryos over PC in pupae. (D) Comparison between the distributions of GAF in embryos over GAF in pupae. (E) Comparison between the distribution of PH males versus PH in females. (F) Comparison between the distributions of GAF in males versus GAF in females.
Figure 5. High Resolution Distribution Profiles
GAF profiles are in red, PH in blue, and PC in light blue. Only significantly enriched signals detected by RDAM at a FDR of 10% are represented. Above each graph, the annotated genes of each genome region are shown. (A) Distribution profiles of PC, PH, and GAF in the_en_/inv locus at the embryonic stage. (B) Distribution of PC, PH, and GAF in the_en_/inv locus at the adult stage (females). The_en_ PRE used as positive control is indicated by an asterisk. (C) Distribution of PC, PH, and GAF in the_gt_/z locus at the embryonic stage. (D) Distribution of PC, PH, and GAF in the_gt_/z locus in adult females. Note the disappearance of a strong PcG binding site, while GAF remains stable. (E) Distribution of PC, PH, and GAF in the_futsch_ locus in embryos. (F) PC, PH, and GAF in the_futsch_ locus in adult females. Note that a new binding site for PcG that was absent at the embryonic stage appears at the adult stage, while GAF remains stable.
Figure 6. Regulation of Target Genes by PC
In situ hybridizations in WT and in_PcXL5_ mutant embryos for the_gt_ and_peb_ genes. The developmental stage of the embryos is indicated on the left. Arrowheads indicate regions of increased or ectopic labeling in_Pc_ mutants compared to WT. (A)gt expression at embryonic stages 9, 10, 11, and 14. (B)peb expression at embryonic stages 9, 10, 11, and 14.
Comment in
- Polycombing Drosophila for dynamic developmental footprints.
Hill E. Hill E. PLoS Biol. 2006 Jun;4(6):e177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040177. Epub 2006 Apr 20. PLoS Biol. 2006. PMID: 20076582 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Polycomb group-dependent Cyclin A repression in Drosophila.
Martinez AM, Colomb S, Déjardin J, Bantignies F, Cavalli G. Martinez AM, et al. Genes Dev. 2006 Feb 15;20(4):501-13. doi: 10.1101/gad.357106. Genes Dev. 2006. PMID: 16481477 Free PMC article. - Progressive polycomb assembly on H3K27me3 compartments generates polycomb bodies with developmentally regulated motion.
Cheutin T, Cavalli G. Cheutin T, et al. PLoS Genet. 2012 Jan;8(1):e1002465. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002465. Epub 2012 Jan 19. PLoS Genet. 2012. PMID: 22275876 Free PMC article. - The Drosophila pho-like gene encodes a YY1-related DNA binding protein that is redundant with pleiohomeotic in homeotic gene silencing.
Brown JL, Fritsch C, Mueller J, Kassis JA. Brown JL, et al. Development. 2003 Jan;130(2):285-94. doi: 10.1242/dev.00204. Development. 2003. PMID: 12466196 - Polycomb response elements and targeting of Polycomb group proteins in Drosophila.
Müller J, Kassis JA. Müller J, et al. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Oct;16(5):476-84. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2006.08.005. Epub 2006 Aug 17. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006. PMID: 16914306 Review. - Heritable chromatin states induced by the Polycomb and trithorax group genes.
Paro R, Strutt H, Cavalli G. Paro R, et al. Novartis Found Symp. 1998;214:51-61; discussion 61-6, 104-13. doi: 10.1002/9780470515501.ch4. Novartis Found Symp. 1998. PMID: 9601011 Review.
Cited by
- Research advances of polycomb group proteins in regulating mammalian development.
Li Y, Mo Y, Chen C, He J, Guo Z. Li Y, et al. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2024 Mar 5;12:1383200. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2024.1383200. eCollection 2024. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2024. PMID: 38505258 Free PMC article. Review. - Localization of the Drosophila pioneer factor GAF to subnuclear foci is driven by DNA binding and required to silence satellite repeat expression.
Gaskill MM, Soluri IV, Branks AE, Boka AP, Stadler MR, Vietor K, Huang HS, Gibson TJ, Mukherjee A, Mir M, Blythe SA, Harrison MM. Gaskill MM, et al. Dev Cell. 2023 Sep 11;58(17):1610-1624.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2023.06.010. Epub 2023 Jul 20. Dev Cell. 2023. PMID: 37478844 Free PMC article. - Roles of Polycomb Complexes in the Reconstruction of 3D Genome Architecture during Preimplantation Embryonic Development.
Yu L, Shen H, Lyu X. Yu L, et al. Genes (Basel). 2022 Dec 16;13(12):2382. doi: 10.3390/genes13122382. Genes (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36553649 Free PMC article. Review. - De Novo Polycomb Recruitment and Repressive Domain Formation.
Hernández-Romero IA, Valdes VJ. Hernández-Romero IA, et al. Epigenomes. 2022 Aug 22;6(3):25. doi: 10.3390/epigenomes6030025. Epigenomes. 2022. PMID: 35997371 Free PMC article. Review. - Distinct p53 isoforms code for opposing transcriptional outcomes.
Wylie A, Jones AE, Das S, Lu WJ, Abrams JM. Wylie A, et al. Dev Cell. 2022 Aug 8;57(15):1833-1846.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2022.06.015. Epub 2022 Jul 11. Dev Cell. 2022. PMID: 35820415 Free PMC article.
References
- Ringrose L, Paro R. Epigenetic regulation of cellular memory by the Polycomb and Trithorax group proteins. Annu Rev Genet. 2004;38:413–443. - PubMed
- McGinnis W, Krumlauf R. Homeobox genes and axial patterning. Cell. 1992;68:283–302. - PubMed
- Cao R, Zhang Y. The functions of E(Z)/EZH2-mediated methylation of lysine 27 in histone H3. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2004;14:155–164. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Molecular Biology Databases
Miscellaneous