Dynamic heterogeneity and DNA methylation in embryonic stem cells - PubMed (original) (raw)

Dynamic heterogeneity and DNA methylation in embryonic stem cells

Zakary S Singer et al. Mol Cell. 2014.

Abstract

Cell populations can be strikingly heterogeneous, composed of multiple cellular states, each exhibiting stochastic noise in its gene expression. A major challenge is to disentangle these two types of variability and to understand the dynamic processes and mechanisms that control them. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) provide an ideal model system to address this issue because they exhibit heterogeneous and dynamic expression of functionally important regulatory factors. We analyzed gene expression in individual ESCs using single-molecule RNA-FISH and quantitative time-lapse movies. These data discriminated stochastic switching between two coherent (correlated) gene expression states and burst-like transcriptional noise. We further showed that the "2i" signaling pathway inhibitors modulate both types of variation. Finally, we found that DNA methylation plays a key role in maintaining these metastable states. Together, these results show how ESC gene expression states and dynamics arise from a combination of intrinsic noise, coherent cellular states, and epigenetic regulation.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None

Graphical abstract

Figure 1

Figure 1

Different Types of Gene Expression Heterogeneity (A) Intrinsic noise in gene expression can lead to uncorrelated variation (left), while the coexistence of distinct cellular states can produce correlated variability in gene expression (right). Both panels depict schematic static “snapshots” of gene expression. (B) Dynamically, gene expression levels could vary infrequently and abruptly (left) or more frequently and gradually (right) both within and between cellular states (schematic).

Figure 2

Figure 2

smFISH Reveals Gene Expression Heterogeneity and Correlation (A) Top: coefficients of variation (CV, mean ± SEM) for ESC-associated regulators and housekeeping genes. Bottom: Distributions (violin plots) normalized by maximum expression level reveal qualitatively distinct gene expression distributions. Genes are sorted by increasing CV. (B) Smoothed histograms for mRNA distributions overlaid with NB fits. Solid lines show individual NB distributions. Dashed gray lines show their sum (for bimodal genes). ∗ denotes 95th percentile for Prdm14. P value: χ2 goodness of fit test. (C) Pairwise relationships between genes, analyzed by smFISH (r, Pearson correlation coefficient; p value by 2D K-S test (see Experimental Procedures and Figures S2A and S2B). (D) Heat maps show examples of four-dimensional data sets.

Figure 3

Figure 3

The Two Rex1 States Are Differentially Methylated (A) smFISH measurements show that Rex1 bimodality is correlated with Tet1 and anticorrelated with Dnmt3b expression. (B) Locus-specific bisulfite sequencing of the Dazl promoter. Methylation levels shown are in the _Rex1_-high (top), _Rex1_-low (middle), and _Rex1_-low-to-high reverting (bottom) populations. (C) Global levels of 5mC measured by quantitative ELISA in the _Rex1_-high, -low, and -low-to-high reverting cells. Data shown are mean ± SD from two independent experiments. ∗, p < 0.05; ∗∗, p < 0.01; by two-sample t test. (D) Histogram of promoter methylation shows bimodality in the _Rex1_-high (top) and -low (bottom) states, as quantified by RRBS. (E) Scatter plot of promoter methylation between _Rex1_-high and -low states. Each point is the methylation fraction of a single gene promoter, color-coded by the number of CpGs in that promoter. Divergence from the diagonal implies differential methylation between states. Inset: Single CpGs in the promoter of the specific gene labeled, color coded by distance from TSS; see Figure S3C for additional genes.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Movies Reveal Transcriptional Bursting and State-Switching Dynamics in Individual Cells (A) Distribution of Nanog and Oct4 production rates from representative movies in serum + LIF, and Gaussian fits to the components. Production rates were extracted from a total of 376 and 103 tracked cell cycles for Nanog and Oct4, respectively. (B) Production rate distributions of individual cell lineage trees, each consisting of closely related cells descending from a single cell. Lineage trees are color-coded by the state they spend the majority of time in. (C) Example single lineage traces exhibiting step-like changes in production rates within a state. (D) Cell cycle phase distribution of steps within the _Nanog_-high state. Step occurrences are normalized by the frequencies of each cell cycle phase observed in the tracked data. (E) Representative trace showing apparent steps from simulations under the bursty transcription model, using parameters estimated from mRNA distribution for the _Nanog_-high state (see Supplemental Information; see Figure S4E for simulation of Oct4 dynamics). (F) Example traces of individual cells switching between _Nanog_-low and _Nanog_-high states. (G) Empirical transition rates (mean ± SD) between the two Nanog states (NHi, _Nanog_-high; NLo, _Nanog_-low).

Figure 5

Figure 5

2i and DNA Methylation Modulate Bursty Transcription and State-Switching Dynamics (A) Comparison of mRNA distributions and CV between cells grown in serum + LIF and 2i + serum + LIF. Top: For each gene, the CV in serum + LIF is plotted on the left, and the CV for 2i + serum + LIF is plotted on the right. Dnmt3b in 2i + serum + LIF is represented in gray to reflect its marginal case of poor quality of fit in both bimodal and long-tailed models. Bottom: The left half of each violin represents the mRNA distribution in serum + LIF, while the right represents 2i + serum + LIF. Each gene’s distributions are normalized by a value corresponding to the larger 95th percentile between the two treatments. (B) Distribution of Nanog production rates from movies in 2i + serum + LIF. (C) Empirical transition rates between the two Nanog states in the presence of 2i (NLo, _Nanog_-low; NSH, _Nanog_-SH). (D) Mixing time in each condition is estimated from autocorrelation, A(τ), of production rate ranks shown in Figure S5D, right panels. Red, _Nanog_-high in serum + LIF; purple, _Nanog_-SH in 2i + serum + LIF. Error bars: standard deviation, bootstrap method. (E) Comparison of transcriptional heterogeneity between Dnmt TKO (black line) and the parental line (blue bars) as measured by smFISH for Rex1, Nanog, Esrrb, and SDHA. Note that for Rex1/Nanog/Essrb, there are fewer “off” cells in the leftmost bins for the TKO than WT. (F) _Rex1_-dGFP distribution as measured by flow cytometry grown in serum + LIF with 5-aza or DMSO (carrier control). Time points were taken after 2, 4, and 6 days. (G) Cells were grown in 2i + serum + LIF and subsequently replated into serum + LIF with 5-aza or DMSO (carrier control). Time points were taken after 2, 4, and 6 days. GFP levels were measured by flow cytometry.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Auernhammer C.J., Bousquet C., Melmed S. Autoregulation of pituitary corticotroph SOCS-3 expression: characterization of the murine SOCS-3 promoter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999;96:6964–6969. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blake W.J., KAErn M., Cantor C.R., Collins J.J. Noise in eukaryotic gene expression. Nature. 2003;422:633–637. - PubMed
    1. Borgel J., Guibert S., Li Y., Chiba H., Schübeler D., Sasaki H., Forné T., Weber M. Targets and dynamics of promoter DNA methylation during early mouse development. Nat. Genet. 2010;42:1093–1100. - PubMed
    1. Brewster R.C., Weinert F.M., Garcia H.G., Song D., Rydenfelt M., Phillips R. The transcription factor titration effect dictates level of gene expression. Cell. 2014;156:1312–1323. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cai L., Friedman N., Xie X.S. Stochastic protein expression in individual cells at the single molecule level. Nature. 2006;440:358–362. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources