Tag Archives: Histone

The Heterodox Dinokaryon

The nuclei of dinoflagellates display a highly derived organisation; chromosomes are permanently condensed and seem to lack histone proteins. A new study in Current Biology links the emergence of these characters to the importation of a novel family of nuclear proteins originating in giant viruses.

A Haeckel print of various Dinoflagellates

Dinoflagellates are a diverse and successful phylum of protists.  Many are photosynthetic with a major role in the oceans’ primary production, whilst others have symbiotic, parasitic or predatory lifestyles. Their nuclei are highly unusual. Whereas in all other eukaryotes chromosomes only condense during mitosis, dinoflagellate chromosomes display a permanently condensed, liquid crystalline form. This ‘cholesteric’ structure produces a banded appearance in electron micrographs. Another key dinoflagellate heterodoxy is the absence (or at least undetectability) of histone proteins and the nucleosomal organisation of chromatin. These differences are so radical that dinoflagellates were suggested to represent an intermediate ‘mesokaryotic’ stage between prokarya and eukarya. Molecular phylogenetics has since clarified that they are in fact a sister clade to apicomplexan protists, leaving no doubt that that the dinoflagellate nuclear organisation – the dinokaryon – is derived from standard eukaryotic ancestors. Other atypical features of the dinokaryon include very high DNA content and the replacement of as much as 70% of the base thymine with the rare base 5-hydoxymethyluracil.  However, there is some variability in the occurrence of these features. For instance the chromosome banding patterns are not always evident and some dinoflagellate species’ chromosomes can be decondensed at certain stages of their lifecycles.

A dinoflagellate nucleus. Note the condensed chromosomes with characteristic banding pattern (not Blastodinium sp.).

To investigate the emergence of these dinokaryotic characteristics during the early evolution of the dinoflagellates, Gornik et al. investigated the nuclei of two early-branching members of the lineage.  Perkinsus marinus represents the closest known lineage not included within the dinoflagellates proper, whilst Hematodinium sp. branches basally within the clade. In line with their expectations the genome of P. marinus is organised into nucleosomal units, whilst that of Hematodinium sp. is not and appears to be 80 times larger. The P. marinus genome contains sequences for the 4 core histones as well as the linker histone H1, all of which were prominently detectable as protein in extracts from nuclei. Genome sequence is not available for Hematodinium sp., however transcriptomic sequencing revealed the presence of the four core histones as well as a number of variants. Unlike the histone genes of P. marinus the sequences were quite divergent from the highly conserved eukaryotic norm, however the core ‘histone-fold’ regions were relatively well preserved, as were key residues that serve as sites for post-translational modification.  Histone genes have been found in other dinoflagellate genomes recently, but histone protein expression had not previously been detected. Gornik et al could identify histone H2A protein in nuclear extracts from Hematotinium sp. However, whereas in P. marinus and other eukaryotes, histone proteins are the dominant species in such extracts, in Hematodinium sp a single 30kDa species dominated.

When this band was extracted and the protein identified by mass spectrometry, it was found to correspond to a novel family of proteins, at least 4 of which were expressed in Hematodinium sp., whilst 13 were found in the transcriptome. This family of proteins only appears to be present in dinoflagellates; no homologues were found in other eukaryotic groups or in prokaryotes. However database searching did reveal homology with a protein of unknown function widely found encoded in the genomes of phycodnaviruses, a family of giant viruses infecting algae. Gornik et al. therefore named these proteins Dinoflagellate/Viral NucleoProteins (DVNPs).

Like histones and many other DNA-binding proteins, DVNPs are highly basic proteins. They are relatively variable in their N-terminal regions, with higher conservation in a core region, which may potentially include a DNA-binding helix-turn-helix motif. Biochemical experiments demonstrated that DVNPs have a high affinity for DNA and are post-translationally modified at various residues by phosphorylation.

The phycodnaviridae are members of the nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDVs), a monophyletic clade of giant viruses that encode much more of their replication apparatus than is typical of viruses. They are predicted to have emerged more than 2 billion years ago, predating the first dinoflagellates by more than a billion years. As most phycodnaviruses include DVNP orthologues dinoflagellates must have acquired DVNPs from the phycodnaviruses early in their evolution. As yet there is no information on the roles of DVNPs in the phycodnaviridae, but the fact that both taxa have expanded genomes suggests a possible similar function. Do DVNPs allow such efficient DNA packing that the costs of genome expansion are somehow minimised?

The DVNPs are not the first family of putative histone-replacement proteins discovered in dinoflagellates. Later-branching taxa express ‘histone-like proteins’ (HLPs), probably related to the bacterial DNA-binding protein HU, and shown to be able to bend DNA in vitro. HLPs are not found in Hematodinium sp. or other early-branching dinoflagellates, whereas DVNPs are found in combination with HLPs in later-branching taxa. DVNPs therefore seem to be associated with the core dinokaryotic characteristics of permanently condensed chromosomes and expanded genome size, whilst the presence of HLPs correlates with other characters such as the chromosome banding patterns observed in later-branching taxa.

The observation that dinoflagellates do in fact encode and express divergent histones at low levels raises the question of what their roles could be if they are not primarily responsible for the bulk packing of DNA? Linked to this is the broad question of how DVNPs and HLPs act to condense dinoflagellate chromosomes. Considering the vast quantity of research attempting to understand the biology of eukaryotic chromosomes, it is rather daunting to find a whole new way of doing things; how do transcription and replication mechanisms work in the context of permanently condensed chromosomes? How does this link in with genome expansion? I don’t know how much dinoflagellate genomic data is available, but I imagine that a finished genome sequence would be of great use. Perhaps though, I’d prefer instead to prioritise biochemical and structural studies of these various proteins actions on DNA.

Gornik, S., Ford, K., Mulhern, T., Bacic, A., McFadden, G., & Waller, R. (2012). Loss of Nucleosomal DNA Condensation Coincides with Appearance of a Novel Nuclear Protein in Dinoflagellates Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.036

The CSR-1 siRNA pathway gets more enigmatic

A recent paper forces a reappraisal of the role of CSR-1 its associated 22G-RNAs, and demonstrates a positive regulatory role for this RNAi pathway in C. elegans.

As described in a previous post, depletion of the Argonaute protein CSR-1, or the proteins responsible for the biogenesis of the endo-siRNAs with which its complexes (the RdRP EGO-1, and the helicase DRH-3), results in defective mitotic chromosome segregation and sterility. To explain these findings Claycomb et al. proposed that the CSR-1 22G-RNA pathway acted to organise the proper compaction of the holocentric chromosomes of C. elegans, and the assembly of the kinetochores necessary for their proper segregation. (I strongly recommend reading the earlier post describing this paper’s findings).

Claycomb et al. had found that expression of most genes targeted by CSR-1 associated 22G-RNAs was not significantly altered in csr-1 mutants. Avgousti et al. went back over the same data and found that, although this was true in the main, expression of most of the genes encoding histone proteins was downregulated in csr-1 mutants. It had previously been shown that downregulation of just one histone gene could cause chromosome segregation and sterility phenotypes in worms. This lead Avgousti et al. to hypothesise that the defects seen in csr-1, ego-1 and drh-3 mutants may be caused by defective histone production, rather than the model proposed by Claycomb et al.

Histone proteins make up the core of the nucleosome and are multiply encoded in all eukaryotic genomes. Histone mRNAs are processed in a special way; generally their 3’UTRs are not polyadenylated; instead, downstream of a conserved stem-loop structure, a histone specific sequence (HDE) is recognised and cleaved by the U7 snRNA (an important splicing factor). Both HDE sequences and the U7 snRNA are not present in C. elegans. Avgousti et al therefore tested whether this key histone mRNA processing stage was instead being mediated by CSR-1 and its associated endo-siRNAs in worms.

Using a synthetic oligonucleotide identical to the region of the 3’UTR downstream of the stem-loop from the histone 2A pre-mRNA, they demonstrated that CSR-1 directly binds histone mRNAs. This binding was abrogated upon RNAi depletion of the RdRP EGO-1, showing that CSR-1 binding was dependent on the 22G-RNAs generated by EGO-1. Avgousti et al. also demonstrated that upon knockdown of CSR-1 or EGO-1, or in drh-3 mutants, unprocessed histone pre-mRNAs accumulate, whilst processed histone mRNAs and proteins are depleted.

The strongest evidence supporting the hypothesis that defective histone mRNA processing causes the defects seen in csr-1 mutants was a series of transgenic rescue experiments. Histone overexpression from transgenes, designed to not require 3’UTR mRNA cleavage, was able to counteract the effects of csr-1 or ego-1 RNAi knockdown, whereas transgenes that did required 3’UTR processing could not.

It seems likely therefore that in C. elegans the 3’UTR cleavage of histone pre-mRNAs is performed by CSR-1/22G-RNA complexes. CSR-1 has been shown to possess endonuclease ‘slicer’ activity, but although a likely candidate, it is too early to say whether it directly performs the cleavage or recruits other factors to perform the reaction. I think this paper blows a large hole in the model proposed by Claycomb et al. to explain the role of CSR-1 22G-RNAs; suggesting that the observed chromosome segregation defects are indirectly caused by a failure to produce adequate histones, rather than a failure to direct the organisation of mitotic chromosomes. However, the hypothesis certainly requires further and more subtle experiments. The paper also further muddies the waters on the question of just what the CSR-1 22G-RNA system is doing in most cases. The recognition of histone mRNA 3’UTRs can only account for a very small proportion of this endo-siRNA population. As discussed in other posts the CSR-1 22G-RNA system is the prime candidate to be an epigenetic licensing anti-silencing pathway. Do the two different CSR-1 isoforms perform two different functions; one licensing transcription and the other replacing the U7 snRNA splicing apparatus? Is this pre-mRNA splicing role confined to histone mRNAs? An important first of this paper is the demonstration of a positive role in regulating gene expression for an RNAi system. Generally, the various RNAi pathways negatively regulate gene expression; either resulting in slicing and degradation of transcripts, directing silencing chromatin modifications etc. In this case mRNA processing by the CSR-1 endo-siRNA system leads to proper expression of histones at key periods of rapid cell division (eg. early embryogenesis). Personally, I’m looking forward to more contentious interpretations of this pathway from the research groups involved!

Avgousti DC, Palani S, Sherman Y, & Grishok A (2012). CSR-1 RNAi pathway positively regulates histone expression in C. elegans. The EMBO journal PMID: 22863779

Claycomb JM, Batista PJ, Pang KM, Gu W, Vasale JJ, van Wolfswinkel JC, Chaves DA, Shirayama M, Mitani S, Ketting RF, Conte D Jr, & Mello CC (2009). The Argonaute CSR-1 and its 22G-RNA cofactors are required for holocentric chromosome segregation. Cell, 139 (1), 123-34 PMID: 19804758

Lysine Crotonylation and the Histone Code

A recent study has identified 67 new histone modifications, bringing the current total of known histone marks to 163. Two new classes of modification were discovered: lysine crotonylation and tyrosine hydroxylation. Tan et al go on to show that crotonylated lysine marks active promoters and potentially plays an important role in male germ cell differentiation.

Eukaryotic chromosomal DNA is condensed by being wound around octamers of histone proteins to form nucleosomes. Post-translational modifications (PTMs) of histones can modulate chromatin structure, altering its biological activity (for example it’s transcription status). Different combinations of histone proteins and their PTMs are found through the genome and between different cell types. Deciphering this ‘histone code’ is crucial to our understanding of cellular regulation and differentiation, and is therefore the focus of huge amounts of current biological research.

Prior to this new paper at least twelve different types of histone PTM, at over sixty different amino acid residues had been reported. These include the most commonly discussed such as methylation and acetylation, as well as esoterica like citrullination. By performing a highly comprehensive survey of histone PTMs based on mass spectrometry, Tan et al have identified two new types of modification and 67 new histone marks.

The structure of the nucleosome. The four core histones are in different colours. Their N terminal tails are protruding from the nucleosome.

Nucleosomal cores consist of histone octamers containing two molecules each of histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. Interactions between histone proteins and between histones and DNA are generally mediated within the globular core domains of the histone proteins, whilst their N-terminal tails protrude from the nucleosome and have been considered the primary sites for post-translational modifications. However, this new study identified many histone PTMs within the globular cores, suggesting that previous methods of PTM identification have been biased against their discovery.

Tan et al also report further characterisation of one of the new types of histone PTM: lysine crotonylation (KCr). Crotonylation was found at 28 different lysine residues from all four core histones and the linker histone H1. KCr was detected in histones isolated from yeast, nematodes and fruit flies, as well as mice and humans.

Using an antibody that recognised all lysine crotonylation, chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) showed that histone KCr was associated with active chromatin and was particularly enriched at promoter and enhancer regions.

Tan et al went on to find that during mouse spermatogenesis histone KCr is highly enriched in post-meiotic spermatids, coinciding with a general transcriptional shutdown. By using ChIP-seq in combination with transcriptomic data, they showed that KCr was marking a group of genes on the sex chromosomes that are transcriptionally active, whilst the rest of the sex chromosome is inactivated.

Lysine crotonylation appears to be an important new PTM adding even more complexity to an already complex field of study. The comprehensiveness of the technique employed for PTM identification used in this study, however, suggests that there may not be too many more histone marks to add to the list. The next questions to ask will be whether crotonylation of different lysine residues correlates with different biological events? What enzymes are responsible for the addition and removal of crotonyl modification? And what effects does the disruption of their activity have? What proteins interact with KCr? As can be ascertained from this taster, deciphering the histone code is going to keep a lot of people busy for a long time.

Tan, M., Luo, H., Lee, S., Jin, F., Yang, J., Montellier, E., Buchou, T., Cheng, Z., Rousseaux, S., Rajagopal, N., Lu, Z., Ye, Z., Zhu, Q., Wysocka, J., Ye, Y., Khochbin, S., Ren, B., & Zhao, Y. (2011). Identification of 67 Histone Marks and Histone Lysine Crotonylation as a New Type of Histone Modification Cell, 146 (6), 1016-1028 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.008

Chromatin Assembly and Asymmetric Neuronal Cell Fate Specification

A new paper in Cell by Nakano et al describes the first mutant histone allele recovered from a genetic screen of a multicellular organism. This gain of function mutation in a histone H3 gene of C. elegans causes a very specific defect: a transformation in the fate of a single asymmetric motor neuron. To account for these findings the authors put forward a radical model in which differential epigenetic regulation between sister chromatids leads to asymmetric fate determination upon cell division.

The nematode worm C. elegans has an invariant cell lineage, meaning that any particular cell is generated from a specific series of mother and grandmother cells. Differences between daughter cells are determined either by non-cell autonomous mechanisms such as signalling by neighbouring cells, or by cell autonomous mechanisms such as the asymmetric inheritance of cell fate determinants, or by both.

The MI motor neuron is a left-right unpaired neuron located in the pharynx. The great-great-grandmother cell of MI gives rise to left and right paired lineages of cells, symmetrical, except for one left-right asymmetry: the MI motor neuron and the e3D pharyngeal epithelial cell. The researchers had previously shown that the MI-e3D asymmetry was dependent on a cascade of transcription factors asymmetrically expressed in the grandmother and mother cells of MI: CEH-36 (an Otx homeodomain protein) promoted the expression of the bHLH containing proneural proteins NGN-1 and HLH-2. When any of these proteins are inactivated, the MI neuron is transformed into an e3D-like cell.

In a genetic screen to find other factors involved in the MI-e3D asymmetry, Nakano et al identified a gain of function allele in the gene his-9 as causing MI-e3D transformation. his-9 encodes one of 14 identical replication-dependent histone H3 proteins in C. elegans.

In eukaryotes, chromosomal DNA is condensed by being wound around octamers of various histone proteins to form nucleosomes. Alterations to nucleosome structure or density can determine the accessibility of the DNA to the transcriptional apparatus, and hence the transcription state of that piece of chromatin. These variable chromatin states are said to be ‘epigenetically’ determined, as they can be maintained through mitoses by the inheritance of the modification status of histones (and other non-DNA sequence chromosomal features).

The nucleosome core contains a tetramer composed of two histone H3/ H4 dimers. This dimerisation occurs due to interactions between the two H3 molecules. It was these H3-H3 interactions that were compromised in the original mutant allele. The addition of similarly mutated versions of other replication dependent histone H3 genes into wild type worms also had the ability to transform the fate of the MI and yet showed no other gross abnormalisties. This showed that MI cell fate specification is very sensitive to gain of function mutations in histone H3 genes.

By generating worms that carried mutant his-9 transgenes on an extrachromasomal array that is mitotically unstable (hence creating mosaic worms), Nakano et al showed that the histone H3 gain of function activity acts cell autonomously within the MI mother cell.

Histone H3-H4 dimers are deposited into the nucleosome by a histone chaperone complex called CAF-1. Compromising the activity of any of the CAF-1 subunits in C. elegans also caused MI transformation. Therefore, replication dependent nucleosome formation mediated by CAF-1 is necessary to generate MI-e3D asymmetry.

To integrate their earlier findings with their new data, Nakano et al suggest that the NGN-1/HLH-2 complex recruits histone modifying enzymes that act on CAF-1 assembled nucleosomal arrays to generate an epigenetically marked MI-neuronal state. They combine this with the idea that CAF-1 can generate differences in the densities of nucleosomes between sister chromatids that upon mitotic segregation would generate a difference between sister cells. MI neuronal fate determination would require NGN-1/HLH-2 mediated histone modifications to be found at a specific (CAF-1 mediated) density.

To my knowledge, the idea that epigenetic marks, asymmetrically inherited, can act as cell fate determinants is novel and potentially a very important mechanism of development. In this case it is only a model that will require a lot more experimentation, however the authors go on to suggest that it could be a conserved mechanism generating bilateral asymmetries in the nervous systems of mammals as well. Mutations in a microtubule-based motor protein called left-right dynein (LRD) randomize visceral left-right asymmetry in the mouse due to defective cilia causing a left-right determining flow in the node to fail. LRD has also been implicated in biased chromatid segregation and interestingly rather than randomized asymmetry in the brain, LRD mutant mouse hippocampuses exhibit a loss of bilateral asymmetry that the authors suggest could be caused by parallel mechanisms as MI-e3D asymmetry. This is probably a leap too far, but fun anyway.

Nakano, S., Stillman, B., & Horvitz, H. (2011). Replication-Coupled Chromatin Assembly Generates a Neuronal Bilateral Asymmetry in C. elegans Cell, 147 (7), 1525-1536 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.053