Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Pol II Docking and Pausing at Growth and Stress Genes in C. elegans
Advertisements

Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages e6 (July 2017)
Grounded: Transcriptional Pausing in Naive mESCs
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 13, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages (May 2010)
Expression profiling of snoRNAs in normal hematopoiesis and AML
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (August 2012)
Roger B. Deal, Steven Henikoff  Developmental Cell 
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-11 (January 2017)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (May 2018)
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 159, Issue 4, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages e5 (May 2017)
N6-Methyladenosines Modulate A-to-I RNA Editing
Volume 63, Issue 2, Pages (July 2016)
A Computational Algorithm to Predict shRNA Potency
Adrien Le Thomas, Georgi K. Marinov, Alexei A. Aravin  Cell Reports 
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (May 2010)
Widespread Inhibition of Posttranscriptional Splicing Shapes the Cellular Transcriptome following Heat Shock  Reut Shalgi, Jessica A. Hurt, Susan Lindquist,
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages (February 2008)
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2018)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Michal Levin, Tamar Hashimshony, Florian Wagner, Itai Yanai 
Wei Jiang, Yuting Liu, Rui Liu, Kun Zhang, Yi Zhang  Cell Reports 
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Jamie A. Hackett, Toshihiro Kobayashi, Sabine Dietmann, M. Azim Surani 
Pol II Docking and Pausing at Growth and Stress Genes in C. elegans
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 25, Issue 13, Pages e5 (December 2018)
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages e5 (July 2017)
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages (September 2014)
Baekgyu Kim, Kyowon Jeong, V. Narry Kim  Molecular Cell 
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages (June 2018)
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages (February 2017)
Volume 132, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 122, Issue 6, Pages (September 2005)
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages (January 2018)
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages (August 2010)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (July 2015)
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages (December 2014)
Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages (September 2007)
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages e5 (May 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (September 2009)
CNOT3-Dependent mRNA Deadenylation Safeguards the Pluripotent State
Maria S. Robles, Sean J. Humphrey, Matthias Mann  Cell Metabolism 
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages (December 2016)
Lab-Specific Gene Expression Signatures in Pluripotent Stem Cells
CD4+CLA+CD103+ T cells from human blood and skin share a transcriptional profile. CD4+CLA+CD103+ T cells from human blood and skin share a transcriptional.
Fig. 2 Dynamics of H3K4me3 in human early development.
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages (May 2015)
Genome-wide Functional Analysis Reveals Factors Needed at the Transition Steps of Induced Reprogramming  Chao-Shun Yang, Kung-Yen Chang, Tariq M. Rana 
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e4 (May 2017)
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages e4 (May 2019)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 135-141 (February 2015) Dynamic Transcription of Distinct Classes of Endogenous Retroviral Elements Marks Specific Populations of Early Human Embryonic Cells  Jonathan Göke, Xinyi Lu, Yun-Shen Chan, Huck-Hui Ng, Lam-Ha Ly, Friedrich Sachs, Iwona Szczerbinska  Cell Stem Cell  Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 135-141 (February 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.005 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Cell Stem Cell 2015 16, 135-141DOI: (10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.005) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Stage-Specific Expression of ERV Families Characterizes the Transcriptome of Human Preimplantation Embryos (A) Fraction of RNA-seq reads that map to LTR retrotransposons. Boxplots show the distribution for all single cells from the different developmental stages. Data from Xue et al. (2013) and Yan et al. (2013). (B) PCA on the ERV expression estimates in human preimplantation embryos. The 5,000 ERV elements that showed the highest variation between the stages were selected. All ERV elements that overlapped exons were removed. ERV expression is characteristic of the different developmental stages. (C) Normalized RNA-seq for three loci that show stage-specific ERV expression. Data from single cells is shown in light blue (overlaid), the mean from all samples per stage is indicated in black. The blue boxes highlight the stage-specific ERV elements (HERVK14, THE1A, and HERVK). (D) Stage-specific enrichment of ERV families ordered by significance. Significance was calculated with a paired Wilcoxon test on the average expression of ERV elements across RNA-seq replicates in one stage in comparison to the average expression of ERV elements in all other stages. Large families were removed for this analysis (>5,000 elements). (E) Number of ERV family members which are stage-specifically expressed (p < 0.001) and mean normalized expression from single-cell RNA-seq data in early human embryos for the stage-specific ERV elements. (F) Normalized mean expression of the 20 most significantly stage-specific protein-coding genes and normalized expression of stage-specific families of ERVs. The mean of stage-specific ERV elements belonging to the family is shown, and every point corresponds to one RNA-seq experiment. (G) Heatmap showing expression levels of ERV elements in epiblast cells and non-epiblast blastocyst cells. Cells were sorted by the level of NANOG expression, and ERV elements were sorted by the expression fold change between the two groups. Shown are ERV elements with differential expression p value < 0.001 (Wilcoxon test). Significance for enrichment of families was estimated with Fisher’s test. See also Figure S1 and Table S1. Cell Stem Cell 2015 16, 135-141DOI: (10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.005) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Regulation and Transcript Structure of Stage-Specific ERV Elements (A) ERV expression in epiblast cells and hESCs (passage 10). Shown are differentially expressed elements (p < 0.001) sorted by expression fold change. Significance for enrichment of families was estimated with Fisher’s test. Individual ERV elements which were selected for qPCR validation are shown below. (B) Expression of epiblast-specific ERV elements in hESCs and epiblast-like 3iL hESCs (Chan et al., 2013). Significance was estimated with Wilcoxon’s paired test on the mean from three replicates. (C) Expression of ERV elements in hESCs during the transition to an epiblast-like state (3iL). Total RNA was harvested from cells treated with 3iL media after 2, 4, and 8 days. Control samples were cultured in mTeSR1. Relative expression was obtained after normalization to the control sample. All values are means ± SEM from three independent experiments (n = 3). (D) NANOG binding and H3K4me3 at LTR7-HERVH elements in 3iL hESCs. Boxplots represent the distribution of read counts for expressed LTR7-HERVH elements which were split into 100 equally sized segments. (E) Activity of control promoter and LTR7 driven Renilla luciferase during NANOG knockdown (KD). Renilla luciferase activity was normalized to firefly luciferase activity. Normalized Renilla luciferase activity of control KD sample is set as 1. Biological triplicate data (n = 3) is presented as mean ± SEM. (F) Left, sequence alignment of stage-specific LTR7, LTR7B, and LTR7Y elements. Clustering was performed with hierarchical clustering on the basis of the hamming distance. The color indicates percentage identity. Right, expression estimates for all LTR elements shown in the alignment (left). The clustering of LTR elements on the basis of sequence similarity clusters LTR elements in groups that are co-expressed in early embryos, indicating that the DNA sequence of the LTR elements potentially determines the expression pattern. (G) Normalized read count for single-cell RNA-seq samples from hESCs, blastocysts, and morula. Only uniquely mapped reads are shown. Left, LTR7-HERVH elements are expressed in hESCs and epiblast cells from the blastocyst. Middle, LTR7Y-HERVH elements are expressed in blastocyst-stage embryos and morula. Right, LTR7B-HERVH elements are expressed in morula and eight-cell-stage embryos. (H) Activation of a blastocyst-specific LTR7Y reporter in epiblast-like hESCs. Shown are H1 hESCs carrying a transgenic LTR7Y-GFP reporter cultured in either conventional mTeSR1 medium or 3iL medium. Wild-type H1 hESCs are shown as control (uninfected). (I) Percentage of LTR7Y-GFP-positive hESCs in mTeSR1 and 3iL medium determined by flow cytometry. Biological duplicate data (n = 2) are presented as mean percentage. (J) Coding potential of stage-specific ERV elements, protein-coding genes, and lincRNAs. The dotted line indicates the threshold for protein-coding genes (1). (K) Percentage of stage-specific ERV elements that show splicing (at least one split RNA-seq read). (L) Top, sequence alignment of MLT2A1 elements that show eight-cell-specific expression. Color indicates percentage identity. Positions with more than 95% gaps were removed for visualization. Graph on top, fraction of sequences that have the consensus nucleotide. Middle, RNA-seq read count per nucleotide of the alignment for each MLT2A1 element. The read count from multiple samples was averaged for every position. Graph on top, mean read count across all MLT2A1 elements in the alignment. Bottom, RNA-seq read count for split reads per nucleotide of the alignment shown on top. Read count from multiple samples was averaged for every position. Graph on top, mean split read count across all MLT2A1 elements in the alignment. MLT2A1 elements are consistently spliced at a fixed position. (M) Sequence logo for the MLT2A1 splice donor sites (left) and the splice acceptor sites (right). Splice acceptor sites are mostly of non-ERV origin (83%). (N) Percentage of MLT2A1 splicing events which are annotated as protein-coding, lncRNAs (including lincRNAs and other lncRNAs) or that are unannotated. (O) Sequence logo for splice donor sites originating from stage-specific ERV elements (left) and sequence logo for the corresponding splice acceptor sites (right). (P) Percentage of ERV splicing events which are annotated as protein-coding lncRNA and that are unannotated. See also Figure S2 and Table S2. Cell Stem Cell 2015 16, 135-141DOI: (10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.005) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions