Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e9 (September 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages (July 2011)
Advertisements

Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages (April 2013)
Dynamic epigenetic enhancer signatures reveal key transcription factors associated with monocytic differentiation states by Thu-Hang Pham, Christopher.
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages (April 2016)
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages (July 2016)
by Christopher J. Ott, Nadja Kopp, Liat Bird, Ronald M
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages (August 2012)
Taichi Umeyama, Takashi Ito  Cell Reports 
Volume 59, Issue 3, Pages (August 2015)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages (April 2014)
SAGA Is a General Cofactor for RNA Polymerase II Transcription
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
N6-Methyladenosines Modulate A-to-I RNA Editing
Schedule-dependent interaction between anticancer treatments
Hyeshik Chang, Jaechul Lim, Minju Ha, V. Narry Kim  Molecular Cell 
Human Senataxin Resolves RNA/DNA Hybrids Formed at Transcriptional Pause Sites to Promote Xrn2-Dependent Termination  Konstantina Skourti-Stathaki, Nicholas J.
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages (May 2018)
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
The Translational Landscape of the Mammalian Cell Cycle
Widespread Inhibition of Posttranscriptional Splicing Shapes the Cellular Transcriptome following Heat Shock  Reut Shalgi, Jessica A. Hurt, Susan Lindquist,
m6A Facilitates eIF4F-Independent mRNA Translation
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 60, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2018)
Hyeshik Chang, Jaechul Lim, Minju Ha, V. Narry Kim  Molecular Cell 
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages (April 2012)
FOXO3a Is Activated in Response to Hypoxic Stress and Inhibits HIF1-Induced Apoptosis via Regulation of CITED2  Walbert J. Bakker, Isaac S. Harris, Tak.
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages e6 (April 2017)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages e3 (January 2018)
Jong-Eun Park, Hyerim Yi, Yoosik Kim, Hyeshik Chang, V. Narry Kim 
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages (January 2018)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages e6 (December 2017)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 66, Issue 4, Pages e4 (May 2017)
P53 Pulses Diversify Target Gene Expression Dynamics in an mRNA Half-Life- Dependent Manner and Delineate Co-regulated Target Gene Subnetworks  Joshua R.
Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 13, Pages (September 2017)
Synthetic Oligonucleotides Inhibit CRISPR-Cpf1-Mediated Genome Editing
H2B Ubiquitylation Promotes RNA Pol II Processivity via PAF1 and pTEFb
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages (April 2011)
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages (December 2014)
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages e6 (May 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 20, Issue 13, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages e7 (August 2018)
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages e3 (October 2018)
Shipra Das, Olga Anczuków, Martin Akerman, Adrian R. Krainer 
Taichi Umeyama, Takashi Ito  Cell Reports 
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages (November 2014)
Multiplex Enhancer Interference Reveals Collaborative Control of Gene Regulation by Estrogen Receptor α-Bound Enhancers  Julia B. Carleton, Kristofer.
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 62, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages e4 (May 2019)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages 1013-1025.e9 (September 2017) Global Inhibition with Specific Activation: How p53 and MYC Redistribute the Transcriptome in the DNA Double-Strand Break Response  Joshua R. Porter, Brian E. Fisher, Laura Baranello, Julia C. Liu, Diane M. Kambach, Zuqin Nie, Woo Seuk Koh, Ji Luo, Jayne M. Stommel, David Levens, Eric Batchelor  Molecular Cell  Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages 1013-1025.e9 (September 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028 Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Dynamics of Key Regulators during the DNA Damage Response (A–H) Levels of (A) p53 protein (n = 5), (C) Mdm2 protein (n = 3), and (E) MYC protein (n = 5) were measured by western blotting in MCF-7 cells treated with NCS. Levels of (B) MDM2 mRNA (n = 4) and (D) MYC mRNA (n = 4) were measured by qPCR in MCF-7 p53-Venus cells treated with NCS, as described previously (Porter et al., 2016). Levels of (F) p53 protein (n = 3) and (H) MYC protein (n = 3) were measured by western blotting in p53-knockdown cells (MCF-7 sh-p53) treated with NCS. Levels of (G) MYC mRNA (n = 4) were measured by qPCR in MCF-7 sh-p53 cells treated with NCS, as described previously (Porter et al., 2016). Measurements in (F)–(H) are normalized to those in untreated control cells (MCF-7 pSuper) (Brummelkamp et al., 2002). Gray backgrounds denote early response prior to p53-driven response. Data are represented as mean ± SEM. Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Mechanism of p53-Mediated Repression of MYC (A) ChIP-seq reads for p53 binding near MYC in MCF-7 cells treated with NCS for 3 hr (top track) and untreated MCF-7 cells (second track) are shown along with p53-binding peaks (red) and their scores as called by model-based analysis of ChIP-seq (MACS). Read counts are normalized to total reads for each treatment. Peaks shown are the intersection of those identified in n = 2 biological replicates. All peaks in a 1-Mb-wide window centered on MYC are shown. Untreated cells had no p53-binding peaks in this window. RefSeq-annotated genes are shown (third track); enhancers and repressive element (fourth track) were identified by Fulco et al. (2016). H3K27ac ChIP-seq reads (bottom track) are from the ENCODE project (Dunham et al., 2012). (B) Close-up view of the largest p53-binding peak shown in (A). p53 consensus-binding motifs RRRCWWGYYY (el-Deiry et al., 1992) are shown in addition to data in (A). (C) Region of chromosome 8 excised by CRISPR/Cas9 to generate MCF-7 ΔMYCp53RE cell line. (D) Levels of MYC protein were measured by western blotting in NCS-treated MCF-7 ΔMYCp53RE cells. Measurements are normalized to those in untreated MCF-7 CRISPR-control cells. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). (E) Nucleosomes in the region of chromosome 8 shown in (B) in MCF-7 and MCF-7 sh-p53 cells, treated with NCS for 3 hr or not treated. Nucleosomes were identified by DANPOS from ATAC-seq data. RefSeq-annotated genes are shown (bottom track). (F) Nucleosomes around the MYC promoter. RefSeq-annotated genes are shown along with alternate MYC promoters P1 and P2 (bottom track). See also Figure S1. Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 A Cell System to Control MYC Expression (A) MCF-7 variants with doxycycline-inducible constructs, including schematics of desired MYC expression in cell lines. (B) MYC dynamics in MYC-GFP cells during the DSB response. Levels of MYC protein were measured by western blotting in MYC-GFP cells treated with NCS; bands for endogenous MYC and MYC-GFP were quantified separately. Gray backgrounds denote early response prior to p53-driven response. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Redistribution of the Transcriptome during the DNA DSB Response (A and B) Fold changes in mean production of all cellular transcripts 2.5–3.5 hr after NCS treatment in (A) GFP cells and (B) MYC-GFP cells compared with untreated GFP cells. Transcripts with at least 5 reads in each replicate (n = 3) of each cell line/treatment condition are included. Transcripts are ordered by fold change in mean production. (C and D) Fold changes in mean production of p53 target transcripts, as identified by Allen et al. (2014), 2.5–3.5 hr after NCS treatment in (C) GFP cells and (D) MYC-GFP cells compared with untreated GFP cells. (E) Fold changes in mean transcription of select p53 target genes and control genes 2.5–3.5 hr after NCS treatment in MYC-GFP and GFP cells, compared with untreated GFP cells, as measured by RNA-seq. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3 for each condition). (F) Density plot of fold changes in mean production of cellular transcripts in untreated MYC-GFP cells relative to untreated GFP cells as a function of mean production in untreated GFP cells. Spearman correlation coefficient between expression in untreated GFP cells and fold change due to MYC above its basal level is ρ = 0.155. (G) Density plot of fold changes in mean production of cellular transcripts in NCS-treated GFP cells relative to untreated GFP cells as a function of mean production in untreated GFP cells. Spearman correlation coefficient between expression in untreated GFP cells and fold change due to NCS is ρ = −0.151. For (F) and (G), transcripts of length ≥1,500 bases with at least 5 reads in each replicate (n = 3) of each cell line/treatment condition are included. Pink lines represent median fold change in each bin, calculated for bins with at least 40 transcripts. See also Figure S2 and Table S1. Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Effects of MYC Levels on the Transcriptome during the DNA DSB Response (A) Density plot of fold changes in mean transcription in NCS-treated MYC-GFP cells (n = 3) relative to untreated GFP cells (n = 3) versus fold changes in mean transcription in NCS-treated GFP cells (n = 3) relative to untreated GFP cells (n = 3). Transcripts are divided into groups I–IV based on their fold change due to the DSB response and their fold change due to MYC held above its basal level during the DSB response. (B and C) Examples of (B) apoptosis- and (C) cell-cycle-related gene sets found to be significantly enriched in NCS-treated MYC-GFP cells over NCS-treated GFP cells. Normalized enrichment scores (NESs), false discovery rate q-values, and nominal p values are shown. See also Figure S3 and Table S2. Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 MYC-Mediated Effects on Cell Fate during the DNA DSB Response (A–C) Cell cycle distributions of MYC-GFP and GFP cells that were (A) not treated with NCS, (B) treated with NCS for 24 hr, or (C) treated with NCS for 48 hr. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). (D) Annexin V (AV) and propidium iodide (PI) staining showing the percentage of cells in early apoptosis (high AV, low PI) and late apoptosis (high AV, high PI) in RPE1 MYC-GFP and RPE1 GFP cells after the indicated treatments. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 4). Asterisks (∗) denote statistically significant differences between MYC-GFP and GFP cells or between RPE1 MYC-GFP and RPE1 GFP cells (p < 0.05, two-sample t test). Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 “Global Inhibition with Specific Activation” in the Response to DNA DSBs During the DSB response, p53 acts through MYC along with its other targets, suppressing transcription of most genes while selectively activating genes involved in the response. This redistribution of the transcriptome guides cell fate decisions. Molecular Cell 2017 67, 1013-1025.e9DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2017.07.028) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions