CTCF Binding Polarity Determines Chromatin Looping

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CTCF: the protein, the binding partners, the binding sites and their chromatin loops by Sjoerd Johannes Bastiaan Holwerda, and Wouter de Laat Philosophical.
Advertisements

Primary vitamin D receptor target genes as biomarkers for the vitamin D3 status in the hematopoietic system  Julia Wilfinger, Sabine Seuter, Tomi-Pekka.
Primary vitamin D receptor target genes as biomarkers for the vitamin D3 status in the hematopoietic system  Julia Wilfinger, Sabine Seuter, Tomi-Pekka.
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages (April 2018)
Can We Just Say: Transcription Second?
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages (May 2010)
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages (March 2017)
Volume 18, Issue 12, Pages (March 2017)
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages (July 2016)
Super-Enhancers at the Nanog Locus Differentially Regulate Neighboring Pluripotency- Associated Genes  Steven Blinka, Michael H. Reimer, Kirthi Pulakanti,
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages (April 2015)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
A Phase Separation Model for Transcriptional Control
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages (May 2016)
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages (July 2010)
Lu Bai, Andrej Ondracka, Frederick R. Cross  Molecular Cell 
by Denes Hnisz, Abraham S. Weintraub, Daniel S
3D Chromosome Regulatory Landscape of Human Pluripotent Cells
Lucas J.T. Kaaij, Robin H. van der Weide, René F. Ketting, Elzo de Wit 
Formation of Chromosomal Domains by Loop Extrusion
by Varun Narendra, Pedro P. Rocha, Disi An, Ramya Raviram, Jane A
Adrien Le Thomas, Georgi K. Marinov, Alexei A. Aravin  Cell Reports 
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages (November 2015)
Target-Specific Precision of CRISPR-Mediated Genome Editing
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages e7 (April 2017)
The Stat3/GR Interaction Code: Predictive Value of Direct/Indirect DNA Recruitment for Transcription Outcome  David Langlais, Catherine Couture, Aurélio.
Volume 159, Issue 2, Pages (October 2014)
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages (April 2016)
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages (December 2014)
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages (July 2013)
New Insights into Genome Structure: Genes of a Feather Stick Together
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages (March 2010)
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages e6 (April 2017)
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages e6 (December 2017)
Volume 132, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages (November 2016)
Volume 66, Issue 4, Pages e4 (May 2017)
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages (August 2016)
DNA Looping Facilitates Targeting of a Chromatin Remodeling Enzyme
Gene Density, Transcription, and Insulators Contribute to the Partition of the Drosophila Genome into Physical Domains  Chunhui Hou, Li Li, Zhaohui S.
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages (August 2010)
Functional Landscape of PCGF Proteins Reveals Both RING1A/B-Dependent-and RING1A/B-Independent-Specific Activities  Andrea Scelfo, Daniel Fernández-Pérez,
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages (December 2014)
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages (July 2012)
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages (January 2011)
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages (April 2015)
Pervasive Targeting of Nascent Transcripts by Hfq
Multiplex Enhancer Interference Reveals Collaborative Control of Gene Regulation by Estrogen Receptor α-Bound Enhancers  Julia B. Carleton, Kristofer.
The 3D Genome in Transcriptional Regulation and Pluripotency
Presentation transcript:

CTCF Binding Polarity Determines Chromatin Looping Elzo de Wit, Erica S.M. Vos, Sjoerd J.B. Holwerda, Christian Valdes-Quezada, Marjon J.A.M. Verstegen, Hans Teunissen, Erik Splinter, Patrick J. Wijchers, Peter H.L. Krijger, Wouter de Laat  Molecular Cell  Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages 676-684 (November 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Molecular Cell 2015 60, 676-684DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 4C-Seq Shows that CTCF Motif Orientation Is Associated with Chromatin Looping (A) Example 4C-seq experiments showing looping. Top panels show smoothened (running mean) 4C profiles. Below the 4C signal, peaks identified by our peak calling algorithm are shown by red rectangles (“Called peaks”). “VP” indicates 4C viewpoint, (∗) indicate primary loops, and (∗∗) indicate secondary loops. Gray triangles show the forward and reverse orientation of shared CTCF-cohesin binding sites. Bottom panels show ChIP-seq signal for CTCF and Smc1 (cohesin). TADs (green rectangles, top) and H3K27ac sites (bottom) are indicated. See also Figure S1. (B) Quantification of all CTCF motif orientations that we identified engaged in chromatin looping in ESCs. Top panels show a density plot of the log10 size distribution of the loops in each class. (C) Same as (B) but for NPCs. Molecular Cell 2015 60, 676-684DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Chromatin Looping Requires CTCF Association (A and B) ChIP-qPCR results showing that disruption of the CTCF consensus sequence via genome editing abolishes CTCF (A) and Rad21/cohesin (B) binding. Shown are the average (±SEM) of two independent del/del clones (blue) for each locus (Malt1, Sox2, Fbn2), versus wild-type (red), expressed as ChIP enrichment over an unbound site (Actin promoter). Value of 1 (dashed line) indicates no enrichment. (C–E) 4C-seq contact profiles (averages of at least two biological replicates) showing overlays of contacts formed by wild-type (red) and deleted (del/del, blue) CTCF sites at the Malt1 (C), Sox2 (D), and Fbn2 (E) loci. The orientation of shared CTCF/cohesin sites is shown by gray triangles. Targeted CTCF sites (scissors), the convergent contact partners (asterisks), and 4C viewpoints (VP) are indicated. Top plots show 4C results from targeted site, bottom from contacted site. Called contacts in wild-type (red) and deleted (blue) clones are indicated. Underneath 4C plots, CTCF and Smc1/cohesin ChIP-seq profiles, genes, H3K27ac peaks (dark blue), and super-enhancers (dark green) (Whyte et al., 2013) are indicated. See also Figure S2. (F and G) ChIP-qPCR results plotted as above, showing that CTCF (F) and Rad21/cohesin (G) binding at the detached looping partners (asterisks) are not affected. Molecular Cell 2015 60, 676-684DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Inverted CTCF Sites Restore CTCF Binding but Not Chromatin Looping (A and B) ChIP-qPCR results showing that inversion of the CTCF consensus sequence via genome editing enables CTCF (A) and Rad21/cohesin (B) recruitment to the targeted site. Shown is the average (±SEM) of two independent inv/inv clones for Sox2, or the ChIP enrichment for the one inv/inv of Fnb2 (both in green), versus wild-type (red). (C–E) 4C-seq contact profiles (averages of at least two biological or two technical [Malt1 inv/wt, Fbn2 inv/inv] replicates) showing overlays of contacts formed by wild-type (red) and inverted (green) CTCF sites at Malt1 (C), Sox2 (D), and Fbn2 (E) loci. Called contacts in wild-type (red) and inverted (green) clones are indicated. See also Figure S3. (F and G) ChIP-qPCR results plotted as above, showing that CTCF (F) and Rad21/cohesin (G) binding at the detached looping partners (asterisks) is not affected. Molecular Cell 2015 60, 676-684DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Chromatin Loop Disruption Can Dysregulate Gene Expression (A–C) qPCR expression analysis of genes at the (A) Malt1 locus, (B) Sox2 locus, and (C) Fbn2 locus. Shown is the average (± SEM) of multiple clones, each analyzed in triplicate. Expression without error bars indicates that a single clone was analyzed in triplicate. See also Figure S4. Molecular Cell 2015 60, 676-684DOI: (10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.023) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions