Advertisement

Chromosoma

, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 89–102 | Cite as

Association of cohesin and Nipped-B with transcriptionally active regions of the Drosophila melanogaster genome

  • Ziva Misulovin
  • Yuri B. Schwartz
  • Xiao-Yong Li
  • Tatyana G. Kahn
  • Maria Gause
  • Stewart MacArthur
  • Justin C. Fay
  • Michael B. Eisen
  • Vincenzo Pirrotta
  • Mark D. Biggin
  • Dale Dorsett
Research Article

Abstract

The cohesin complex is a chromosomal component required for sister chromatid cohesion that is conserved from yeast to man. The similarly conserved Nipped-B protein is needed for cohesin to bind to chromosomes. In higher organisms, Nipped-B and cohesin regulate gene expression and development by unknown mechanisms. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation, we find that Nipped-B and cohesin bind to the same sites throughout the entire non-repetitive Drosophila genome. They preferentially bind transcribed regions and overlap with RNA polymerase II. This contrasts sharply with yeast, where cohesin binds almost exclusively between genes. Differences in cohesin and Nipped-B binding between Drosophila cell lines often correlate with differences in gene expression. For example, cohesin and Nipped-B bind the Abd-B homeobox gene in cells in which it is transcribed, but not in cells in which it is silenced. They bind to the Abd-B transcription unit and downstream regulatory region and thus could regulate both transcriptional elongation and activation. We posit that transcription facilitates cohesin binding, perhaps by unfolding chromatin, and that Nipped-B then regulates gene expression by controlling cohesin dynamics. These mechanisms are likely involved in the etiology of Cornelia de Lange syndrome, in which mutation of one copy of the NIPBL gene encoding the human Nipped-B ortholog causes diverse structural and mental birth defects.

Keywords

Transcription Start Site Transcription Unit Sister Chromatid Cohesion Cohesin Subunit Microarray Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Cheri van de Bunte and Joel Eissenberg for comments on the manuscript and Jumin Zhou for helpful discussions. Kc167 and ML-DmBG3 cells were obtained from the Drosophila Genomics Resource Center at Indiana University. This work was supported by NIH grants R01GM055683 (DD), R01GM070444 (MDB), P01HD052860 (DD, Project III Director; Ian Krantz, PI), and March of Dimes FY05-103 (DD). Work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was performed under Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. The microarray CEL files have been deposited with the NCBI GEO database under accession no. GSE9248. Processed ChIP data files are available upon request.

Supplementary material

412_2007_129_MOESM1_ESM.doc (648 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Genes that bind cohesin within annotated transcription units (DOC 648 KB)
412_2007_129_Fig1_ESM.gif (65 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1

Binding of Nipped-B and cohesin to transcribed genes. The top panel shows the binding of RNA polymerase II (PolII), Nipped-B and cohesin subunits to the expressed Act5c actin gene in Sg4, Kc, and ML-DmBG3 (BG3) cells. The bottom shows the binding of PolII, Nipped-B, and cohesin to the Kr-h1 gene in Sg4 cells and lack of binding to the same gene in BG3 cells. The Sg4 tracks are in black, the Kc track is red, and the BG3 tracks are blue. The trimmed mean log2 IP/control values are plotted on a scale of −0.5 to 3.0, except for the Sg4 PolII track, which is on a scale of −0.5 to 3.5 (GIF 65 KB).

412_2007_129_Fig1_ESM.tif (9.8 mb)
High resolution image file (TIF 9.82 MB).
412_2007_129_Fig2_ESM.gif (65 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2

Nipped-B and cohesin bind preferentially to 5′ UTRs and introns. The plots compare the positions of predicted Nipped-B and SA peaks to annotated Drosophila genome features (Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project, April 2004 release; Celniker et al. 2002). Nipped-B and SA peaks predicted with a 25% false discovery rate using the TiMAT program are taken in rank order starting with the most significant from left to right in sliding windows of 500 peaks. For each window, the fraction of peaks that are in intergenic sequences, introns, coding sequences, and 3′ and 5′ UTRs are calculated. The color-coded straight lines labeled on the right show the fraction of the non-repetitive genome that corresponds to each genome feature. These data show that the largest fraction of the highest-ranked SA and Nipped-B peaks are in introns, followed by intergenic, 5′ UTR, coding, and 3′ UTR sequences. Relative to the fraction of the genome, SA cohesin and Nipped-B binding sites are most over-represented in 5′ UTRs, followed by introns, and are most under-represented in coding sequences, followed by 3′ UTRs and intergenic sequences (see Table 2). The top half of the peaks was used to calculate the binding preference ratios in Table 2 (GIF 65 KB).

412_2007_129_Fig2_ESM.tif (11.4 mb)
High resolution image file (TIF 11.3 MB).
412_2007_129_Fig3_ESM.gif (21 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 3

Nipped-B and cohesin binding peaks at transcription start sites. The average enrichment for Nipped-B and the SA cohesin subunit for microarray features is plotted for all genes that overlap cohesin binding regions in Sg4 cells from 10 kb upstream of the transcription start site (−10,000 bp) to 10 kb downstream of the transcription start site (10,000 bp) The IP to control ratios for all the microarray features in 500-bp windows were averaged. On average, both Nipped-B and SA enrichment are highest around the transcription start site, which is consistent with the high frequency of Nipped-B and cohesin peaks in 5′ UTRs (Supplementary Fig. 2). There is also a slight skewing towards the transcribed region, which is consistent with the slight preference of cohesin for introns seen in Supplementary Fig. 2, but does not explain the low occurrence of cohesin peaks in coding sequences (GIF 21.1 KB).

412_2007_129_Fig3_ESM.tif (4.2 mb)
High resolution image file (TIF 4.16 MB).

References

  1. Akbari OS, Bousum A, Bae E, Drewell RA (2006) Unraveling cis-regulatory mechanisms at the abdominal-A and Abdominal-B genes in the Drosophila bithorax complex. Dev Biol 293:294–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DE, Losada A, Erickson HP, Hirano T (2002) Condensin and cohesin display different arm conformations with characteristic hinge angles. J Cell Biol 156:419–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arumugam P, Gruber S, Tanaka K, Haering CH, Mechtler K, Nasmyth K (2003) ATP hydrolysis is required for cohesin's association with chromosomes. Curr Biol 13:1941–1953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bae E, Calhoun VC, Levine M, Lewis EB, Drewell RA (2002) Characterization of the intergenic RNA profile at abdominal-A and Abdominal-B in the Drosophila bithorax complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:16847–16852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blat Y, Kleckner N (1999) Cohesins bind to preferential sites along yeast chromosome III, with differential regulation along arms versus the centric region. Cell 98:249–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Celniker SE, Wheeler DA, Kronmiller B, Carlson JW, Halpern A, Patel S, Adams M, Champe M, Dugan SP, Frise E, Hodgson A, George RA, Hoskins RA, Laverty T, Muzny DM, Nelson CR, Pacleb JM, Park S, Pfeiffer BD, Richards S, Sodergren EJ, Svirskas R, Tabor PE, Wan K, Stapleton M, Sutton GG, Venter C, Weinstock G, Scherer SE, Myers EW, Gibbs RA, Rubin GM (2002) Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol 3:RESEARCH0079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang CR, Wu CS, Hom Y, Gartenberg MR (2005) Targeting of cohesin by transcriptionally silent chromatin. Genes Dev 19:3031–3042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciosk R, Shirayama M, Shevchenko A, Tanaka T, Toth A, Shevchenko A, Nasmyth K (2000) Cohesin’s binding to chromosomes depends on a separate complex consisting of Scc2 and Scc4 proteins. Mol Cell 5:243–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deardorff MA, Kaur M, Yaeger D, Rampuria A, Korolev S, Pie J, Gil-Rodriguez C, Arnedo M, Loeys B, Kline AD, Wilson M, Lillquist K, Siu V, Ramos FJ, Musio A, Jackson LS, Dorsett D, Krantz ID (2007) Mutations in cohesin complex members SMC3 and SMC1A cause a mild variant of Cornelia de Lange syndrome with predominant mental retardation. Am J Hum Genet 80:485–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donze D, Adams CR, Rine J, Kamakaka RT (1999) The boundaries of the silenced HMR domain in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev 13:698–708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorsett D (2004) Adherin: key to the cohesin ring and Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Curr Biol 14:R834–R836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorsett D (2007) Roles of the sister chromatid cohesion apparatus in gene expression, development, and human syndromes. Chromosoma 116:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorsett D, Eissenberg JC, Misulovin Z, Martens A, Redding B, McKim K (2005) Effects of sister chromatid cohesion proteins on cut gene expression during wing development in Drosophila. Development 132:4743–4753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drewell RA, Bae E, Burr J, Lewis EB (2002) Transcription defines the embryonic domains of cis-regulatory activity at the Drosophila bithorax complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16853–16858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubey RN, Gartenberg MR (2007) A tDNA establishes cohesion of a neighboring silent chromatin domain. Genes Dev 21:2150–2160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Echalier G, Ohanessian A (1970) In vitro culture of Drosophila melanogaster embryonic cells. In Vitro 6:162–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freidkin I, Katcoff DJ (2001) Specific distribution of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae linker histone homolog HHO1p in the chromatin. Nucleic Acids Res 29:4043–4051PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gause M, Webber HA, Misulovin Z, Haller G, Rollins RA, Eissenberg JC, Bickel SE, Dorsett D (2007) Functional links between Drosophila Nipped-B and cohesin in somatic and meiotic cells. Chromosoma Oct 2; [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  19. Gillespie PJ, Hirano T (2004) Scc2 couples replication licensing to sister chromatid cohesion in Xenopus egg extracts. Curr Biol 14:1598–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glynn EF, Megee PC, Yu HG, Mistrot C, Unal E, Koshland DE, DeRisi JL, Gerton JL (2004) Genome-wide mapping of the cohesin complex in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Biol 2:E259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartman T, Stead K, Koshland D, Guacci V (2000) Pds5p is an essential chromosomal protein required for both sister chromatid cohesion and condensation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Cell Biol 151:613–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirano T (2006) At the heart of the chromosome: SMC proteins in action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horsfield JA, Anagnostou SH, Hu JK, Cho KH, Geisler R, Lieschke G, Crosier KE, Crosier PS (2007) Cohesin-dependent regulation of Runx genes. Development 134:2639–2649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang CE, Milutinovich M, Koshland D (2005) Rings, bracelet or snaps: fashionable alternatives for Smc complexes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:537–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ivanov D, Nasmyth K (2005) A topological interaction between cohesin rings and a circular minichromosome. Cell 122:849–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ivanov D, Nasmyth K (2007) A physical assay for sister chromatid cohesion in vitro. Mol Cell 27:300–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson L, Kline AD, Barr M, Koch S (1993) de Lange syndrome: a clinical review of 310 individuals. Am J Med Genet 47:940–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahn TG, Schwartz YB, Dellino GI, Pirrotta V (2006) Polycomb complexes and the propagation of the methylation mark at the Drosophila Ubx gene. J Biol Chem 281:29064–29075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaur M, DeScipio C, McCallum J, Yaeger D, Devoto M, Jackson LG, Spinner NB, Krantz ID (2005) Precocious sister chromatid separation (PSCS) in Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Am J Med Genet A 138:27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Khetani RS, Bickel SE (2007) Regulation of meiotic cohesion and chromosome core morphogenesis during pachytene in Drosophila oocytes. J Cell Sci 120:3123–3137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krantz ID, McCallum J, DeScipio C, Kaur M, Gillis LA, Yaeger D, Jukofsky L, Wasserman N, Bottani A, Morris CA, Nowaczyk MJ, Toriello H, Bamshad MJ, Carey JC, Rappaport E, Kawauchi S, Lander AD, Calof AL, Li HH, Devoto M, Jackson LG (2004) Cornelia de Lange syndrome is caused by mutations in NIPBL, the human homolog of Drosophila melanogaster Nipped-B. Nat Genet 36:631–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lengronne A, Katou Y, Mori S, Yokobayashi S, Kelly GP, Itoh T, Watanabe Y, Shirahige K, Uhlmann F (2004) Cohesin relocation from sites of chromosomal loading to places of convergent transcription. Nature 430:573–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ling J, Ainol L, Zhang L, Yu X, Pi W, Tuan D (2004) HS2 enhancer function is blocked by a transcriptional terminator inserted between the enhancer and the promoter. J Biol Chem 279:51704–51713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Losada A (2007) Cohesin regulation: fashionable ways to wear a ring. Chromosoma 116:321–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Losada A, Yokochi T, Hirano T (2005) Functional contribution of Pds5 to cohesin-mediated cohesion in human cells and Xenopus egg extracts. J Cell Sci 118:2133–2141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maeda RK, Karch F (2006) The ABC of the BX-C: the bithorax complex explained. Development 133:1413–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Megee PC, Mistrot C, Guacci V, Koshland D (1999) The centromeric sister chromatid cohesion site directs Mcd1p binding to adjacent sequences. Mol Cell 4:445–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Musio A, Selicorni A, Focarelli ML, Gervasini C, Milani D, Russo S, Vezzoni P, Larizza L (2006) X-linked Cornelia de Lange syndrome owing to SMC1L1 mutations. Nat Genet 38:528–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nasmyth K, Haering CH (2005) The structure and function of SMC and kleisin complexes. Annu Rev Biochem 74:595–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Panizza S, Tanaka T, Hochwagen A, Eisenhaber F, Nasmyth K (2000) Pds5 cooperates with cohesin in maintaining sister chromatid cohesion. Curr Biol 10:1557–1564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rollins RA, Morcillo P, Dorsett D (1999) Nipped-B, a Drosophila homologue of chromosomal adherins, participates in activation by remote enhancers in the cut and Ultrabithorax genes. Genetics 152:577–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rollins RA, Korom M, Aulner N, Martens A, Dorsett D (2004) Drosophila Nipped-B protein supports sister chromatid cohesion and opposes the stromalin/Scc3 cohesion factor to facilitate long-range activation of the cut gene. Mol Cell Biol 24:3100–3111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwartz YB, Pirrotta V (2007) Polycomb silencing mechanisms and the management of genomic programmes. Nat Rev Genet 8:9–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwartz YB, Kahn TG, Nix DA, Li XY, Bourgon R, Biggin M, Pirrotta V (2006) Genome-wide analysis of Polycomb targets in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Genet 38:700–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seitan VC, Banks P, Laval S, Majid NA, Dorsett D, Rana A, Smith J, Bateman A, Krpic S, Hostert A, Rollins RA, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Benard CY, Hekimi S, Newbury SF, Strachan T (2006) Metazoan Scc4 homologs link sister chromatid cohesion to cell and axon migration guidance. PLoS Biol 4:e242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shilatifard A (2006) Chromatin modifications by methylation and ubiquitination: implications in the regulation of gene expression. Annu Rev Biochem 75:243–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stead K, Aguilar C, Hartman T, Drexel M, Meluh P, Guacci V (2003) Pds5p regulates the maintenance of sister chromatid cohesion and is sumoylated to promote the dissolution of cohesion. J Cell Biol 163:729–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strachan T (2005) Cornelia de Lange Syndrome and the link between chromosomal function, DNA repair and developmental gene regulation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 15:258–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sumara I, Vorlaufer E, Gieffers C, Peters BH, Peters JM (2007) Characterization of vertebrate cohesin complexes and their regulation in prophase. J Cell Biol 151:749–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Takahashi TS, Yiu P, Chou MF, Gygi S, Walter JC (2004) Recruitment of Xenopus Scc2 and cohesin to chromatin requires the pre-replication complex. Nat Cell Biol 6:991–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tanaka T, Cosma MP, Wirth K, Nasmyth K (1999) Identification of cohesin association sites at centromeres and along chromosome arms. Cell 98:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tanaka K, Hao Z, Kai M, Okayama H (2001) Establishment and maintenance of sister chromatid cohesion in fission yeast by a unique mechanism. EMBO J 20:5779–5790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tomonaga T, Nagao K, Kawasaki Y, Furuya K, Murakami A, Morishita J, Yuasa T, Sutani T, Kearsey SE, Uhlmann F, Nasmyth K, Yanagida M (2000) Characterization of fission yeast cohesin: essential anaphase proteolysis of Rad21 phosphorylated in the S phase. Genes Dev 14:2757–2770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tonkin ET, Wang TJ, Lisgo S, Bamshad MJ, Strachan T (2004) NIPBL, encoding a homolog of fungal Scc2-type sister chromatid cohesion proteins and fly Nipped-B, is mutated in Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Nat Genet 36:636–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ui K, Nishihara S, Sakuma M, Togashi S, Ueda R, Miyata Y, Miyake T (1994) Newly established cell lines from Drosophila larval CNS express neural specific characteristics. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 30A:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valdeolmillos A, Rufas JS, Suja JA, Vass S, Heck MM, Martinez A C, Barbero JL (2004) Drosophila cohesins DSA1 and Drad21 persist and colocalize along the centromeric heterochromatin during mitosis. Biol Cell 96:457–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vrouwe MG, Elghalbzouri-Maghrani E, Meijers M, Schouten P, Godthelp BC, Bhuiyan ZA, Redeker EJ, Mannens MM, Mullenders LH, Pastink A, Darroudi F (2007) Increased DNA damage sensitivity of Cornelia de Lange syndrome cells: evidence for impaired recombinational repair. Hum Mol 16:1478–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warren WD, Steffensen S, Lin E, Coelho P, Loupart M, Cobbe N, Lee JY, McKay MJ, Orr-Weaver T, Heck MM, Sunkel CE (2000) The Drosophila RAD21 cohesin persists at the centromere region in mitosis. Curr Biol 10:1463–1466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watrin E, Schleiffer A, Tanaka K, Eisenhaber F, Nasmyth K, Peters JM (2006) Human Scc4 is required for cohesin binding to chromatin, sister-chromatid cohesion, and mitotic progression. Curr Biol 16:863–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber SA, Gerton JL, Polancic JE, DeRisi JL, Koshland D, Megee PC (2004) The kinetochore is an enhancer of pericentric cohesin binding. PLoS Biol 2:E260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang B, Jain S, Song H, Fu M, Heuckeroth RO, Erlich JM, Jay PY, Milbrandt J (2007) Mice lacking sister chromatid cohesion protein PDS5B exhibit developmental abnormalities reminiscent of Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Development 134:3191–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhao H, Dean A (2004) An insulator blocks spreading of histone acetylation and interferes with RNA polymerase II transfer between an enhancer and gene. Nucleic Acids Res 32:4903–4919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ziva Misulovin
    • 1
  • Yuri B. Schwartz
    • 2
  • Xiao-Yong Li
    • 3
  • Tatyana G. Kahn
    • 2
  • Maria Gause
    • 1
  • Stewart MacArthur
    • 3
  • Justin C. Fay
    • 4
  • Michael B. Eisen
    • 3
    • 5
  • Vincenzo Pirrotta
    • 2
  • Mark D. Biggin
    • 3
  • Dale Dorsett
    • 1
  1. 1.Edward A. Doisy Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologySaint Louis University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Biology and BiochemistryRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Berkeley Drosophila Transcription Network Project, Genomics DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeneticsWashington University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA
  5. 5.Center for Integrative Genomics, Department of Molecular and Cell BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations