Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • EMBO reports (Home)
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Life Science Alliance
Login

   

Search

Advanced Search

Journal

  • Home
  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections
  • Review Series & Focuses

Authors & Referees

  • Submit
  • Author Guidelines
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Bibliometrics
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access

Info

  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • Media Partners
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • Latest Online

Review

Chromatin remodeling and bivalent histone modifications in embryonic stem cells

Arigela Harikumar, Eran Meshorer
DOI 10.15252/embr.201541011 | Published online 09.11.2015
EMBO reports (2015) e201541011
Arigela Harikumar
Department of Genetics, Institute of Life Sciences and The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eran Meshorer
Department of Genetics, Institute of Life Sciences and The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Author Affiliations

  1. Arigela Harikumar1 and
  2. Eran Meshorer*,1
  1. 1Department of Genetics, Institute of Life Sciences and The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  1. ↵*Corresponding author. Tel: +972 2 6585161; E‐mail: meshorer{at}huji.ac.il
View Abstract
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process
Loading

Abstract

Pluripotent embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are characterized by distinct epigenetic features including a relative enrichment of histone modifications related to active chromatin. Among these is tri‐methylation of lysine 4 on histone H3 (H3K4me3). Several thousands of the H3K4me3‐enriched promoters in pluripotent cells also contain a repressive histone mark, namely H3K27me3, a situation referred to as “bivalency”. While bivalent promoters are not unique to pluripotent cells, they are relatively enriched in these cell types, largely marking developmental and lineage‐specific genes which are silent but poised for immediate action. The H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 modifications are catalyzed by lysine methyltransferases which are usually found within, although not entirely limited to, the Trithorax group (TrxG) and Polycomb group (PcG) protein complexes, respectively, but these do not provide selective bivalent specificity. Recent studies highlight the family of ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling proteins as regulators of bivalent domains. Here, we discuss bivalency in general, describe the machineries that catalyze bivalent chromatin domains, and portray the emerging connection between bivalency and the action of different families of chromatin remodelers, namely INO80, esBAF, and NuRD, in pluripotent cells. We posit that chromatin remodeling proteins may enable “bivalent specificity”, often selectively acting on, or selectively depleted from, bivalent domains.

  • chromatin
  • chromatin remodeling
  • embryonic stem cells
  • epigenetics
  • histone modifications

Introduction

The genetic information of a living cell is stored within the DNA. However, additional layers of regulation provide the epigenetic information, which, in concert with transcription factors, enables the same primary DNA sequence to confer different identities to different cell types, developmental stages, disease states, etc. In eukaryotes, the DNA is wrapped around a histone octamer comprised of a pair of each of the core histones H2A, H2B, H3, and H4, which together form the nucleosome. Nucleosomes are the basic repeating units of chromatin, and they are arranged in a higher order chromatin structure through the binding of linker histones, H1 proteins, between adjacent nucleosomes. Thus, despite having the same genetic makeup, different transcriptional outcomes of different cell types of the same organism are achieved through a variety of epigenetic modifications including DNA methylation, histone posttranslational modifications (PTMs), chromatin organization, etc. So far, several histone modifications with physiological importance have been identified, such as acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitylation, sumoylation, ADP ribosylation, deimination, proline isomerization, biotinylation, citrullination, and more [1], [2], [3]. Apart from influencing local chromatin structure, these modifications are also recognized by specific adaptor proteins which in turn recruit protein complexes and thereby affect gene regulation. Some of these histone marks such as H3K4me3, H3K9ac, and H3K14ac are associated with actively transcribed genes and some other modifications, for example, H3K27me3 and H3K9me3, are enriched within repressed regions. Activation and repression are believed to occur, at least partly, through charge‐mediated chromatin decompaction and chromodomain‐containing protein binding, respectively [3], [4]. Interestingly, a subset of promoters associated with both activating (H3K4me3) and repressive (H3K27me3) marks, also known as “bivalent” modifications, has been discovered in mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) [5], [6]. Several recent reviews thoroughly covered the field of bivalency, especially in pluripotent ESCs [7], [8], [9], [10]. Here, we focus on the emerging link between bivalent histone modifications and ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling in ESCs. The term “chromatin remodeling” is often used to describe any change or modification to chromatin including histone modification. Here, by “chromatin remodeling”, we specifically refer to the action of the family of ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling factors, described below. When other forms of chromatin structure alterations are referred to, we describe the specific mode of alteration or modification. We will briefly summarize initial and recent experiments establishing the existence and role of bivalent domains in undifferentiated ESCs and during differentiation, and will argue that both H3K4me3 and H3K27me3, and especially the cross talk between them, are intimately linked with chromatin remodeling in pluripotent ESCs.

Bivalent modifications

The first evidence for the existence of bivalent modifications came from studies in pluripotent mouse ESCs [5], [6]. Using sequential chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) and tiling arrays, highly conserved non‐coding elements (HCNEs) were found to be enriched with bivalent histone modifications H3K4me3 and H3K27me3, marking lowly expressed developmental regulators [6]. Shortly thereafter, early replicating genes were similarly shown to possess bivalent domains [5]. Depletion of the EED subunit of the Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) led to an almost complete loss of H3K27me3 resulting in an upregulation of the bivalent genes analyzed. Despite the presence of the activating histone marks, the expression of the bivalent genes in both studies varied from very low to no expression, suggesting that these genes are poised for immediate activation. Supporting this notion, upon differentiation, some of these bivalent modifications were resolved, either losing the H3K27me3 mark permitting their expression, or losing the H3K4me3, rendering them stably silent (Fig 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. The bivalency concept

A bivalent gene, depicted as a boat (top), is ready to go (sail up: H4K4me3) but is held in check (anchor: H3K27me3). Once the sail is down (bottom left), the gene is stably silenced (only H3K27me3), but if instead the anchor is lifted (bottom right), the gene is promptly activated (only H3K4me3).

Bivalent histone modifications were also identified in human ESCs [11], [12] and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) [13], [14], [15], marking developmentally regulated genes, similar to the situation found in mESCs. Other stem cell types, such as hematopoietic stem cells, were also shown to possess a similar bivalent chromatin architecture, containing thousands of bivalently marked, developmentally regulated promoters [16]. However, although many of these bivalent domains are resolved during differentiation, a subset of promoters retains its bivalent state following even terminal differentiation [17]. Therefore, bivalency may not merely reflect a transient, flexible chromatin state during differentiation, but rather a condition present in most or even all cell types. Supporting this idea, bivalent domains were found in a number of different non‐stem‐cell lines [14], [18], including differentiated human T cells, where weakly expressed genes were found to possess additional acetylation marks on H3K9 and H3K14 along with H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 in their promoters [19], [20]. Bivalent domains were reported in several cancer cells as well [21], [22], [23], [24], where they were suggested to promote their plasticity and responsiveness, potentially serving as a novel unexplored therapeutic avenue [22]. These studies suggest that bivalent modifications are present in both pluripotent and non‐pluripotent cells, where they maintain genes largely in a repressed state, but at the same time, keep them poised for activation until a proper signal is perceived.

Despite the rapidly expanding literature reporting different aspects of bivalent chromatin, whether bivalent domains serve an actual function has recently been questioned [25], [26]. In addition, the existence of bivalent domains on the same nucleosome has not been unequivocally demonstrated. Apart from the many ChIP experiments, bivalent chromatin was shown using micrococcal nuclease (MNase) digestion of chromatin followed by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry [27], suggesting an asymmetric configuration of chromatin on opposite H3 tails. However, all evidence to date relies on population studies, and therefore, the seeming presence of two opposing marks on the same nucleosome may be the outcome of cellular heterogeneity. Single nucleosome resolution, the smoking gun of bivalent chromatin, has yet to be reported.

Establishment and maintenance of bivalent modifications in ESCs

Trithorax group (TrxG) proteins and Polycomb group (PcG) proteins assemble into multimeric protein complexes and are largely, although not exclusively, responsible for the deposition of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 marks, respectively (Fig 2). The exact mechanism behind the recruitment of these protein complexes to specific sites is not entirely clear; however, initial studies showed that bivalent domains are predominantly associated with CpG islands in ESCs [6]. In addition to DNA methylation, multiple studies have demonstrated that selected histone modifications, several transcription factors (TFs), and some non‐coding RNAs (ncRNAs) also play a role in this process [7].

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2. Main protein complexes catalyzing bivalent chromatin marks

Left: Protein complexes catalyzing H3K4 methylation (green flag). Right: The PRC2 complex catalyzing H3K27 methylation (red flag). Shown are only the main proteins and protein complexes catalyzing H4K4/H3K27 methylation. Less abundant subunits are not depicted.

H3K4me3.

In mammalian systems, SETD1A, SETD1B, and MLL complexes, among others, which share several subunits including WDR5, RBBP5, ASH2L, and DPY‐30, catalyze the deposition of the H3K4me3 mark [28] (Fig 2). SETD1A/B complexes seem to be responsible for global H3K4me3 deposition, whereas MLL1–MLL4 complexes likely serve more specific functions. Among those, MLL2, but not MLL1 or SETD1, was shown to act as the main methyltransferase at bivalent promoters [25], [26]. MLL1 and MLL2 contain DNA‐binding domains termed CXXC or zinc finger CXXC (ZF‐CXXC) motifs, which specifically recognize unmethylated CpG islands [29], [30]. These motifs act to recruit MLL complexes to chromatin templates by promoting target site recognition. Similarly, SETD1A/B complexes contain a CXXC finger protein 1 (CFP1) subunit, which includes a DNA‐binding domain selectively recognizing unmethylated CpGs [31]. Loss of CFP1 most strongly affects H3K4 methylation at promoters of highly expressed genes in ESCs, but not at bivalent gene promoters [32]. Other SETD1A/B and MLL components were also shown to be important in ESCs or early ESC differentiation. Knockdown of WDR5 or ASH2L, for instance, results in aberrant expression programs and defective self‐renewal and pluripotency [33], [34], [35], [36], and knockdown of RBBP5 or DPY‐30 has little effect on self‐renewal but leads to improper ESC neuronal differentiation [37]. Interestingly, knockdown of DPY‐30 alters H3K4 methylation specifically at bivalent domains in ESCs [38], suggesting a selective developmentally related function of this subunit. MLL2 depletion also results in skewed differentiation, along all three germ layers [39], and Mll2‐null mice die before embryonic day E11.5, showing drastically reduced expression of several Hox genes [40]. Taken together, these studies highlight the important role that H3K4 methylation and its maintenance plays in development, pluripotency, ESC biology, and early ESC differentiation.

H3K27me3.

The PRC2 complex is responsible for the deposition of H3K27me3 marks at bivalent promoters (Fig 2). The core PRC2 complex is composed of enhancer of zeste (EZH2 or EZH1), embryonic ectoderm development (EED), suppressor of zeste 12 (SUZ12), as well as RBBP4 (RbAp48) and RBBP7 (RbAp46) [41]. EZH2 is the catalytic subunit, acting as the methyltransferase of H3K27, which in turn is recognized by chromodomain‐containing proteins such as CBX proteins, as well as by the EED subunit itself [42]. In mouse ESCs, CBX7, for instance, the primary CBX protein expressed in ESCs [43], [44], was shown to interact with H3K27me3 thereby recruiting the PRC1 complex [43], [45]. RING1B and BMI1 subunits of the PRC1 complex in turn deposit the ubiquitination of H2AK119 [46], [47]. It was further suggested that the deposition of PRC1 and the H2AK119ub mark (H2A ubiquitylated on lysine 119) are involved in RNA polymerase 2 (RNAPII) pausing in gene bodies, rendering their repression [48], [49]. PRC1‐related H2AK119ub1 was also shown to recruit PRC2 to chromatin, demonstrating a functional link between the two complexes [50]. Indeed, many developmentally regulated genes are marked with bivalent domains consisting of both PRC1 and PRC2 complexes, but interestingly, a subset of these bivalent domains have been shown to be exclusively bound by PRC2 [51]. Unlike the PRC1/PRC2 double positive bivalent domains, these PRC2‐specific bivalent domains usually decorate promoters of genes which are not bona fide developmental genes (often encoding for membrane proteins or proteins of unknown functions) and are only weakly conserved. These findings suggest an additional mechanism of silencing. In ESCs, pluripotency factor binding sites often coincide with positioning of core subunits of MLL and PRC2 complexes on bivalent domains [6], [34], [52]. In addition, key pluripotency components, such as OCT4 and MYC, have been shown to interact with components of the MLL and PRC protein complexes [53], [54], suggesting a tight co‐regulation between bivalent domains and the pluripotency network. Indeed, depletion of OCT4 in ESCs results in a selective reduction of H3K4me3 levels on selected genes, providing evidence for the tight relationship between the pluripotency network and H3K4me3 levels [34], although whether reduced H3K4me3 levels are a cause or consequence of reduced transcription is still under question [55]. While these observations suggest a functional connection between the maintenance of bivalent modifications and pluripotency, the exact role that pluripotency factors play at bivalent domains remains largely unclear.

Depletion of individual subunits EED or SUZ12 results in deregulation of lineage‐specific genes, although with minimal impact on cell viability and self‐renewal [56], [57], [58], [59], suggesting that PcG complexes serve little function in ESCs or that in ESCs, alternative compensatory mechanisms exist. In contrast to the situation, when ESCs are kept in an undifferentiated state, ESCs deficient of PRC2 components exhibit aberrant differentiation potential when differentiation is induced [56], [57], [58], [59]. These situations parallel the postimplantation lethality phenotypes observed in PRC2 knockout mouse models [60], [61], [62]. Concomitantly, depletion of PRC1 components such as RING1B and BMI1 also impairs proper differentiation [63], [64], [65], [66]. Simultaneous depletion of RING1B and EED in ESCs provokes an even stronger inclination toward differentiation, although self‐renewal can still be preserved under careful culture conditions, and prolonged differentiation results in cell death [59]. Taken together, these knockout models demonstrate that akin to TrxG proteins, PcG proteins—arguably through the control of bivalent target genes encoding developmental regulators—are vital for proper ESC differentiation.

Chromatin remodeling and bivalency

Accumulating evidence suggests a tight interplay between ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling proteins and bivalent histone modifications. While this connection likely plays a role in most, if not all, cell types, it is particularly pertinent for pluripotent stem cells, because of the relative abundance of chromatin remodelers in ESCs [67], and because of their special connection with bivalency, as described below.

Chromatin remodeling proteins are ATP‐dependent complexes that usually contain a catalytic ATPase subunit in addition to regulatory factors mediating protein–protein and chromatin–protein interactions. Chromatin remodelers act to alter chromatin structure by several different mechanisms, including incorporation or ejection of histone octamers, sliding nucleosomes along chromatin templates, and, by histone exchange, altering nucleosome composition [68] (Fig 3). Chromatin remodeling proteins are generally divided into four major families: SWI/SNF (switch/sucrose non‐fermentable), CHD (chromodomain‐helicase DNA‐binding), ISWI (imitation switch), and INO80 (inositol‐requiring 80), each involving different protein complexes and often different and even opposing actions. A growing number of chromatin remodeling proteins have been linked to ESC function and pluripotency and were shown to play essential roles in stemness and/or early differentiation and development [69]. Interestingly, at least one member of each of these remodeler families was shown to be essential for early mouse development, before or during implantation [69], demonstrating the importance of chromatin remodelers in pluripotency and early fate decisions.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3. The classical actions of chromatin remodeling proteins

Shown are different functional outcomes mediated by ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling proteins, including nucleosome insertion (top left), nucleosome eviction (top right), dimer exchange (bottom left), and nucleosome sliding (bottom right). The chromatin remodeling proteins themselves are not depicted.

One of the first clues to the involvement of chromatin remodeling proteins in regulating either H3K4 or H3K27 methylation in developmental genes came from an RNAi screen of chromatin‐related proteins in mouse ESCs [70]. Among the dozens of proteins that were identified to have a potential role in maintaining the undifferentiated state in ESCs, the authors specifically identified seven subunits of the Tip60–p400 complex of the INO80 family. Using biochemical and functional assays, the authors found that Tip60–p400 significantly co‐localizes with H3K4me3, especially around the transcription start site (TSS), and that it mostly acts to repress gene expression in ESCs. Knockdown of Tip–p400 resulted in 4% deregulated genes, most of which were upregulated. Interestingly, many of the upregulated genes were found to be classical bivalent early differentiation genes, which are normally silent in ESCs, reminiscent of depletion of PcG components in ESCs [70].

Additionally, PcG proteins were also shown to be functionally linked to chromatin remodeling proteins in ESCs. This relationship was revealed following knockdown (KD) studies of the core component of the SWI/SNF esBAF complex, BRG1, in mouse ESCs [71]. Expression analysis following BRG1 KD revealed increased transcription of several PcG subunits of both PRC1 and PRC2 complexes including Bmi1, Cbx7, Ring1, Phc1, and Phc2, promoters of which were directly bound by BRG1, as revealed by ChIP‐seq experiments [71], [72]. Moreover, a PRC2 component required for ESC differentiation, Jarid2, interacts with esBAF [73], counteracting PRC2's methyltransferase activity [74], [75]. These results suggest a direct association of chromatin remodeling proteins both with promoters of PcG‐related genes and with the PRC2 protein complex itself. However, no co‐localization of PRC2 components with BRG1 was found at chromatin on a genomewide scale [71], hinting that their association is not required for chromatin binding. When BRG1 was knocked out in ESCs, global H3K27me3 levels were not altered, but H3K27me3 displayed a selective elevation in BRG1‐activated genes and a decrease in BRG1‐repressed genes [76]. This indicates that BRG1 directly regulates the level and distribution of H3K27me3 at its target genes.

The strong connection between SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling proteins and H3K27me3 in ESCs was recently further supported by our own studies [77]. Screening for proteins that are differentially associated with chromatin between undifferentiated and differentiated ESCs, we identified the chromatin remodeling protein SMARCD1 (BAF60a), an additional component of the esBAF complex. ChIP‐seq maps of SMARCD1 in ESCs revealed a distribution not dissimilar from that of H3K27me3 around transcription start sites (TSS) and a significant enrichment in promoters of bivalent genes. Analyzing genomewide maps of H3K27me3 and H3K4me3 before and after SMARCD1 depletion revealed significant redistribution of these marks. In undifferentiated ESCs, both H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 were slightly elevated around TSSs upon SMARCD1 KD. In contrast, in differentiating ESCs, H3K4me3 was still elevated around TSSs, but H3K27me3 was dramatically reduced, by more than 75% around TSSs. Interestingly, bivalent genes were relatively protected from this wave of H3K27me3 elimination, indicating selective regulation of bivalent genes, by an unknown mechanism. Once again, no apparent changes in global levels were observed, as seen in the BRG1‐KO ESCs.

Regulation of bivalent histone modifications by the esBAF complex was further established by an inducible knockout system of the esBAF component BAF250a in mouse ESCs [78]. Mapping of nucleosomes, bivalent histone modifications, and the PcG component SUZ12 before and after BAF250a depletion demonstrated that BAF250a mediates nucleosome occupancy and H3K27me3 levels at the upregulated, but not the downregulated genes in ESCs, and that it exerts its function likely by regulating esBAF and PRC2. BAF250a KO led to an increase in nucleosome positioning and a decrease in H3K27me3 levels, especially in bivalent and developmental gene promoters in ESCs. These alterations, accompanied by aberrant expression of developmental and pluripotency genes, resulted in differentiation defects in the BAF250a KO ESCs [78]. This study supports a synergic role for esBAF and PRC2 in ESCs.

As indicated above, the catalytic subunit of the esBAF complex is BRG1. In human ESCs, BRG1 depletion resulted in elevated levels of the enhancer‐associated histone modification H3K27ac at BRG1 target gene enhancers [79]. This suggests that in addition to its function in mediating H3K27 methylation levels at promoters, BRG1 may also act as a selective repressor at enhancer regions. Support for a dual role for BRG1 in regulating H3K27ac enhancer regions on one hand, and in maintaining PcG‐mediated promoter repression on the other, came from a recent study of in vitro mesodermal differentiation of mouse ESCs [80]. BRG1 co‐localization with H3K27ac at distal enhancers is required to maintain their H3K27 acetylation during mesoderm induction, while it is also required to maintain PcG‐mediated repression of non‐mesodermal developmental regulators during differentiation. Taken together, these studies demonstrate a potential role for esBAF chromatin remodeling proteins in regulating bivalent histone modifications, primarily H3K27 methylation, in ESCs and during ESC differentiation, and provide evidence that the interplay between esBAF and PcG acts both to activate and to silence gene expression programs in ESCs.

Another family of chromatin remodeling proteins which was implicated in regulating H3K4/H3K27 methylation is the Chromodomain‐helicase DNA‐binding (CHD) family of proteins. CHD1 was found to regulate open chromatin and pluripotency in mouse ESCs by its association with H3K4me3 and counteracting heterochromatinization in pluripotent cells [81]. However, it was later concluded that its association with H3K4me3 is specific to active genes and it is in fact exclusively depleted in the dual H3K4/H3K27 regions [82], suggesting a selective role as an activator, leaving the suppressed bivalent domains intact. Since CHD1 interacts with H3K4me3, it raises the possibility that a mechanism to selectively clear CHD1 from bivalent promoters exists. CHD7 on the other hand was shown, using clustering analysis, to be associated with three distinct protein complexes in ESCs: an enhancer signature cluster, a c‐MYC/n‐MYC‐enriched cluster, and a PcG cluster, containing SUZ12, RING1B, and EZH2 [83], suggesting, among other things, a function for CHD7 in PcG‐mediated gene regulation. Supporting this notion, depletion of the CHD7 homolog Kismet in Drosophila resulted in global elevation of H3K27 methylation levels, demonstrating a role for CHD7/Kismet in counteracting PcG activity [84]. CHD7 was also shown to associate with the PBAF chromatin remodeling complex during embryogenesis and human ESC differentiation to promote neural crest migration and neural crest gene expression programs [85]. CHD7 mutations or other causes of failure to activate neural crest migration have been implicated in the development of CHARGE syndrome, a complex genetic disease affecting the nervous system, heart, vision, ears, and more [86]. These studies highlight a link between CHD proteins and H3K27 methylation, thereby affecting bivalency albeit indirectly.

The CHD family of proteins also includes two prominent members of the NuRD chromatin remodeling complex, namely CHD3 and CHD4. The NuRD complex was shown to be essential for proper ESC differentiation [87] and was shown to deacetylate H3K27 in ESCs, enabling the subsequent recruitment of PcG proteins and trimethylation of H3K27. It therefore controls the balance between H3K27 acetylation and methylation, thereby enabling cell differentiation [88], although it likely does not act directly at bivalent promoters since it is repelled by H3K4me3 [89]. Further supporting the tight connection between NuRD and PcG during development is the association between CHD4 and the H3K27 methyltransferase EZH2 required during astroglial differentiation. CHD4 was found to be essential for EZH2 association with key astroglial gene promoters, suppressing their expression in non‐glial cells, and depletion of CHD4 promotes gliogenesis in vivo [90]. A similar role for NuRD, mediated by CTBP2, was also seen in differentiating ESCs during the exit from pluripotency: NuRD facilitates H3K27 deacetylation followed by recruitment of PcG and H3K27 methylation [91]. Finally, NuRD was also shown to play a role in regulating H3K4me3‐ and H3K27me3‐marked bivalent rRNA genes [92]. Although the latter study was not performed in ESCs, given the importance of the NuRD complex and rRNA transcriptional regulation in pluripotency, it is fair to speculate that it likely plays a similarly important role there too. Consistent with NuRD's role in regulating bivalency, the complex was shown to interact not only with PcG proteins, as discussed above, but also with the H3K4 methyltransferase MLL1 [93]. But perhaps even more importantly, it was also shown to interact with the H3K4 demethylase LSD1, which occupies the large majority of active genes, as well as approximately two‐thirds of bivalent genes (2003 out of 3,094), in ESCs. Thus, through its association with the NuRD chromatin remodeling complex, LSD1 acts to silence pluripotency genes during early differentiation [94].

Taken together, these studies demonstrate that chromatin remodeling and bivalency, and most significantly PcG‐mediated H3K27 methylation, are oftentimes functionally linked in ESCs and during differentiation, acting to resolve bivalent domains into stably activated or stably repressed states (Table 1; Fig 4). Because this connection between chromatin remodeling and bivalency is only beginning to emerge, the examples provided above are sometimes sketchy or indirect, with only H3K4 or H3K27 being affected. However, as more convincing data are gradually accumulating, it is becoming increasingly clear that remodelers, among other chromatin factors, act to shape and regulate bivalent chromatin domains. For example, non‐canonical, replication‐independent histone variants including H2A.Z and H3.3 have been recently reported to be associated with bivalent chromatin [95], [96], [97], [98]. In ESCs, H2A.Z is found in active and bivalent promoters, both of which are enriched with H3K4me3, but absent from repressed H3K4me3‐negative promoters [96]. H2A.Z depletion caused derepression of poised genes with concomitant loss of PcG components from bivalent promoters [95], suggesting a potential co‐regulation of H2A.Z and PcG. However, a direct interaction between PcG and H2A.Z has not been reported so far. Along the same lines, H3.3 was shown to be required for the deposition of H3K27 methylation at bivalent promoters in a PRC2‐dependent manner [98]. When H3.3 or its chaperone, HIRA, is depleted, H3K27me3 mark is reduced at bivalent promoters, along with reduced PRC2 occupancy and reduced nucleosome turnover [98], albeit with minimal transcriptional changes. This implies that other compensatory mechanisms regulating developmental genes in ESCs are in place, but together portrays a picture which suggests that histone variants and their remodelers might also be a part of the bivalency apparatus.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Chromatin remodelers involved in regulating bivalency
Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4. Chromatin remodeling complexes regulating bivalent nucleosomes

A single schematic bivalent nucleosome is shown (orange) marked with both H3K4me3 (green flag, left) and H3K27me3 (red flag, right). Chromatin remodeling complexes which were shown to regulate either or both marks are shown in green (esBAF), blue (NuRD), and mustard (INO80). Dotted arrows represent suggested regulation; dotted double lines represent potential interaction.

Concluding remarks

Almost a decade has passed since the original discovery of bivalent nucleosomes in ESCs [5], [6]. While it was tempting to speculate that bivalent promoters are restricted to developmentally regulated genes, enabling a quick transition to an active or a stable silent state, it is clear today that bivalency is more complicated, extending to different gene families in multiple different cell types. Furthermore, it is increasingly recognized that regulation of the bivalent state is highly complex involving a variety of different proteins and regulators. Here, we highlighted the family of ATP‐dependent chromatin remodeling proteins, which is emerging as an important player in regulating bivalent domains, especially in the context of pluripotent stem cells. While TrxG and PcG proteins provide the mechanisms of action for H3K4/H3K27 methylation, we speculate that chromatin remodeling proteins may provide the required bivalent specificity. It is important to note that bivalency is not restricted to the H3K4me3/H3K27me3 pair; several, albeit more haphazard, examples were documented. For example, trophoblast and extraembryonic endodermal stem cells were shown to contain a large fraction of H3K4me3/H3K9me3 bivalent modifications but little H3K4me3/H3K27me3 bivalency [99], and a unique H3K4me1/H3K27ac/H3K9me3 trivalent signature was observed during the transition from fibroblasts to induced neurons [100]. In both these cases, the “non‐canonical” bivalent/trivalent signature enables a quick transition from a closed to an open chromatin state akin to the situation proposed for the “canonical” K4/K27 marks. The next challenge would be to identify meaningful patterns and combinations of histone modifications, decipher their potential roles, and understand whether such chromatin signatures are the cause or the consequence of their suggested function. In addition, programmable nucleases (ZFN, TALEN, and especially CRISPR/Cas9, and mutants thereof) are already emerging as powerful tools that enable the catalysis or removal of specific modifications at bivalent loci, making it possible to study downstream effects on the corresponding genes [101], [102], [103], [104]. More specialized systems such as photoactivatable CRISPR switches could take this idea further even to the single cell level [105], [106]. The combination of epigenetic reprogramming assays, single cell technologies, and multilevel epigenomic landscape analyses will help decipher the specific roles that multivalent domains and their connection with chromatin remodeling play in pluripotency, ESCs, and development.

Sidebar A: In need of answers

  1. Is bivalency a single‐cell phenomenon, or a result of population heterogeneity?

  2. If bivalency is within a single cell, are bivalent histone marks present within the same allele?

  3. If so, do bivalent histone marks appear within the same nucleosome?

  4. If they reside within same nucleosome, are the bivalent marks distributed symmetrically or asymmetrically within the histone pair of the nucleosome?

To answer these questions unequivocally, bivalent histone marks must be monitored at a single‐nucleosome resolution. Single nucleosomes can be reconstituted in vitro or digested using micrococcal nuclease (MNase) and immobilized for visualization.

  1. Does bivalency play a functional role in ESCs or in any other cell type?

  2. What is the role of bivalent promoters in terminally differentiated cells?

Complete selective depletion of bivalent domains may be difficult to achieve, although a recent study [26] demonstrated little effect on early differentiation following depletion of MLL2 which conferred selective depletion of H3K4me3 on bivalent promoters. Additional studies of selective depletion of bivalent marks through the use of genetics or CRISPR/Cas9 approaches will determine the role, if any, that bivalent domains play in pluripotency and embryonic development.

  1. Which of the histone variants are associated with bivalent domains?

Pull‐down of variant modified nucleosomes followed by MS approaches, or single nucleosome assays once single‐nucleosome resolution is achieved, will determine the exact composition/modifications of histone variant‐containing nucleosomes.

  1. How do chromatin remodeling proteins regulate bivalent histone marks?

  2. Do pluripotency factors, in concert with chromatin remodeling complexes, regulate bivalent domains?

Interaction analyses, mutational studies, rescue experiments, and functional assays will help achieve mechanistic insights into the regulation of bivalent domains by chromatin remodeling proteins and/or pluripotency factors. Understanding the mechanism by which chromatin remodelers regulate the level and distribution of bivalent chromatin domains will be key to establish a direct functional connection between chromatin remodeling proteins and bivalency.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank Bradley Bernstein, Cem Sievers, and Sharon Schlesinger for critical comments, and Alva Biran for help with statistics. AH was supported by the Nucleosome4D network. We thank the Israel Science Foundation (ISF 1252/12 and 657/12 to E.M.) and the European Research Council (ERC‐281781 to E.M.) for financial support.

Funding

Israel Science FoundationISF 1252/12 and 657/12
European Research CouncilERC‐281781

Footnotes

  • See the Glossary for abbreviations used in this article.

Glossary
ASH2L
Ash2 (absent, small, or homeotic)‐like (Drosophila) protein
BAF250a
AT‐rich interactive domain 1A (Swi1 like) protein
Bmi1
B lymphoma Mo‐MLV insertion region 1 protein
BRG1
SWI/SNF‐related, matrix‐associated, actin‐dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily a, member 4
Cbx7
chromobox homolog 7 protein
CFP1
CXXC finger 1 (PHD domain) protein
CHARGE
coloboma, heart defect, atresia choanae (also known as choanal atresia), retarded growth and development, genital abnormality, and ear abnormality
CHD
chromodomain‐helicase‐DNA‐binding protein
ChIP
chromatin immunoprecipitation
EED
embryonic ectoderm development protein
esBAF
brahma‐associated factor complex associated with embryonic stem cells
ESC
embryonic stem cell
EZH
enhancer of zeste homolog protein
H3K27me3
trimethylated lysine‐27 on histone H3
H3K4me3
trimethylated lysine‐4 on histone H3
HCNE
highly conserved non‐coding elements
INO80
inositol‐requiring 80
iPSC
induced pluripotent stem cell
ISWI
imitation switch
LSD
lysine‐specific demethylase 1
MLL
mixed lineage leukemia protein
MNase
micrococcal nuclease
MYC
v‐myc avian myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog
NuRD
nucleosome remodeling deacetylase
OCT4
POU domain, class 5, transcription factor 1 protein
PcG
polycomb group
Phc
polyhomeotic‐like 1 (Drosophila) protein
PRC
polycomb repressive complex
PTMs
posttranslational modifications
RBBP5
retinoblastoma‐binding protein 5
RING1B
ring finger protein 2
rRNA
ribosomal RNA
SET
SET domain containing protein
SMARCD1
SWI/SNF‐related, matrix‐associated, actin‐dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily d, member 1 protein
SUZ12
suppressor of zeste 12 homolog (Drosophila) protein
SWI/SNF
SWItch/Sucrose non‐fermentable
Tip60
K(lysine) acetyltransferase 5
TrxG
trithorax group
TSS
transcription start site
WDR5
WD repeat domain 5 protein

References

  1. ↵
    Kouzarides T (2007) Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell 128: 693–705
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    Bannister AJ, Kouzarides T (2011) Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications. Cell Res 21: 381–395
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Tessarz P, Kouzarides T (2014) Histone core modifications regulating nucleosome structure and dynamics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15: 703–708
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    Azzaz AM, Vitalini MW, Thomas AS, Price JP, Blacketer MJ, Cryderman DE, Zirbel LN, Woodcock CL, Elcock AH, Wallrath LL et al (2014) Human heterochromatin protein 1alpha promotes nucleosome associations that drive chromatin condensation. J Biol Chem 289: 6850–6861
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Azuara V, Perry P, Sauer S, Spivakov M, Jorgensen HF, John RM, Gouti M, Casanova M, Warnes G, Merkenschlager M et al (2006) Chromatin signatures of pluripotent cell lines. Nat Cell Biol 8: 532–538
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Bernstein BE, Mikkelsen TS, Xie X, Kamal M, Huebert DJ, Cuff J, Fry B, Meissner A, Wernig M, Plath K et al (2006) A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 125: 315–326
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Voigt P, Tee WW, Reinberg D (2013) A double take on bivalent promoters. Genes Dev 27: 1318–1338
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Vastenhouw NL, Schier AF (2012) Bivalent histone modifications in early embryogenesis. Curr Opin Cell Biol 24: 374–386
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Dillon N (2012) Factor mediated gene priming in pluripotent stem cells sets the stage for lineage specification. BioEssays 34: 194–204
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    Fisher CL, Fisher AG (2011) Chromatin states in pluripotent, differentiated, and reprogrammed cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev 21: 140–146
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Pan G, Tian S, Nie J, Yang C, Ruotti V, Wei H, Jonsdottir GA, Stewart R, Thomson JA (2007) Whole‐genome analysis of histone H3 lysine 4 and lysine 27 methylation in human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 1: 299–312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    Zhao XD, Han X, Chew JL, Liu J, Chiu KP, Choo A, Orlov YL, Sung WK, Shahab A, Kuznetsov VA et al (2007) Whole‐genome mapping of histone H3 Lys4 and 27 trimethylations reveals distinct genomic compartments in human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 1: 286–298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    Maherali N, Sridharan R, Xie W, Utikal J, Eminli S, Arnold K, Stadtfeld M, Yachechko R, Tchieu J, Jaenisch R et al (2007) Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell 1: 55–70
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Mikkelsen TS, Ku M, Jaffe DB, Issac B, Lieberman E, Giannoukos G, Alvarez P, Brockman W, Kim TK, Koche RP et al (2007) Genome‐wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage‐committed cells. Nature 448: 553–560
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Guenther MG, Frampton GM, Soldner F, Hockemeyer D, Mitalipova M, Jaenisch R, Young RA (2010) Chromatin structure and gene expression programs of human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 7: 249–257
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Cui K, Zang C, Roh TY, Schones DE, Childs RW, Peng W, Zhao K (2009) Chromatin signatures in multipotent human hematopoietic stem cells indicate the fate of bivalent genes during differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 4: 80–93
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Abraham BJ, Cui K, Tang Q, Zhao K (2013) Dynamic regulation of epigenomic landscapes during hematopoiesis. BMC Genom 14: 193
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    Mohn F, Weber M, Rebhan M, Roloff TC, Richter J, Stadler MB, Bibel M, Schubeler D (2008) Lineage‐specific polycomb targets and de novo DNA methylation define restriction and potential of neuronal progenitors. Mol Cell 30: 755–766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Roh TY, Cuddapah S, Cui K, Zhao K (2006) The genomic landscape of histone modifications in human T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 15782–15787
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Barski A, Cuddapah S, Cui K, Roh TY, Schones DE, Wang Z, Wei G, Chepelev I, Zhao K (2007) High‐resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129: 823–837
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Rodriguez J, Munoz M, Vives L, Frangou CG, Groudine M, Peinado MA (2008) Bivalent domains enforce transcriptional memory of DNA methylated genes in cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 19809–19814
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Bapat SA, Jin V, Berry N, Balch C, Sharma N, Kurrey N, Zhang S, Fang F, Lan X, Li M et al (2010) Multivalent epigenetic marks confer microenvironment‐responsive epigenetic plasticity to ovarian cancer cells. Epigenetics 5: 716–729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    McGarvey KM, Van Neste L, Cope L, Ohm JE, Herman JG, Van Criekinge W, Schuebel KE, Baylin SB (2008) Defining a chromatin pattern that characterizes DNA‐hypermethylated genes in colon cancer cells. Cancer Res 68: 5753–5759
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Lin B, Lee H, Yoon JG, Madan A, Wayner E, Tonning S, Hothi P, Schroeder B, Ulasov I, Foltz G et al (2015) Global analysis of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 profiles in glioblastoma stem cells and identification of SLC17A7 as a bivalent tumor suppressor gene. Oncotarget 6: 5369–5381
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    Denissov S, Hofemeister H, Marks H, Kranz A, Ciotta G, Singh S, Anastassiadis K, Stunnenberg HG, Stewart AF (2014) Mll2 is required for H3K4 trimethylation on bivalent promoters in embryonic stem cells, whereas Mll1 is redundant. Development 141: 526–537
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Hu D, Garruss AS, Gao X, Morgan MA, Cook M, Smith ER, Shilatifard A (2013) The Mll2 branch of the COMPASS family regulates bivalent promoters in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20: 1093–1097
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Voigt P, LeRoy G, Drury WJ III., Zee BM, Son J, Beck DB, Young NL, Garcia BA, Reinberg D (2012) Asymmetrically modified nucleosomes. Cell 151: 181–193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Shilatifard A (2012) The COMPASS family of histone H3K4 methylases: mechanisms of regulation in development and disease pathogenesis. Annu Rev Biochem 81: 65–95
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    Birke M, Schreiner S, Garcia‐Cuellar MP, Mahr K, Titgemeyer F, Slany RK (2002) The MT domain of the proto‐oncoprotein MLL binds to CpG‐containing DNA and discriminates against methylation. Nucleic Acids Res 30: 958–965
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Bach C, Mueller D, Buhl S, Garcia‐Cuellar MP, Slany RK (2009) Alterations of the CxxC domain preclude oncogenic activation of mixed‐lineage leukemia 2. Oncogene 28: 815–823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    Lee JH, Voo KS, Skalnik DG (2001) Identification and characterization of the DNA binding domain of CpG‐binding protein. J Biol Chem 276: 44669–44676
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Clouaire T, Webb S, Skene P, Illingworth R, Kerr A, Andrews R, Lee JH, Skalnik D, Bird A (2012) Cfp1 integrates both CpG content and gene activity for accurate H3K4me3 deposition in embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev 26: 1714–1728
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Wysocka J, Swigut T, Milne TA, Dou Y, Zhang X, Burlingame AL, Roeder RG, Brivanlou AH, Allis CD (2005) WDR5 associates with histone H3 methylated at K4 and is essential for H3K4 methylation and vertebrate development. Cell 121: 859–872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    Ang YS, Tsai SY, Lee DF, Monk J, Su J, Ratnakumar K, Ding J, Ge Y, Darr H, Chang B et al (2011) Wdr5 mediates self‐renewal and reprogramming via the embryonic stem cell core transcriptional network. Cell 145: 183–197
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    Stoller JZ, Huang L, Tan CC, Huang F, Zhou DD, Yang J, Gelb BD, Epstein JA (2010) Ash2l interacts with Tbx1 and is required during early embryogenesis. Exp Biol Med 235: 569–576
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Wan M, Liang J, Xiong Y, Shi F, Zhang Y, Lu W, He Q, Yang D, Chen R, Liu D et al (2012) The trithorax group protein Ash2l is essential for pluripotency and maintaining open chromatin in embryonic stem cells. J Biol Chem 288: 5039–5048
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. ↵
    Biondi CA, Gartside MG, Waring P, Loffler KA, Stark MS, Magnuson MA, Kay GF, Hayward NK (2004) Conditional inactivation of the MEN1 gene leads to pancreatic and pituitary tumorigenesis but does not affect normal development of these tissues. Mol Cell Biol 24: 3125–3131
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Jiang H, Shukla A, Wang X, Chen WY, Bernstein BE, Roeder RG (2011) Role for Dpy‐30 in ES cell‐fate specification by regulation of H3K4 methylation within bivalent domains. Cell 144: 513–525
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    Lubitz S, Glaser S, Schaft J, Stewart AF, Anastassiadis K (2007) Increased apoptosis and skewed differentiation in mouse embryonic stem cells lacking the histone methyltransferase Mll2. Mol Biol Cell 18: 2356–2366
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Glaser S, Schaft J, Lubitz S, Vintersten K, van der Hoeven F, Tufteland KR, Aasland R, Anastassiadis K, Ang SL, Stewart AF (2006) Multiple epigenetic maintenance factors implicated by the loss of Mll2 in mouse development. Development 133: 1423–1432
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Cao R, Wang L, Wang H, Xia L, Erdjument‐Bromage H, Tempst P, Jones RS, Zhang Y (2002) Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb‐group silencing. Science 298: 1039–1043
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    Margueron R, Justin N, Ohno K, Sharpe ML, Son J, Drury WJ III., Voigt P, Martin SR, Taylor WR, De Marco V et al (2009) Role of the polycomb protein EED in the propagation of repressive histone marks. Nature 461: 762–767
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    Morey L, Pascual G, Cozzuto L, Roma G, Wutz A, Benitah SA, Di Croce L (2012) Nonoverlapping functions of the Polycomb group Cbx family of proteins in embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 10: 47–62
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    O'Loghlen A, Munoz‐Cabello AM, Gaspar‐Maia A, Wu HA, Banito A, Kunowska N, Racek T, Pemberton HN, Beolchi P, Lavial F et al (2012) MicroRNA regulation of Cbx7 mediates a switch of Polycomb orthologs during ESC differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 10: 33–46
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    Morey L, Aloia L, Cozzuto L, Benitah SA, Di Croce L (2013) RYBP and Cbx7 define specific biological functions of polycomb complexes in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Rep 3: 60–69
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    Wang H, Wang L, Erdjument‐Bromage H, Vidal M, Tempst P, Jones RS, Zhang Y (2004) Role of histone H2A ubiquitination in Polycomb silencing. Nature 431: 873–878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    Cao R, Zhang Y (2004) The functions of E(Z)/EZH2‐mediated methylation of lysine 27 in histone H3. Curr Opin Genet Dev 14: 155–164
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    Brookes E, de Santiago I, Hebenstreit D, Morris KJ, Carroll T, Xie SQ, Stock JK, Heidemann M, Eick D, Nozaki N et al (2012) Polycomb associates genome‐wide with a specific RNA polymerase II variant, and regulates metabolic genes in ESCs. Cell Stem Cell 10: 157–170
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    Min IM, Waterfall JJ, Core LJ, Munroe RJ, Schimenti J, Lis JT (2011) Regulating RNA polymerase pausing and transcription elongation in embryonic stem cells. Genes Dev 25: 742–754
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    Cooper S, Dienstbier M, Hassan R, Schermelleh L, Sharif J, Blackledge NP, De Marco V, Elderkin S, Koseki H, Klose R et al (2014) Targeting polycomb to pericentric heterochromatin in embryonic stem cells reveals a role for H2AK119u1 in PRC2 recruitment. Cell Rep 7: 1456–1470
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Ku M, Koche RP, Rheinbay E, Mendenhall EM, Endoh M, Mikkelsen TS, Presser A, Nusbaum C, Xie X, Chi AS et al (2008) Genomewide analysis of PRC1 and PRC2 occupancy identifies two classes of bivalent domains. PLoS Genet 4: e1000242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Lee TI, Jenner RG, Boyer LA, Guenther MG, Levine SS, Kumar RM, Chevalier B, Johnstone SE, Cole MF, Isono K et al (2006) Control of developmental regulators by Polycomb in human embryonic stem cells. Cell 125: 301–313
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    Thomas LR, Wang Q, Grieb BC, Phan J, Foshage AM, Sun Q, Olejniczak ET, Clark T, Dey S, Lorey S et al (2015) Interaction with WDR5 promotes target gene recognition and tumorigenesis by MYC. Mol Cell 58: 440–452
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    Ding J, Xu H, Faiola F, Ma'ayan A, Wang J (2011) Oct4 links multiple epigenetic pathways to the pluripotency network. Cell Res 22: 155–167
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Henikoff S, Shilatifard A (2011) Histone modification: cause or cog? Trends Genet 27: 389–396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    Pasini D, Bracken AP, Hansen JB, Capillo M, Helin K (2007) The polycomb group protein Suz12 is required for embryonic stem cell differentiation. Mol Cell Biol 27: 3769–3779
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    Chamberlain SJ, Yee D, Magnuson T (2008) Polycomb repressive complex 2 is dispensable for maintenance of embryonic stem cell pluripotency. Stem Cells 26: 1496–1505
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    Shen X, Liu Y, Hsu YJ, Fujiwara Y, Kim J, Mao X, Yuan GC, Orkin SH (2008) EZH1 mediates methylation on histone H3 lysine 27 and complements EZH2 in maintaining stem cell identity and executing pluripotency. Mol Cell 32: 491–502
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    Leeb M, Pasini D, Novatchkova M, Jaritz M, Helin K, Wutz A (2010) Polycomb complexes act redundantly to repress genomic repeats and genes. Genes Dev 24: 265–276
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    Faust C, Schumacher A, Holdener B, Magnuson T (1995) The eed mutation disrupts anterior mesoderm production in mice. Development 121: 273–285
    OpenUrlAbstract
  61. ↵
    O'Carroll D, Erhardt S, Pagani M, Barton SC, Surani MA, Jenuwein T (2001) The polycomb‐group gene Ezh2 is required for early mouse development. Mol Cell Biol 21: 4330–4336
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    Pasini D, Bracken AP, Jensen MR, Lazzerini Denchi E, Helin K (2004) Suz12 is essential for mouse development and for EZH2 histone methyltransferase activity. EMBO J 23: 4061–4071
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    Leeb M, Wutz A (2007) Ring1B is crucial for the regulation of developmental control genes and PRC1 proteins but not X inactivation in embryonic cells. J Cell Biol 178: 219–229
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    Alkema MJ, van der Lugt NM, Bobeldijk RC, Berns A, van Lohuizen M (1995) Transformation of axial skeleton due to overexpression of bmi‐1 in transgenic mice. Nature 374: 724–727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    van der Lugt NM, Domen J, Linders K, van Roon M, Robanus‐Maandag E, te Riele H, van der Valk M, Deschamps J, Sofroniew M, van Lohuizen M et al (1994) Posterior transformation, neurological abnormalities, and severe hematopoietic defects in mice with a targeted deletion of the bmi‐1 proto‐oncogene. Genes Dev 8: 757–769
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    Aloia L, Di Stefano B, Di Croce L (2013) Polycomb complexes in stem cells and embryonic development. Development 140: 2525–2534
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    Efroni S, Duttagupta R, Cheng J, Dehghani H, Hoeppner DJ, Dash C, Bazett‐Jones DP, Le Grice S, McKay RD, Buetow KH et al (2008) Global transcription in pluripotent embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2: 437–447
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. ↵
    Clapier CR, Cairns BR (2009) The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. Annu Rev Biochem 78: 273–304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. ↵
    Gaspar‐Maia A, Alajem A, Meshorer E, Ramalho‐Santos M (2010) Open chromatin in pluripotency and reprogramming. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 12: 36–47
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    Fazzio TG, Huff JT, Panning B (2008) An RNAi screen of chromatin proteins identifies Tip60‐p400 as a regulator of embryonic stem cell identity. Cell 134: 162–174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. ↵
    Ho L, Jothi R, Ronan JL, Cui K, Zhao K, Crabtree GR (2009) An embryonic stem cell chromatin remodeling complex, esBAF, is an essential component of the core pluripotency transcriptional network. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 5187–5191
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    Kidder BL, Palmer S, Knott JG (2009) SWI/SNF‐Brg1 regulates self‐renewal and occupies core pluripotency‐related genes in embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells 27: 317–328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. ↵
    Ho L, Ronan JL, Wu J, Staahl BT, Chen L, Kuo A, Lessard J, Nesvizhskii AI, Ranish J, Crabtree GR (2009) An embryonic stem cell chromatin remodeling complex, esBAF, is essential for embryonic stem cell self‐renewal and pluripotency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 5181–5186
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    Shen X, Kim W, Fujiwara Y, Simon MD, Liu Y, Mysliwiec MR, Yuan GC, Lee Y, Orkin SH (2009) Jumonji modulates polycomb activity and self‐renewal versus differentiation of stem cells. Cell 139: 1303–1314
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  75. ↵
    Landeira D, Sauer S, Poot R, Dvorkina M, Mazzarella L, Jorgensen HF, Pereira CF, Leleu M, Piccolo FM, Spivakov M et al (2010) Jarid2 is a PRC2 component in embryonic stem cells required for multi‐lineage differentiation and recruitment of PRC1 and RNA Polymerase II to developmental regulators. Nat Cell Biol 12: 618–624
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    Ho L, Miller EL, Ronan JL, Ho WQ, Jothi R, Crabtree GR (2011) esBAF facilitates pluripotency by conditioning the genome for LIF/STAT3 signalling and by regulating polycomb function. Nat Cell Biol 13: 903–913
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  77. ↵
    Alajem A, Biran A, Harikumar A, Sailaja BS, Aaronson Y, Livyatan I, Nissim‐Rafinia M, Sommer AG, Mostoslavsky G, Gerbasi VR et al (2015) Differential association of chromatin proteins identifies BAF60a/SMARCD1 as a regulator of embryonic stem cell differentiation. Cell Rep 10: 2019–2031
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. ↵
    Lei I, West J, Yan Z, Gao X, Fang P, Dennis JH, Gnatovskiy L, Wang W, Kingston RE, Wang Z (2015) BAF250a regulates nucleosome occupancy and histone modifications in priming embryonic stem cell differentiation. J Biol Chem 290: 19343–19352
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    Zhang X, Li B, Li W, Ma L, Zheng D, Li L, Yang W, Chu M, Chen W, Mailman RB et al (2014) Transcriptional repression by the BRG1‐SWI/SNF complex affects the pluripotency of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cell Rep 3: 460–474
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    Alexander JM, Hota SK, He D, Thomas S, Ho L, Pennacchio LA, Bruneau BG (2015) Brg1 modulates enhancer activation in mesoderm lineage commitment. Development 142: 1418–1430
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    Gaspar‐Maia A, Alajem A, Polesso F, Sridharan R, Mason MJ, Heidersbach A, Ramalho‐Santos J, McManus MT, Plath K, Meshorer E et al (2009) Chd1 regulates open chromatin and pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Nature 460: 863–868
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  82. ↵
    Lin JJ, Lehmann LW, Bonora G, Sridharan R, Vashisht AA, Tran N, Plath K, Wohlschlegel JA, Carey M (2011) Mediator coordinates PIC assembly with recruitment of CHD1. Genes Dev 25: 2198–2209
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    Schnetz MP, Handoko L, Akhtar‐Zaidi B, Bartels CF, Pereira CF, Fisher AG, Adams DJ, Flicek P, Crawford GE, Laframboise T et al (2010) CHD7 targets active gene enhancer elements to modulate ES cell‐specific gene expression. PLoS Genet 6: e1001023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Srinivasan S, Dorighi KM, Tamkun JW (2008) Drosophila Kismet regulates histone H3 lysine 27 methylation and early elongation by RNA polymerase II. PLoS Genet 4: e1000217
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    Bajpai R, Chen DA, Rada‐Iglesias A, Zhang J, Xiong Y, Helms J, Chang CP, Zhao Y, Swigut T, Wysocka J (2010) CHD7 cooperates with PBAF to control multipotent neural crest formation. Nature 463: 958–962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. ↵
    Hsu P, Ma A, Wilson M, Williams G, Curotta J, Munns CF, Mehr S (2014) CHARGE syndrome: a review. J Paediatr Child Health 50: 504–511
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. ↵
    Kaji K, Caballero IM, MacLeod R, Nichols J, Wilson VA, Hendrich B (2006) The NuRD component Mbd3 is required for pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Nat Cell Biol 8: 285–292
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  88. ↵
    Reynolds N, Salmon‐Divon M, Dvinge H, Hynes‐Allen A, Balasooriya G, Leaford D, Behrens A, Bertone P, Hendrich B (2011) NuRD‐mediated deacetylation of H3K27 facilitates recruitment of Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 to direct gene repression. EMBO J 31: 593–605
    OpenUrlPubMed
  89. ↵
    Zegerman P, Canas B, Pappin D, Kouzarides T (2002) Histone H3 lysine 4 methylation disrupts binding of nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase (NuRD) repressor complex. J Biol Chem 277: 11621–11624
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    Sparmann A, Xie Y, Verhoeven E, Vermeulen M, Lancini C, Gargiulo G, Hulsman D, Mann M, Knoblich JA, van Lohuizen M (2013) The chromodomain helicase Chd4 is required for Polycomb‐mediated inhibition of astroglial differentiation. EMBO J 32: 1598–1612
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    Kim TW, Kang BH, Jang H, Kwak S, Shin J, Kim H, Lee SE, Lee SM, Lee JH, Kim JH et al (2015) Ctbp2 modulates NuRD‐mediated deacetylation of H3K27 and facilitates PRC2‐mediated H3K27me3 in active embryonic stem cell genes during exit from pluripotency. Stem Cells 33: 2442–2455
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. ↵
    Xie W, Ling T, Zhou Y, Feng W, Zhu Q, Stunnenberg HG, Grummt I, Tao W (2012) The chromatin remodeling complex NuRD establishes the poised state of rRNA genes characterized by bivalent histone modifications and altered nucleosome positions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 8161–8166
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. ↵
    Nakamura T, Mori T, Tada S, Krajewski W, Rozovskaia T, Wassell R, Dubois G, Mazo A, Croce CM, Canaani E (2002) ALL‐1 is a histone methyltransferase that assembles a supercomplex of proteins involved in transcriptional regulation. Mol Cell 10: 1119–1128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  94. ↵
    Whyte WA, Bilodeau S, Orlando DA, Hoke HA, Frampton GM, Foster CT, Cowley SM, Young RA (2012) Enhancer decommissioning by LSD1 during embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nature 482: 221–225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  95. ↵
    Creyghton MP, Markoulaki S, Levine SS, Hanna J, Lodato MA, Sha K, Young RA, Jaenisch R, Boyer LA (2008) H2AZ is enriched at polycomb complex target genes in ES cells and is necessary for lineage commitment. Cell 135: 649–661
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  96. ↵
    Ku M, Jaffe JD, Koche RP, Rheinbay E, Endoh M, Koseki H, Carr SA, Bernstein BE (2012) H2A.Z landscapes and dual modifications in pluripotent and multipotent stem cells underlie complex genome regulatory functions. Genome Biol 13: R85
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    Hu G, Cui K, Northrup D, Liu C, Wang C, Tang Q, Ge K, Levens D, Crane‐Robinson C, Zhao K (2013) H2A.Z facilitates access of active and repressive complexes to chromatin in embryonic stem cell self‐renewal and differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 12: 180–192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  98. ↵
    Banaszynski LA, Wen D, Dewell S, Whitcomb SJ, Lin M, Diaz N, Elsasser SJ, Chapgier A, Goldberg AD, Canaani E et al (2013) Hira‐dependent histone H3.3 deposition facilitates PRC2 recruitment at developmental loci in ES cells. Cell 155: 107–120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  99. ↵
    Rugg‐Gunn PJ, Cox BJ, Ralston A, Rossant J (2010) Distinct histone modifications in stem cell lines and tissue lineages from the early mouse embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 10783–10790
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    Wapinski OL, Vierbuchen T, Qu K, Lee QY, Chanda S, Fuentes DR, Giresi PG, Ng YH, Marro S, Neff NF et al (2013) Hierarchical mechanisms for direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to neurons. Cell 155: 621–635
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  101. ↵
    Kleinstiver BP, Prew MS, Tsai SQ, Topkar VV, Nguyen NT, Zheng Z, Gonzales AP, Li Z, Peterson RT, Yeh JJ et al (2015) Engineered CRISPR‐Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523: 481–485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Doudna JA, Weissman JS, Arkin AP, Lim WA (2013) Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA‐guided platform for sequence‐specific control of gene expression. Cell 152: 1173–1183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  103. ↵
    Cheng AW, Wang H, Yang H, Shi L, Katz Y, Theunissen TW, Rangarajan S, Shivalila CS, Dadon DB, Jaenisch R (2013) Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR‐on, an RNA‐guided transcriptional activator system. Cell Res 23: 1163–1171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  104. ↵
    Hu J, Lei Y, Wong WK, Liu S, Lee KC, He X, You W, Zhou R, Guo JT, Chen X et al (2014) Direct activation of human and mouse Oct4 genes using engineered TALE and Cas9 transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 4375–4390
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. ↵
    Nihongaki Y, Kawano F, Nakajima T, Sato M (2015) Photoactivatable CRISPR‐Cas9 for optogenetic genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 33: 755–760
    OpenUrlPubMed
  106. ↵
    Nihongaki Y, Yamamoto S, Kawano F, Suzuki H, Sato M (2015) CRISPR‐Cas9‐based photoactivatable transcription system. Chem Biol 22: 169–174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  • © 2015 The Authors
View Abstract
Next Article in this Issue
Back to top

  • PDF
  • Share
  • Export
  • Print
Loading

PDF

In this Issue
Volume 20, Issue 2
01 February 2019
EMBO reports: 20 (2)
About the cover
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted

Article

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Conflict of interest
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process

Related Content

More Reviews

  • Visualizing ubiquitination in mammalian cells
    Sjoerd JL van Wijk, Simone Fulda, Ivan Dikic, Mike Heilemann
    EMBO reports 20: e46520
  • From conjugation to T4S systems in Gram‐negative bacteria: a mechanistic biology perspective
    Gabriel Waksman
    EMBO reports 20: e47012
  • Modulating the expression of long non‐coding RNAs for functional studies
    S John Liu, Daniel A Lim
    EMBO reports 19: e46955
More Review

Related Articles

Cited By...

Request Permissions

Subject Areas

  • Chromatin, Epigenetics, Genomics & Functional Genomics
  • Stem Cells

Journal

  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Bibliometrics
  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Privacy Policy

Authors & References

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Author Guidelines
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access
  • Submit

Info

  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service

EMBO

  • Funding & Awards
  • Events
  • Science Policy
  • Members
  • About EMBO

Online ISSN  1469-3178

Copyright© 2019 EMBO

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of all modern web browsers. Older browsers may not display correctly.