Early chromatin unfolding by RUNX1: a molecular explanation for differential requirements during specification versus maintenance of the hematopoietic gene expression program

Leeds Institute for Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Blood (Impact Factor: 10.43). 05/2009; 114(2):299-309. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-11-191890
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT At the cellular level, development progresses through successive regulatory states, each characterized by their specific gene expression profile. However, the molecular mechanisms regulating first the priming and then maintenance of gene expression within one developmental pathway are essentially unknown. The hematopoietic system represents a powerful experimental model to address these questions and here we have focused on a regulatory circuit playing a central role in myelopoiesis: the transcription factor PU.1, its target gene colony-stimulating-factor 1 receptor (Csf1r), and key upstream regulators such as RUNX1. We find that during ontogeny, chromatin unfolding precedes the establishment of active histone marks and the formation of stable transcription factor complexes at the Pu.1 locus and we show that chromatin remodeling is mediated by the transient binding of RUNX1 to Pu.1 cis-elements. By contrast, chromatin reorganization of Csf1r requires prior expression of PU.1 together with RUNX1 binding. Once the full hematopoietic program is established, stable transcription factor complexes and active chromatin can be maintained without RUNX1. Our experiments therefore demonstrate how individual transcription factors function in a differentiation stage-specific manner to differentially affect the initiation versus maintenance of a developmental program.

Download full-text


Available from: Christophe Lancrin, Sep 23, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Macrophages not only are prominent effector cells of the immune system that are critical in inflammation and innate immune responses but also fulfill important functions in tissue homeostasis. Transcription factors can define macrophage identity and control their numbers and functions through the induction and maintenance of specific transcriptional programs. Here, we review the mechanisms employed by lineage-specific transcription factors to shape macrophage identity during the development from hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. We also present current insight into how specific transcription factors control macrophage numbers, by regulating coordinated proliferation and differentiation of myeloid progenitor cells and self-renewal of mature macrophages. We finally discuss how functional specialization of mature macrophages in response to environmental stimuli can be induced through synergistic activity of lineage- and stimulus-specific transcription factors that plug into preexisting transcriptional programs. Understanding the mechanisms that define macrophage identity, numbers, and functions will provide important insights into the differential properties of macrophage populations under various physiological and pathological conditions.
    Advances in Immunology 01/2013; 120:269-300. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-417028-5.00010-7 · 5.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cell fate decisions during haematopoiesis are governed by lineage-specific transcription factors, such as RUNX1, SCL/TAL1, FLI1 and C/EBP family members. To gain insight into how these transcription factors regulate the activation of haematopoietic genes during embryonic development, we measured the genome-wide dynamics of transcription factor assembly on their target genes during the RUNX1-dependent transition from haemogenic endothelium (HE) to haematopoietic progenitors. Using a Runx1-/- embryonic stem cell differentiation model expressing an inducible Runx1 gene, we show that in the absence of RUNX1, haematopoietic genes bind SCL/TAL1, FLI1 and C/EBPβ and that this early priming is required for correct temporal expression of the myeloid master regulator PU.1 and its downstream targets. After induction, RUNX1 binds to numerous de novo sites, initiating a local increase in histone acetylation and rapid global alterations in the binding patterns of SCL/TAL1 and FLI1. The acquisition of haematopoietic fate controlled by Runx1 therefore does not represent the establishment of a new regulatory layer on top of a pre-existing HE program but instead entails global reorganization of lineage-specific transcription factor assemblies.
    The EMBO Journal 10/2012; 31. DOI:10.1038/emboj.2012.275 · 10.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcription factors have long been recognised as powerful regulators of mammalian development yet it is largely unknown how individual key regulators operate within wider regulatory networks. Here we have used a combination of global gene expression and chromatin-immunoprecipitation approaches during the early stages of haematopoietic development to define the transcriptional programme controlled by Runx1, an essential regulator of blood cell specification. Integrated analysis of these complementary genome-wide datasets allowed us to construct a global regulatory network model, which suggested that key regulators are activated sequentially during blood specification, but will ultimately collaborate to control many haematopoietically expressed genes. Using the CD41/integrin alpha 2b gene as a model, cellular and in vivo studies showed that CD41 is controlled by both Scl/Tal1 and Runx1 in fully specified blood cells, and initiation of CD41 expression in E7.5 embryos is severely compromised in the absence of Runx1. Taken together, this study represents the first global analysis of the transcriptional programme controlled by any key haematopoietic regulator during the process of early blood cell specification. Moreover, the concept of interplay between sequentially deployed core regulators is likely to represent a design principle widely applicable to the transcriptional control of mammalian development.
    Developmental Biology 04/2012; 366(2):404-19. DOI:10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.03.024 · 3.64 Impact Factor