Article

Hoogenkamp M, Lichtinger M, Krysinska H, Lancrin C, Clarke D, Williamson A et al.. Early chromatin unfolding by RUNX1: a molecular explanation for differential requirements during specification versus maintenance of the hematopoietic gene expression program. Blood 114: 299-309

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

Full-text

Available from: Christophe Lancrin, Sep 23, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
164 Views
  • Source
    • "Interestingly, the chromatin at this enhancer harbors active marks already in progenitors and is bound by PU.1 and IRF factors before Pax5 transcription takes place in committed pro-B cells (55). It was also shown that the concerted action of PU.1 and Runx1 primes the activation of both promoter and enhancer elements of the c-fms gene in myeloid cell (92, 93). All together, these data clearly indicate the pioneering and priming abilities of the master hematopoietic regulator PU.1. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: All mature blood cells derive from hematopoietic stem cells through gradual restriction of their cell fate potential and acquisition of specialized functions. Lineage specification and cell commitment require the establishment of specific transcriptional programs involving the activation of lineage-specific genes and the repression of lineage-inappropriate genes. This process requires the concerted action of transcription factors (TFs) and epigenetic modifying enzymes. Within the hematopoietic system, B lymphopoiesis is one of the most-studied differentiation programs. Loss of function studies allowed the identification of many TFs and epigenetic modifiers required for B cell development. The usage of systematic analytical techniques such as transcriptome determination, genome-wide mapping of TF binding and epigenetic modifications, and mass spectrometry analyses, allowed to gain a systemic description of the intricate networks that guide B cell development. However, the precise mechanisms governing the interaction between TFs and chromatin are still unclear. Generally, chromatin structure can be remodeled by some TFs but in turn can also regulate (i.e., prevent or promote) the binding of other TFs. This conundrum leads to the crucial questions of who is on first, when, and how. We review here the current knowledge about TF networks and epigenetic regulation during hematopoiesis, with an emphasis on B cell development, and discuss in particular the current models about the interplay between chromatin and TFs.
    Frontiers in Immunology 04/2014; 5:156. DOI:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00156
  • Source
    • "As we suggested previously in the " cocktail party " model of differentiation (Sieweke & Graf, 1998), transcription factor complex formation is dynamic and differentiation stage specific. Runx1 thus forms complexes and cooperates with PU.1 during the initiation of c-fms expression but is dispensable at later stages of differentiation (Hoogenkamp et al., 2009), where Egr-2 cooperates with PU.1 (Krysinska et al., 2007). Similarly, at later stages of differentiation , the transcription factor IRF8 can cooperatively interact with DNA-bound PU.1 without binding to DNA itself and thereby enhances macrophage differentiation through targeted gene induction (Sharf et al., 1997; Tamura, Thotakura, Tanaka, Ko, & Ozato, 2005). "
    [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
    • "Cebpa did not respond to RUNX1 induction, and neither did the known RUNX1 target Csf1r. As shown previously (Hoogenkamp et al, 2009), Csf1r cannot be bound by RUNX1 at this developmental stage (Supplementary Figure 6D). "
    [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(22). DOI:10.1038/emboj.2012.275 · 10.75 Impact Factor
Show more