Article

Lysine methyltransferase G9a is required for de novo DNA methylation and the establishment, but not the maintenance, of proviral silencing

Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 03/2011; 108(14):5718-23. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014660108
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Methylation on lysine 9 of histone H3 (H3K9me) and DNA methylation play important roles in the transcriptional silencing of specific genes and repetitive elements. Both marks are detected on class I and II endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in murine embryonic stem cells (mESCs). Recently, we reported that the H3K9-specific lysine methyltransferase (KMTase) Eset/Setdb1/KMT1E is required for H3K9me3 and the maintenance of silencing of ERVs in mESCs. In contrast, G9a/Ehmt2/KMT1C is dispensable, despite the fact that this KMTase is required for H3K9 dimethylation (H3K9me2) and efficient DNA methylation of these retroelements. Transcription of the exogenous retrovirus (XRV) Moloney murine leukemia virus is rapidly extinguished after integration in mESCs, concomitant with de novo DNA methylation. However, the role that H3K9 KMTases play in this process has not been addressed. Here, we demonstrate that G9a, but not Suv39h1 or Suv39h2, is required for silencing of newly integrated Moloney murine leukemia virus-based vectors in mESCs. The silencing defect in G9a(-/-) cells is accompanied by a reduction of H3K9me2 at the proviral LTR, indicating that XRVs are direct targets of G9a. Furthermore, de novo DNA methylation of newly integrated proviruses is impaired in the G9a(-/-) line, phenocopying proviral DNA methylation and silencing defects observed in Dnmt3a-deficient mESCs. Once established, however, maintenance of silencing of XRVs, like ERVs, is dependent exclusively on the KMTase Eset. Taken together, these observations reveal that in mESCs, the H3K9 KMTase G9a is required for the establishment, but not for the maintenance, of silencing of newly integrated proviruses.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Matthew Lorincz, Jul 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In mice, epiblast cells found both the germ-line and somatic lineages in the developing embryo. These epiblast cells carry epigenetic information from both parents that is required for development and cell function in the fetus and during post-natal life. However, germ cells must establish an epigenetic program that supports totipotency and the configuration of parent-specific epigenetic states in the gametes. To achieve this, the epigenetic information inherited by the primordial germ cells at specification is erased and new epigenetic states are established during development of the male and female germ-lines. Errors in this process can lead to transmission of epimutations through the germ-line, which have the potential to affect development and disease in the parent's progeny. This review discusses epigenetic reprogramming in the germ-line and the transmission of epigenetic information to the following generation.
    Reproduction 04/2013; DOI:10.1530/REP-12-0526
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying the formation and maintenance of memories is a central goal of the neuroscience community. It is well regarded that an organism's ability to lastingly adapt its behavior in response to a transient environmental stimulus relies on the central nervous system's capability for structural and functional plasticity. This plasticity is dependent on a well-regulated program of neurotransmitter release, post-synaptic receptor activation, intracellular signaling cascades, gene transcription, and subsequent protein synthesis. In the last decade, epigenetic markers like DNA methylation and post-translational modifications of histone tails have emerged as important regulators of the memory process. Their ability to regulate gene transcription dynamically in response to neuronal activation supports the consolidation of long-term memory. Furthermore, the persistent and self-propagating nature of these mechanisms, particularly DNA methylation, suggests a molecular mechanism for memory maintenance. In this review, we will examine the evidence that supports a role of epigenetic mechanisms in learning and memory. In doing so, we hope to emphasize (1) the widespread involvement of these mechanisms across different behavioral paradigms and distinct brain regions, (2) the temporal and genetic specificity of these mechanisms in response to upstream signaling cascades, and (3) the functional outcome these mechanisms may have on structural and functional plasticity. Finally, we consider the future directions of neuroepigenetic research as it relates to neuronal storage of information.
    Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) 01/2013; 20(2):61-74. DOI:10.1101/lm.026575.112 · 4.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: De novo DNA methylation is an essential aspect of the epigenetic reprogramming that takes place during early development, yet factors responsible for its instatement at particular genomic loci are poorly defined. Here, we demonstrate that the KRAB-ZFP-mediated recruitment of KAP1 to DNA in embryonic stem cells (ESCs) induces cytosine methylation. This process is preceded by H3K9 trimethylation, and genome-wide analyses reveal that it spreads over short distances from KAP1-binding sites so as to involve nearby CpG islands. In sharp contrast, in differentiated cells, KRAB/KAP1-induced heterochromatin formation does not lead to DNA methylation. Correspondingly, the methylation status of CpG islands in the adult mouse liver correlates with their proximity to KAP1-binding sites in ESCs, not in hepatocytes. Therefore, KRAB-ZFPs and their cofactor KAP1 are in part responsible for the establishment during early embryogenesis of site-specific DNA methylation patterns that are maintained through development.
    Cell Reports 10/2012; 2(4). DOI:10.1016/j.celrep.2012.08.043 · 7.21 Impact Factor