Article

Histone sumoylation is a negative regulator in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and shows dynamic interplay with positive-acting histone modifications.

Gene Expression and Regulation Program, The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.
Genes & Development (Impact Factor: 12.64). 05/2006; 20(8):966-76. DOI: 10.1101/gad.1404206
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Covalent histone post-translational modifications such as acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitylation play pivotal roles in regulating many cellular processes, including transcription, response to DNA damage, and epigenetic control. Although positive-acting post-translational modifications have been studied in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, histone modifications that are associated with transcriptional repression have not been shown to occur in this yeast. Here, we provide evidence that histone sumoylation negatively regulates transcription in S. cerevisiae. We show that all four core histones are sumoylated and identify specific sites of sumoylation in histones H2A, H2B, and H4. We demonstrate that histone sumoylation sites are involved directly in transcriptional repression. Further, while histone sumoylation occurs at all loci tested throughout the genome, slightly higher levels occur proximal to telomeres. We observe a dynamic interplay between histone sumoylation and either acetylation or ubiquitylation, where sumoylation serves as a potential block to these activating modifications. These results indicate that sumoylation is the first negative histone modification to be identified in S. cerevisiae and further suggest that sumoylation may serve as a general dynamic mark to oppose transcription.

0 Followers
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mitotic SUMOylation has an essential role in faithful chromosome segregation in eukaryotes, although its molecular consequences are not yet fully understood. In Xenopus egg extract assays, we showed that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is modified by SUMO2/3 at mitotic centromeres and that its enzymatic activity could be regulated by SUMOylation. To determine the molecular consequence of mitotic SUMOylation, we analyzed SUMOylated PARP1-specific binding proteins. We identified Polo-like kinase 1-interacting checkpoint helicase (PICH) as an interaction partner of SUMOylated PARP1 in Xenopus egg extract. Interestingly, PICH also bound to SUMOylated Topoisomerase IIα (TopoIIα) , a major centromeric SUMO substrate. Purified recombinant human PICH interacted with SUMOylated substrates, indicating that PICH directly interacts with SUMO, and this interaction is conserved among species. Further analysis of mitotic chromosomes revealed that PICH localized to the centromere independent of mitotic SUMOylation. Additionally, we found that PICH is modified by SUMO2/3 on mitotic chromosomes and in vitro. PICH SUMOylation is highly dependent on PIASy, consistent with other mitotic chromosomal SUMO substrates. Finally, the SUMOylation of PICH significantly reduced its DNA-binding capability, implicating that SUMOylation might regulate its DNA-dependent ATPase activity. Collectively, our findings suggest a novel SUMO-mediated regulation of PICH[prime]s function at mitotic centromeres. Copyright © 2015, The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
    Journal of Biological Chemistry 01/2015; DOI:10.1074/jbc.C114.601906 · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Latent HSV-1 genomes are chromatinized with silencing marks. Since 2004, however, there has been an apparent inconsistency in the studies of the chromatinization of the HSV-1 genomes in lytically infected cells. Nuclease protection and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays suggested that the genomes were not regularly chromatinized, having only low histone occupancy. However, the chromatin modifications associated with transcribed and non-transcribed HSV-1 genes were those associated with active or repressed transcription, respectively. Moreover, the three critical HSV-1 transcriptional activators all had the capability to induce chromatin remodelling, and interacted with critical chromatin modifying enzymes. Depletion or overexpression of some, but not all, chromatin modifying proteins affected HSV-1 transcription, but often in unexpected manners. Since 2010, it has become clear that both cellular and HSV-1 chromatins are highly dynamic in infected cells. These dynamics reconcile the weak interactions between HSV-1 genomes and chromatin proteins, detected by nuclease protection and chromatin immunoprecipitation, with the proposed regulation of HSV-1 gene expression by chromatin, supported by the marks in the chromatin in the viral genomes and the abilities of the HSV-1 transcription activators to modulate chromatin. It also explains the sometimes unexpected results of interventions to modulate chromatin remodelling activities in infected cells.
    Viruses 07/2013; 5(7):1758-1786. DOI:10.3390/v5071758 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The complexity of the genome is regulated by epigenetic mechanisms, which act on the level of DNA, histones, and nucleosomes. Epigenetic machinery is involved in various biological processes, including embryonic development, cell differentiation, neurogenesis, and adult cell renewal. In the last few years, it has become clear that the number of players identified in the regulation of chromatin structure and function is still increasing. In addition to well-known phenomena, including DNA methylation and histone modification, new, important elements, including nucleosome mobility, histone tail clipping, and regulatory ncRNA molecules, are being discovered. The present paper provides the current state of knowledge about the role of 16 different histone post-translational modifications, nucleosome positioning, and histone tail clipping in the structure and function of chromatin. We also emphasize the significance of cross-talk among chromatin marks and ncRNAs in epigenetic control.
    Neurotoxicity Research 12/2014; 27(2). DOI:10.1007/s12640-014-9508-6 · 3.15 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
12 Downloads
Available from
Jun 6, 2014