Article

The Chromatin-Remodeling BAF Complex Mediates Cellular Antiviral Activities by Promoter Priming

Laboratory of Molecular Immunology, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Molecular and Cellular Biology (Impact Factor: 5.04). 06/2004; 24(10):4476-86. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.24.10.4476-4486.2004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The elicitation of cellular antiviral activities is dependent on the rapid transcriptional activation of interferon (IFN) target genes. It is not clear how the interferon target promoters, which are organized into chromatin structures in cells, rapidly respond to interferon or viral stimulation. In this report, we show that alpha IFN (IFN-alpha) treatment of HeLa cells induced hundreds of genes. The induction of the majority of these genes was inhibited when one critical subunit of the chromatin-remodeling SWI/SNF-like BAF complexes, BAF47, was knocked down via RNA interference. Inhibition of BAF47 blocked the cellular response to viral infection and impaired cellular antiviral activity by inhibiting many IFN- and virus-inducible genes. We show that the BAF complex was required to mediate both the basal-level expression and the rapid induction of the antiviral genes. Further analyses indicated that the BAF complex primed some IFN target promoters by utilizing ATP-derived energy to maintain the chromatin in a constitutively open conformation, allowing faster and more potent induction after IFN-alpha treatment. We propose that constitutive binding of the BAF complex is an important mechanism for the IFN-inducible promoters to respond rapidly to IFN and virus stimulation.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Hong Liu, Jul 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    • "SMARCB1 also appears to affect (i) mitotic spindle checkpoint; (ii) the interferon signaling pathway; and (iii) the Gli-Hedgehog pathway [Medjkane et al., 2004; Vries et al., 2005; Morozov et al., 2007; Jagani et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011]. For example, SMARCB1 and the SWI/SNF complexes are involved in induction of interferon signaling [Agalioti et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2002; Pattenden et al., 2002; Cui et al., 2004; Morozov et al., 2007]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Schwannomatosis is the third major form of neurofibromatosis and is characterized by the development of multiple schwannomas in the absence of bilateral vestibular schwannomas. The 2011 Schwannomatosis Update was organized by the Children's Tumor Foundation (www.ctf.org) and held in Los Angeles, CA, from June 5-8, 2011. This article summarizes the highlights presented at the Conference and represents the "state-of-the-field" in 2011. Genetic studies indicate that constitutional mutations in the SMARCB1 tumor suppressor gene occur in 40-50% of familial cases and in 8-10% of sporadic cases of schwannomatosis. Tumorigenesis is thought to occur through a four-hit, three-step model, beginning with a germline mutation in SMARCB1 (hit 1), followed by loss of a portion of chromosome 22 that contains the second SMARCB1 allele and one NF2 allele (hits 2 and 3), followed by mutation of the remaining wild-type NF2 allele (hit 4). Insights from research on HIV and pediatric rhabdoid tumors have shed light on potential molecular pathways that are dysregulated in schwannomatosis-related schwannomas. Mouse models of schwannomatosis have been developed and promise to further expand our understanding of tumorigenesis and the tumor microenvironment. Clinical reports have described the occurrence of intracranial meningiomas in schwannomatosis patients and in families with germline SMARCB1 mutations. The authors propose updated diagnostic criteria to incorporate new clinical and genetic findings since 2005. In the next 5 years, the authors expect that advances in basic research in the pathogenesis of schwannomatosis will lead toward clinical investigations of potential drug therapies. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 03/2013; 161(3):405-16. DOI:10.1002/ajmg.a.35760 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Reorganization of the nucleosomal spacing at latent enhancers may reflect either an active process mediated by chromatin remodelers or random fluctuations in the position of nonfixed nucleosomes. In the first case, TFs such as the STAT TF and AP-1 endowed with the ability to recruit chromatin-remodeling complexes (Cui et al., 2004; Huang et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2002; Biddie et al., 2011) would initially make short contacts with partially occluded binding sites within latent enhancers, thus promoting (in combination with Pu.1) their opening via an iterative process involving the repetition of transient binding events followed by progressively increased site exposure. The second possibility is that either nucleosome turnover or spontaneous lateral movements of nucleosomes that are not constrained because of the lack of either adjacent barriers or positioning signals (Valouev et al., 2011) would create windows of opportunity for TF binding, thus eventually leading to the stabilization of the open state. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to current models, once the cell has reached terminal differentiation, the enhancer repertoire is completely established and maintained by cooperatively acting lineage-specific transcription factors (TFs). TFs activated by extracellular stimuli operate within this predetermined repertoire, landing close to where master regulators are constitutively bound. Here, we describe latent enhancers, defined as regions of the genome that in terminally differentiated cells are unbound by TFs and lack the histone marks characteristic of enhancers but acquire these features in response to stimulation. Macrophage stimulation caused sequential binding of stimulus-activated and lineage-determining TFs to these regions, enabling deposition of enhancer marks. Once unveiled, many of these enhancers did not return to a latent state when stimulation ceased; instead, they persisted and mediated a faster and stronger response upon restimulation. We suggest that stimulus-specific expansion of the cis-regulatory repertoire provides an epigenomic memory of the exposure to environmental agents.
    Cell 01/2013; 152(1-2):157-171. DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.018 · 33.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Thus, to address this kind of question, further technical tools are required to quantitatively compare the nucleosome occupancy between different cell types or under different conditions. BRG1 was recruited to proximal promoter regions, for example , in the interferon signaling pathways (Liu et al. 2002; Cui et al. 2004) and Toll-like receptor signaling pathways (Lai et al. 2009; Ramirez-Carrozzi et al. 2009). It was also detected at distal regulatory elements including those of the CIITA gene (Ni et al. 2008) and beta-globin gene (O'Neill et al. 1999; Im et al. 2005), where BRG1 may mediate gene activation by facilitating long-distance chromatin interaction (Kim et al. 2009b). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Enhancers of transcription activate transcription via binding of sequence-specific transcription factors to their target sites in chromatin. In this report, we identify GATA1-bound distal sites genome-wide and find a global reorganization of the nucleosomes at these potential enhancers during differentiation of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) to erythrocytes. We show that the catalytic subunit BRG1 of BAF complexes localizes to these distal sites during differentiation and generates a longer nucleosome linker region surrounding the GATA1 sites by shifting the flanking nucleosomes away. Intriguingly, we find that the nucleosome shifting specifically facilitates binding of TAL1 but not GATA1 and is linked to subsequent transcriptional regulation of target genes.
    Genome Research 07/2011; 21(10):1650-8. DOI:10.1101/gr.121145.111 · 13.85 Impact Factor
Show more