The chromatin architectural proteins HMGD1 and H1 bind reciprocally and have opposite effects on chromatin structure and gene regulation

Background: Chromatin architectural proteins interact with nucleosomes to modulate chromatin accessibility and higher-order chromatin structure. While these proteins are almost certainly important for gene regulation they have been studied far less than the core histone proteins. Results: Here we describe the genomic distributions and functional roles of two chromatin architectural proteins: histone H1 and the high mobility group protein HMGD1 in Drosophila S2 cells. Using ChIP-seq, biochemical and gene specific approaches, we find that HMGD1 binds to highly accessible regulatory chromatin and active promoters. In contrast, H1 is primarily associated with heterochromatic regions marked with repressive histone marks. We find that the ratio of HMGD1 to H1 binding is a better predictor of gene activity than either protein by itself, which suggests that reciprocal binding between these proteins is important for gene regulation. Using knockdown experiments, we show that HMGD1 and H1 affect the occupancy of the other protein, change nucleosome repeat length and modulate gene expression. Conclusion: Collectively, our data suggest that dynamic and mutually exclusive binding of H1 and HMGD1 to nucleosomes and their linker sequences may control the fluid chromatin structure that is required for transcriptional regulation. This study provides a framework to further study the interplay between chromatin architectural proteins and epigenetics in gene regulation

Archaeal Nucleosome Positioning In Vivo and In Vitro is Directed by Primary Sequence Motifs

Background: Histone wrapping of DNA into nucleosomes almost certainly evolved in the Archaea, and predates Eukaryotes. In Eukaryotes, nucleosome positioning plays a central role in regulating gene expression and is directed by primary sequence motifs that together form a nucleosome positioning code. The experiments reported were undertaken to determine if archaeal histone assembly conforms to the nucleosome positioning code. Results: Eukaryotic nucleosome positioning is favored and directed by phased helical repeats of AA/TT/AT/TA and CC/GG/CG/GC dinucleotides, and disfavored by longer AT-rich oligonucleotides. Deep sequencing of genomic DNA protected from micrococcal nuclease digestion by assembly into archaeal nucleosomes has established that archaeal nucleosome assembly is also directed and positioned by these sequence motifs, both in vivo in Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus and Thermococcus kodakarensis and in vitro in reaction mixtures containing only one purified archaeal histone and genomic DNA. Archaeal nucleosomes assembled at the same locations in vivo and in vitro, with much reduced assembly immediately upstream of open reading frames and throughout the ribosomal rDNA operons. Providing further support for a common positioning code, archaeal histones assembled into nucleosomes on eukaryotic DNA and eukaryotic histones into nucleosomes on archaeal DNA at the same locations. T. kodakarensis has two histones, designated HTkA and HTkB, and strains with either but not both histones deleted grow normally but do exhibit transcriptome differences. Comparisons of the archaeal nucleosome profiles in the intergenic regions immediately upstream of genes that exhibited increased or decreased transcription in the absence of HTkA or HTkB revealed substantial differences but no consistent pattern of changes that would correlate directly with archaeal nucleosome positioning inhibiting or stimulating transcription. Conclusions: The results obtained establish that an archaeal histone and a genome sequence together are sufficient to determine where archaeal nucleosomes preferentially assemble and where they avoid assembly. We confirm that the same nucleosome positioning code operates in Archaea as in Eukaryotes and presumably therefore evolved with the histone-fold mechanism of DNA binding and compaction early in the archaeal lineage, before the divergence of Eukaryotes

Nucleolin Inhibits G4 Oligonucleotide Unwinding by Werner Helicase

The Werner protein (WRNp), a member of the RecQ helicase family, is strongly associated with the nucleolus, as is nucleolin (NCL), an important nucleolar constituent protein. Both WRNp and NCL respond to the effects of DNA damaging agents. Therefore, we have investigated if these nuclear proteins interact and if this interaction has a possible functional significance in DNA damage repair.Here we report that WRNp interacts with the RNA-binding protein, NCL, based on immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescent co-localization in live and fixed cells, and direct binding of purified WRNp to nucleolin. We also map the binding region to the C-terminal domains of both proteins. Furthermore, treatment of U2OS cells with 15 µM of the Topoisomerase I inhibitor, camptothecin, causes the dissociation of the nucleolin-Werner complex in the nucleolus, followed by partial re-association in the nucleoplasm. Other DNA damaging agents, such as hydroxyurea, Mitomycin C, and aphidicolin do not have these effects. Nucleolin or its C-terminal fragment affected the helicase, but not the exonuclease activity of WRNp, by inhibiting WRN unwinding of G4 tetraplex DNA structures, as seen in activity assays and electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA).These data suggest that nucleolin may regulate G4 DNA unwinding by WRNp, possibly in response to certain DNA damaging agents. We postulate that the NCL-WRNp complex may contain an inactive form of WRNp, which is released from the nucleolus upon DNA damage. Then, when required, WRNp is released from inhibition and can participate in the DNA repair processes

Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Selectively Target Homology Dependent DNA Repair Defective Cells and Elevate Non-Homologous Endjoining Activity

Background: We have previously used the ATAD5-luciferase high-throughput screening assay to identify genotoxic compounds with potential chemotherapeutic capabilities. The successful identification of known genotoxic agents, including the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) trichostatin A (TSA), confirmed the specificity of the screen since TSA has been widely studied for its ability to cause apoptosis in cancer cells. Because many cancers have acquired mutations in DNA damage checkpoints or repair pathways, we hypothesized that these cancers may be susceptible to treatments that target compensatory pathways. Here, we used a panel of isogenic chicken DT40 B lymphocyte mutant and human cell lines to investigate the ability of TSA to define selective pathways that promote HDACi toxicity. Results: HDACi induced a DNA damage response and reduced viability in all repair deficient DT40 mutants although ATM-nulls were least affected. The most dramatic sensitivity was observed in mutants lacking the homology dependent repair (HDR) factor BLM or the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and HDR factors, KU/RAD54, suggesting an involvement of either HDR or NHEJ in HDACi-induced cell death. To extend these findings, we measured the frequencies of HDR and NHEJ after HDACi treatment and monitored viability in human cell lines comparably deficient in HDR or NHEJ. Although no difference in HDR frequency was observed between HDACi treated and untreated cells, HDR-defective human cell lines were clearly more sensitive than wild type. Unexpectedly, cells treated with HDACis showed a significantly elevated NHEJ frequency. Conclusions: HDACi targeting drugs induced significant increases in NHEJ activity in human cell lines but did not alter HDR frequency. Moreover, HDR is required for cellular resistance to HDACi therapy; therefore, NHEJ does not appear to be a critical axis for HDACi resistance. Rather, HDACi compounds induced DNA damage, most likely double strand breaks (DSBs), and HDR proficiency is correlated with cell survivalclose4

Hsp90 Inhibitor–Mediated Disruption of Chaperone Association of ATR with Hsp90 Sensitizes Cancer Cells to DNA Damage

Abstract Following DNA damage that results in stalled replication fork, activation of ATR-CHK1 signaling induces the DNA damage response (DDR) in transformed cells. In the present studies on human cervical and breast cancer cells, we determined the effects of hsp90 inhibition on the levels and accumulation of DNA damage/repair–associated proteins following exposure to γ-ionizing radiation (IR; 4 Gy). We show that hsp90 inhibition with 17-allylamino-demehoxygeldanamycin or the novel, nongeldanamycin analogue AUY922 (resorcinylic isoxazole amide; Novartis Pharma) dose-dependently reduced the levels of ATR and CHK1 without affecting ATM levels. AUY922-mediated depletion of ATR and CHK1 was associated with an increase in their polyubiquitylation and decreased binding to hsp90. Cotreatment with bortezomib partially restored AUY922-mediated depletion of ATR and CHK1 levels. Additionally, treatment with AUY922 reduced the accumulation of ATR, p53BP1, and CHK1 but not γ-H2AX to the sites of DNA damage. Following exposure to IR, AUY922 treatment abrogated IR-induced phospho (p)-ATR and p-CHK1 levels, but significantly enhanced γ-H2AX levels. AUY922 treatment also increased IR-induced accumulation of the cells in G2–M phase of the cell cycle, inhibited the repair of IR-induced DNA damage, and augmented IR-mediated loss of clonogenic survival. Short hairpin RNA–mediated depletion of ATR also inhibited IR-induced p-ATR and p-CHK1, but increased γ-H2AX levels, sensitizing cancer cells to IR-induced apoptosis and loss of clonogenic survival. These findings indicate that ATR is a bona fide hsp90 client protein and post-IR administration of AUY922, by inhibiting ATR-CHK1–mediated DDR, sensitizes cancer cells to IR. Mol Cancer Ther; 10(7); 1194–206. ©2011 AACR.</jats:p