In vivo targeting of de novo DNA methylation by histone modifications in yeast and mouse

  1. Marco Morselli  Is a corresponding author
  2. William A Pastor
  3. Barbara Montanini
  4. Kevin Nee
  5. Roberto Ferrari
  6. Kai Fu
  7. Giancarlo Bonora
  8. Liudmilla Rubbi
  9. Amander T Clark
  10. Simone Ottonello
  11. Steven E Jacobsen
  12. Matteo Pellegrini
  1. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  2. Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Italy

Abstract

Methylation of cytosines (5meC) is a widespread heritable DNA modification. During mammalian development, two global demethylation events are followed by waves of de novo DNA methylation. In vivo mechanisms of DNA methylation establishment are largely uncharacterized. Here we use Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a system lacking DNA methylation to define the chromatin features influencing the activity of the murine DNMT3B. Our data demonstrate that DNMT3B and H3K4 methylation are mutually exclusive and that DNMT3B is co-localized with H3K36 methylated regions. In support of this observation, DNA methylation analysis in yeast strains without Set1 and Set2 show an increase of relative 5meC levels at the TSS and a decrease in the gene-body, respectively. We extend our observation to the murine male germline, where H3K4me3 is strongly anti-correlated while H3K36me3 correlates with accelerated DNA methylation. These results show the importance of H3K36 methylation for gene-body DNA methylation in vivo.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Marco Morselli

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    mmorselli@ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. William A Pastor

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Barbara Montanini

    Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Parma, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kevin Nee

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Roberto Ferrari

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kai Fu

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Giancarlo Bonora

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Liudmilla Rubbi

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Amander T Clark

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Simone Ottonello

    Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Life Sciences, Laboratory of Functional Genomics and Protein Engineering, Parma, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Steven E Jacobsen

    Department of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matteo Pellegrini

    Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experimentation was conducted with the highest ethical standards in accordance with UCLA policy and procedures (DHHS OLAW A3196-01, AAALAC #000408 and protocol # 2008-070), and applicable provisions of the USDA Animal Welfare Act Regulations, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Copyright

© 2015, Morselli et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,213
    views
  • 1,449
    downloads
  • 148
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Marco Morselli
  2. William A Pastor
  3. Barbara Montanini
  4. Kevin Nee
  5. Roberto Ferrari
  6. Kai Fu
  7. Giancarlo Bonora
  8. Liudmilla Rubbi
  9. Amander T Clark
  10. Simone Ottonello
  11. Steven E Jacobsen
  12. Matteo Pellegrini
(2015)
In vivo targeting of de novo DNA methylation by histone modifications in yeast and mouse
eLife 4:e06205.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06205

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06205

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Thomas A Bos, Elizaveta Polyakova ... Monique RM Jongbloed
    Research Article Updated

    Human autonomic neuronal cell models are emerging as tools for modeling diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias. In this systematic review, we compared 33 articles applying 14 different protocols to generate sympathetic neurons and 3 different procedures to produce parasympathetic neurons. All methods involved the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, and none employed permanent or reversible cell immortalization. Almost all protocols were reproduced in multiple pluripotent stem cell lines, and over half showed evidence of neural firing capacity. Common limitations in the field are a lack of three-dimensional models and models that include multiple cell types. Sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols largely mirrored embryonic development, with the notable absence of migration, axon extension, and target-specificity cues. Parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocols may be improved by including several embryonic cues promoting cell survival, cell maturation, or ion channel expression. Moreover, additional markers to define parasympathetic neurons in vitro may support the validity of these protocols. Nonetheless, four sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols and one parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocol reported more than two-thirds of cells expressing autonomic neuron markers. Altogether, these protocols promise to open new research avenues of human autonomic neuron development and disease modeling.