Alpha-satellite RNA transcripts are repressed by centromere-nucleolus associations

  1. Leah Bury
  2. Brittania Moodie
  3. Jimmy Ly
  4. Liliana S McKay
  5. Karen H Miga
  6. Iain M Cheeseman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Whitehead Institute, United States
  2. University of California, Santa Cruz, United States

Abstract

Although originally thought to be silent chromosomal regions, centromeres are instead actively transcribed. However, the behavior and contributions of centromere-derived RNAs have remained unclear. Here, we used single-molecule fluorescence in-situ hybridization (smFISH) to detect alpha-satellite RNA transcripts in intact human cells. We find that alpha-satellite RNA smFISH foci levels vary across cell lines and over the cell cycle, but do not remain associated with centromeres, displaying localization consistent with other long non-coding RNAs. Alpha-satellite expression occurs through RNA Polymerase II-dependent transcription, but does not require established centromere or cell division components. Instead, our work implicates centromere-nucleolar interactions as repressing alpha-satellite expression. The fraction of nucleolar-localized centromeres inversely correlates with alpha-satellite transcripts levels across cell lines and transcript levels increase substantially when the nucleolus is disrupted. The control of alpha-satellite transcripts by centromere-nucleolar contacts provides a mechanism to modulate centromere transcription and chromatin dynamics across diverse cell states and conditions.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Leah Bury

    Department of Biology, MIT, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Brittania Moodie

    Department of Biology, MIT, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jimmy Ly

    Department of Biology, MIT, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Liliana S McKay

    Department of Biology, MIT, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5426-5539
  5. Karen H Miga

    Genome Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Iain M Cheeseman

    Department of Biology, MIT, Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    icheese@wi.mit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3829-5612

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM126930)

  • Iain M Cheeseman

American Cancer Society

  • Leah Bury

G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Foundation

  • Iain M Cheeseman

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Bury 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

  • 5,033
    views
  • 600
    downloads
  • 58
    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. Leah Bury
  2. Brittania Moodie
  3. Jimmy Ly
  4. Liliana S McKay
  5. Karen H Miga
  6. Iain M Cheeseman
(2020)
Alpha-satellite RNA transcripts are repressed by centromere-nucleolus associations
eLife 9:e59770.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59770

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59770

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.