Cargando…

Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes

BACKGROUND: Chromatin-modifying reagents that alter histone associating proteins, DNA conformation or its sequence are well established strategies for studying chromatin structure in interphase (G1, S, G2). Little is known about how these compounds act during metaphase. We assessed the effects of th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Wahab A., Rogan, Peter K., Knoll, Joan H. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26273322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0159-y
_version_ 1782385639301316608
author Khan, Wahab A.
Rogan, Peter K.
Knoll, Joan H. M.
author_facet Khan, Wahab A.
Rogan, Peter K.
Knoll, Joan H. M.
author_sort Khan, Wahab A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chromatin-modifying reagents that alter histone associating proteins, DNA conformation or its sequence are well established strategies for studying chromatin structure in interphase (G1, S, G2). Little is known about how these compounds act during metaphase. We assessed the effects of these reagents at genomic loci that show reproducible, non-random differences in accessibility to chromatin that distinguish homologous targets by single copy DNA probe fluorescence in situ hybridization (scFISH). By super-resolution 3-D structured illumination microscopy (3D-SIM) and other criteria, the differences correspond to ‘differential accessibility’ (DA) to these chromosomal regions. At these chromosomal loci, DA of the same homologous chromosome is stable and epigenetic hallmarks of less accessible interphase chromatin are present. RESULTS: To understand the basis for DA, we investigate the impact of epigenetic modifiers on these allelic differences in chromatin accessibility between metaphase homologs in lymphoblastoid cell lines. Allelic differences in metaphase chromosome accessibility represent a stable chromatin mark on mitotic metaphase chromosomes. Inhibition of the topoisomerase IIα-DNA cleavage complex reversed DA. Inter-homolog probe fluorescence intensity ratios between chromosomes treated with ICRF-193 were significantly lower than untreated controls. 3D-SIM demonstrated that differences in hybridized probe volume and depth between allelic targets were equalized by this treatment. By contrast, DA was impervious to chromosome decondensation treatments targeting histone modifying enzymes, cytosine methylation, as well as in cells with regulatory defects in chromatid cohesion. These data altogether suggest that DA is a reflection of allelic differences in metaphase chromosome compaction, dictated by the localized catenation state of the chromosome, rather than by other epigenetic marks. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of the topoisomerase IIα-DNA cleavage complex mitigated DA by decreasing DNA superhelicity and axial metaphase chromosome condensation. This has potential implications for the mechanism of preservation of cellular phenotypes that enables the same chromatin structure to be correctly reestablished in progeny cells of the same tissue or individual. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13039-015-0159-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4535684
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45356842015-08-14 Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes Khan, Wahab A. Rogan, Peter K. Knoll, Joan H. M. Mol Cytogenet Research BACKGROUND: Chromatin-modifying reagents that alter histone associating proteins, DNA conformation or its sequence are well established strategies for studying chromatin structure in interphase (G1, S, G2). Little is known about how these compounds act during metaphase. We assessed the effects of these reagents at genomic loci that show reproducible, non-random differences in accessibility to chromatin that distinguish homologous targets by single copy DNA probe fluorescence in situ hybridization (scFISH). By super-resolution 3-D structured illumination microscopy (3D-SIM) and other criteria, the differences correspond to ‘differential accessibility’ (DA) to these chromosomal regions. At these chromosomal loci, DA of the same homologous chromosome is stable and epigenetic hallmarks of less accessible interphase chromatin are present. RESULTS: To understand the basis for DA, we investigate the impact of epigenetic modifiers on these allelic differences in chromatin accessibility between metaphase homologs in lymphoblastoid cell lines. Allelic differences in metaphase chromosome accessibility represent a stable chromatin mark on mitotic metaphase chromosomes. Inhibition of the topoisomerase IIα-DNA cleavage complex reversed DA. Inter-homolog probe fluorescence intensity ratios between chromosomes treated with ICRF-193 were significantly lower than untreated controls. 3D-SIM demonstrated that differences in hybridized probe volume and depth between allelic targets were equalized by this treatment. By contrast, DA was impervious to chromosome decondensation treatments targeting histone modifying enzymes, cytosine methylation, as well as in cells with regulatory defects in chromatid cohesion. These data altogether suggest that DA is a reflection of allelic differences in metaphase chromosome compaction, dictated by the localized catenation state of the chromosome, rather than by other epigenetic marks. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of the topoisomerase IIα-DNA cleavage complex mitigated DA by decreasing DNA superhelicity and axial metaphase chromosome condensation. This has potential implications for the mechanism of preservation of cellular phenotypes that enables the same chromatin structure to be correctly reestablished in progeny cells of the same tissue or individual. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13039-015-0159-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4535684/ /pubmed/26273322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0159-y Text en © Khan et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Khan, Wahab A.
Rogan, Peter K.
Knoll, Joan H. M.
Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title_full Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title_fullStr Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title_full_unstemmed Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title_short Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
title_sort reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26273322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0159-y
work_keys_str_mv AT khanwahaba reversingchromatinaccessibilitydifferencesthatdistinguishhomologousmitoticmetaphasechromosomes
AT roganpeterk reversingchromatinaccessibilitydifferencesthatdistinguishhomologousmitoticmetaphasechromosomes
AT knolljoanhm reversingchromatinaccessibilitydifferencesthatdistinguishhomologousmitoticmetaphasechromosomes