Comparative FAIRE-seq analysis reveals distinguishing features of the chromatin structure of ground state- and primed-pluripotent cells

Stem Cells

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 378-391

  Murtha, Matthew ^a   Strino, Francesco ^a   Tokcaer Keskin, Zeynep ^a   Sumru Bayin, N ^a,b   Shalabi, Doaa ^a   Xi, Xiangmei ^a   Kluger, Yuval ^a   Dailey, Lisa ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessible chromatin; Enhancers; Gene expression; Pluripotent stem cells; Transcriptional regulation

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA; CHROMATIN; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL CELL CULTURE; ARTICLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CHROMATIN STRUCTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBRYO; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; FIBROBLAST; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; HISTONE MODIFICATION; LUCIFERASE ASSAY; MOUSE; NEURAL STEM CELL; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOSOME; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PROMOTER REGION; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SOMATIC CELL; ANIMAL; BLASTOCYST; CELL LINE; CHROMATIN; CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY; CYTOLOGY; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MULTIPOTENT STEM CELL; PHYSIOLOGY;

MURINAE;

ANIMALS; BLASTOCYST; CELL LINE; CHROMATIN; CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; MICE; MULTIPOTENT STEM CELLS; NEURAL STEM CELLS; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS;

EID: 84921651959     PISSN: 10665099     EISSN: 15494918     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/stem.1871     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Nichols J, Smith A,. Pluripotency in the embryo and in culture. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2012; 4: a008128.
2. Shimosato D, Shiki M, Niwa H,. Extra-embryonic endoderm cells derived from ES cells induced by GATA Factors acquire the character of XEN cells. BMC Dev Biol 2007; 7: 80.
3. Hayashi K, Surani MA,. Self-renewing epiblast stem cells exhibit continual delineation of germ cells with epigenetic reprogramming in vitro. Development 2009; 136: 3549-3556.
4. Tesar PJ, Chenoweth JG, Brook FA, et al. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature 2007; 448: 196-199.
5. Huang Y, Osorno R, Tsakiridis A, et al. In vivo differentiation potential of epiblast stem cells revealed by chimeric embryo formation. Cell Rep 2012; 2: 1571-1578.
6. Brons IG, Smithers LE, Trotter MW, et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature 2007; 448: 191-195.
7. Cho LT, Wamaitha SE, Tsai IJ, et al. Conversion from mouse embryonic to extra-embryonic endoderm stem cells reveals distinct differentiation capacities of pluripotent stem cell states. Development 2012; 139: 2866-2877.
8. Chambers I, Tomlinson SR,. The transcriptional foundation of pluripotency. Development 2009; 136: 2311-2322.
9. Marks H, Stunnenberg HG,. Transcription regulation and chromatin structure in the pluripotent ground state. Biochim Biophys Acta 2014; 1839: 129-137.
10. Ng HH, Surani MA,. The transcriptional and signalling networks of pluripotency. Nat Cell Biol 2011; 13: 490-496.
11. Giresi PG, Kim J, McDaniell RM, et al. FAIRE (Formaldehyde-Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements) isolates active regulatory elements from human chromatin. Genome Res 2007; 17: 877-885.
12. Song L, Zhang Z, Grasfeder LL, et al. Open chromatin defined by DNaseI and FAIRE identifies regulatory elements that shape cell-type identity. Genome Res 2011; 21: 1757-1767.
13. Kim H, Wu J, Ye S, et al. Modulation of beta-catenin function maintains mouse epiblast stem cell and human embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nat Commun 2013; 4: 2403.
14. Marks H, Kalkan T, Menafra R, et al. The transcriptional and epigenomic foundations of ground state pluripotency. Cell 2012; 149: 590-604.
15. Mikkelsen TS, Ku M, Jaffe DB, et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 2007; 448: 553-560.
16. Ying QL, Wray J, Nichols J, et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 2008; 453: 519-523.
17. Greber B, Wu G, Bernemann C, et al. Conserved and divergent roles of FGF signaling in mouse epiblast stem cells and human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2010; 6: 215-226.
18. Conti L, Pollard SM, Gorba T, et al. Niche-independent symmetrical self-renewal of a mammalian tissue stem cell. PLoS Biol 2005; 3: e283.
19. Giresi PG, Lieb JD,. Isolation of active regulatory elements from eukaryotic chromatin using FAIRE (Formaldehyde Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements). Methods 2009; 48: 233-239.
20. Micsinai M, Parisi F, Strino F, et al. Picking ChIP-seq peak detectors for analyzing chromatin modification experiments. Nucleic Acids Res 2012; 40: e70.
21. Consortium EP,. A user's guide to the encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE). PLoS Biol 2011; 9: e1001046.
22. Yaragatti M, Basilico C, Dailey L,. Identification of active transcriptional regulatory modules by the functional assay of DNA from nucleosome-free regions. Genome Res 2008; 18: 930-938.
23. Karolchik D, Hinrichs AS, Furey TS, et al. The UCSC table browser data retrieval tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32: D493-496.
24. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA,. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1952; 47: 583-621.
25. Cockerill PN,. Structure and function of active chromatin and DNase I hypersensitive sites. FEBS J 2011; 278: 2182-2210.
26. Gaulton KJ, Nammo T, Pasquali L, et al. A map of open chromatin in human pancreatic islets. Nat Genet 2010; 42: 255-259.
27. McLean CY, Bristor D, Hiller M, et al. GREAT improves functional interpretation of cis-regulatory regions. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28: 495-501.
28. Schlesinger Y, Straussman R, Keshet I, et al. Polycomb-mediated methylation on Lys27 of histone H3 pre-marks genes for de novo methylation in cancer. Nat Genet 2007; 39: 232-236.
29. Mouse EC, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Snyder M, et al. An encyclopedia of mouse DNA elements (Mouse ENCODE). Genome Biol 2012; 13: 418.
30. Whyte WA, Orlando DA, Hnisz D, et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell 2013; 153: 307-319.
31. Shimosato D, Shiki M, Niwa H,. Extra-embryonic endoderm cells derived from ES cells induced by GATA factors acquire the character of XEN cells. BMC Dev Biol 2007; 7: 80.
32. Familari M,. Characteristics of the endoderm: Embryonic and extraembryonic in mouse. ScientificWorldJournal 2006; 6: 1815-1827.
33. Brown K, Legros S, Artus J, et al. A comparative analysis of extra-embryonic endoderm cell lines. PLoS One 2010; 5: e12016.
34. Sherwood RI, Jitianu C, Cleaver O, et al. Prospective isolation and global gene expression analysis of definitive and visceral endoderm. Dev Biol 2007; 304: 541-555.
35. Hardison RC, Taylor J,. Genomic approaches towards finding cis-regulatory modules in animals. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13: 469-483.
36. Heintzman ND, Stuart RK, Hon, G, et al. Distinct and predictive chromatin signatures of transcriptional promoters and enhancers in the human genome. Nat Genet 2007; 39: 311-318.
37. Rada-Iglesias A, Bajpai R, Swigut T, et al. A unique chromatin signature uncovers early developmental enhancers in humans. Nature 2011; 470: 279-283.
38. Visel A, Blow MJ, Li Z, et al. ChIP-seq accurately predicts tissue-specific activity of enhancers. Nature 2009; 457: 854-858.
39. Curatola AM, Basilico C,. Expression of the K-fgf proto-oncogene is controlled by 3' regulatory elements which are specific for embryonal carcinoma cells. Mol Cell Biol 1990; 10: 2475-2484.
40. Dailey L, Yuan H, Basilico C,. Interaction between a novel F9-specific factor and octamer-binding proteins is required for cell-type-restricted activity of the fibroblast growth factor 4 enhancer. Mol Cell Biol 1994; 14: 7758-7769.
41. Yuan H, Corbi N, Basilico C, et al. Developmental-specific activity of the FGF-4 enhancer requires the synergistic action of Sox2 and Oct-3. Genes Dev 1995; 9: 2635-2645.
42. Murtha M, Tokcaer-Keskin Z, Tang Z, et al. FIREWACh: High-throughput functional detection of transcriptional regulatory modules in mammalian cells. Nat Methods 2014; 11: 559-565.
43. Stergachis AB, Neph S, Reynolds A, et al. Developmental fate and cellular maturity encoded in human regulatory DNA landscapes. Cell 2013; 154: 888-903.
44. Thurman RE, Rynes E, Humbert R, et al. The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome. Nature 2012; 489: 75-82.
45. Xi H, Shulha HP, Lin JM, et al. Identification and characterization of cell type-specific and ubiquitous chromatin regulatory structures in the human genome. PLoS Genet 2007; 3: e136.
46. Xu J, Shao Z, Glass K, et al. Combinatorial assembly of developmental stage-specific enhancers controls gene expression programs during human erythropoiesis. Dev Cell 2012; 23: 796-811.
47. Zhu J, Adli M, Zou JY, et al. Genome-wide chromatin state transitions associated with developmental and environmental cues. Cell 2013; 152: 642-654.
48. Rossant J,. Stem cells and early lineage development. Cell 2008; 132: 527-531.
49. Senner CE, Krueger F, Oxley D, et al. DNA methylation profiles define stem cell identity and reveal a tight embryonic-extraembryonic lineage boundary. Stem Cells 2012; 30: 2732-2745.
50. Veillard AC, Marks H, Bernardo AS, et al. Stable methylation at promoters distinguishes Epiblast Stem Cells from Embryonic Stem Cells and the in vivo epiblast. Stem Cells Dev 2014; 23: 2014-2029.
51. Ostuni R, Piccolo V, Barozzi I, et al. Latent enhancers activated by stimulation in differentiated cells. Cell 2013; 152: 157-171.
52. Zentner GE, Tesar PJ, Scacheri PC,. Epigenetic signatures distinguish multiple classes of enhancers with distinct cellular functions. Genome Res 2011; 21: 1273-1283.
53. Han DW, Tapia N, Joo JY, et al. Epiblast stem cell subpopulations represent mouse embryos of distinct pregastrulation stages. Cell 2010; 143: 617-627.
54. Chen X, Xu H, Yuan P, et al. Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network in embryonic stem cells. Cell 2008; 133: 1106-1117.
55. Hutchins AP, Choo SH, Mistri TK, et al. Co-motif discovery identifies an Esrrb-Sox2-DNA ternary complex as a mediator of transcriptional differences between mouse embryonic and epiblast stem cells. Stem Cells 2013; 31: 269-281.
56. Ma Z, Swigut T, Valouev A, et al. Sequence-specific regulator Prdm14 safeguards mouse ESCs from entering extraembryonic endoderm fates. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2011; 18: 120-127.
57. Jiang J, Chan YS, Loh YH, et al. A core Klf circuitry regulates self-renewal of embryonic stem cells. Nat Cell Biol 2008; 10: 353-360.
58. Gillich A, Bao S, Grabole N, et al. Epiblast stem cell-based system reveals reprogramming synergy of germline factors. Cell Stem Cell 2012; 10: 425-439.
59. Guo G, Yang J, Nichols J, et al. Klf4 reverts developmentally programmed restriction of ground state pluripotency. Development 2009; 136: 1063-1069.
60. Buecker C, Srinivasan R, Wu Z, et al. Reorganization of enhancer patterns in transition from naive to primed pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2014; 14: 838-853.
61. Hayashi K, Ohta H, Kurimoto K, et al. Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell 2011; 146: 519-532.
62. Acampora D, Di Giovannantonio LG, Simeone A,. Otx2 is an intrinsic determinant of the embryonic stem cell state and is required for transition to a stable epiblast stem cell condition. Development 2013; 140: 43-55.
63. Iwafuchi-Doi M, Matsuda K, Murakami K, et al. Transcriptional regulatory networks in epiblast cells and during anterior neural plate development as modeled in epiblast stem cells. Development 2012; 139: 3926-3937.
64. Festuccia N, Osorno R, Wilson V, et al. The role of pluripotency gene regulatory network components in mediating transitions between pluripotent cell states. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2013; 23: 504-511.
65. Yeo JC, Ng HH,. The transcriptional regulation of pluripotency. Cell Res 2013; 23: 20-32.