The activity of engrailed imaginal disc enhancers is modulated epigenetically by chromatin and autoregulation.

engrailed (en) encodes a homeodomain transcription factor crucial for the proper development of Drosophila embryos and adults. Like many developmental transcription factors, en expression is regulated by many enhancers, some of overlapping function, that drive expression in spatially and temporally restricted patterns. The en embryonic enhancers are located in discrete DNA fragments that can function correctly in small reporter transgenes. In contrast, the en imaginal disc enhancers (IDEs) do not function correctly in small reporter transgenes. En is expressed in the posterior compartment of wing imaginal discs; in contrast, small IDE-reporter transgenes are expressed mainly in the anterior compartment. We found that En binds to the IDEs and suggest that it may directly repress IDE function and modulate En expression levels. We identified two en IDEs, O and S. Deletion of either of these IDEs from a 79kb HA-en rescue transgene (HAen79) caused a loss-of-function en phenotype when the HAen79 transgene was the sole source of En. In contrast, flies with a deletion of the same IDEs from an endogenous en gene had no phenotype, suggesting a resiliency not seen in the HAen79 rescue transgene. Inserting a gypsy insulator in HAen79 between en regulatory DNA and flanking sequences strengthened the activity of HAen79, giving better function in both the ON and OFF transcriptional states. Altogether our data suggest that the en IDEs stimulate expression in the entire imaginal disc, and that the ON/OFF state is set by epigenetic memory set by the embryonic enhancers. This epigenetic regulation is similar to that of the Ultrabithorax IDEs and we suggest that the activity of late-acting enhancers in other genes may be similarly regulated.

The activity of engrailed imaginal disc enhancers is modulated epigenetically by chromatin and autoregulation.

engrailed (en) encodes a homeodomain transcription factor crucial for the proper development of Drosophila embryos and adults. Like many developmental transcription factors, en expression is regulated by many enhancers, some of overlapping function, that drive expression in spatially and temporally restricted patterns. The en embryonic enhancers are located in discrete DNA fragments that can function correctly in small reporter transgenes. In contrast, the en imaginal disc enhancers (IDEs) do not function correctly in small reporter transgenes. En is expressed in the posterior compartment of wing imaginal disks; small IDE-reporter transgenes are expressed in the anterior compartment, the opposite of what is expected. Our data show that the En protein binds to en IDEs, and we suggest that En directly represses IDE function. We identified two en IDEs, 'O' and 'S'. Deletion of either of these IDEs from a 79kb HA-en rescue transgene (HAen79) caused a loss-of-function en phenotype when the HAen79 transgene was the sole source of En. In contrast, flies with a deletion of the same IDEs from the endogenous en gene had no phenotype, suggesting a resiliency not seen in the HAen79 rescue transgene. Inserting a gypsy insulator in HAen79 between en regulatory DNA and flanking sequences strengthened the activity of HAen79, giving better function in both the ON and OFF transcriptional states. Altogether our data show that the en IDEs stimulate expression in the entire imaginal disc, and that the ON/OFF state is set by epigenetic regulators. Further, the endogenous locus imparts a stability to en function not seen even in a large transgene, reflecting the importance of both positive and negative epigenetic influences that act over relatively large distances in chromatin.

A method describing the microdissection of trabecular meshwork tissue from Brown Norway rat eyes.

Glaucoma is often associated with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), generally due to obstruction of aqueous humor outflow within the trabecular meshwork (TM). Despite many decades of research, the molecular cause of this obstruction remains elusive. To study IOP regulation, several in vitro models, such as perfusion of anterior segments or mechanical stretching of TM cells, have identified several IOP-responsive genes and proteins. While these studies have proved informative, they do not fully recapitulate the in vivo environment where IOP is subject to additional factors, such as circadian rhythms. Thus, rodent animal models are now commonly used to study IOP-responsive genes in vivo. Several single-cell RNAseq studies have been performed where angle tissue, containing cornea, iris, ciliary body tissue in addition to TM, is dissected. However, it is advantageous to physically separate TM from other tissues because the ratio of TM cells is relatively low compared to the other cell types. In this report, we describe a new technique for rat TM microdissection. Evaluating tissue post-dissection by histology and immunostaining clearly shows successful removal of the TM. In addition, TaqMan PCR primers targeting biomarkers of trabecular meshwork (Myoc, Mgp, Chi3l1) or ciliary body (Myh11, Des) genes showed little contamination of TM tissue by the ciliary body. Finally, pitfalls encountered during TM microdissection are discussed to enable others to successfully perform this microsurgical technique in the rat eye.

Defining the Boundaries of Polycomb Domains in Drosophila.

Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are an important group of transcriptional repressors that act by modifying chromatin. PcG target genes are covered by the repressive chromatin mark H3K27me3. Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a multiprotein complex that is responsible for generating H3K27me3. In Drosophila, PRC2 is recruited by Polycomb Response Elements (PREs) and then trimethylates flanking nucleosomes, spreading the H3K27me3 mark over large regions of the genome, the "Polycomb domains." What defines the boundary of a Polycomb domain? There is experimental evidence that insulators, PolII, and active transcription can all form the boundaries of Polycomb domains. Here we divide the boundaries of larval Polycomb domains into six different categories. In one category, genes are transcribed toward the Polycomb domain, where active transcription is thought to stop the spreading of H3K27me3. In agreement with this, we show that introducing a transcriptional terminator into such a transcription unit causes an extension of the Polycomb domain. Additional data suggest that active transcription of a boundary gene may restrict the range of enhancer activity of a Polycomb-regulated gene.