PAXIP1 and STAG2 converge to maintain 3D genome architecture and facilitate promoter/enhancer contacts to enable stress hormone-dependent transcription.

How steroid hormone receptors (SHRs) regulate transcriptional activity remains partly understood. Upon activation, SHRs bind the genome together with a co-regulator repertoire, crucial to induce gene expression. However, it remains unknown which components of the SHR-recruited co-regulator complex are essential to drive transcription following hormonal stimuli. Through a FACS-based genome-wide CRISPR screen, we functionally dissected the Glucocorticoid Receptor (GR) complex. We describe a functional cross-talk between PAXIP1 and the cohesin subunit STAG2, critical for regulation of gene expression by GR. Without altering the GR cistrome, PAXIP1 and STAG2 depletion alter the GR transcriptome, by impairing the recruitment of 3D-genome organization proteins to the GR complex. Importantly, we demonstrate that PAXIP1 is required for stability of cohesin on chromatin, its localization to GR-occupied sites, and maintenance of enhancer-promoter interactions. In lung cancer, where GR acts as tumor suppressor, PAXIP1/STAG2 loss enhances GR-mediated tumor suppressor activity by modifying local chromatin interactions. All together, we introduce PAXIP1 and STAG2 as novel co-regulators of GR, required to maintain 3D-genome architecture and drive the GR transcriptional programme following hormonal stimuli.

Contribution of variant subunits and associated factors to genome-wide distribution and dynamics of cohesin.

BACKGROUND: The cohesin complex organizes the genome-forming dynamic chromatin loops that impact on all DNA-mediated processes. There are two different cohesin complexes in vertebrate somatic cells, carrying the STAG1 or STAG2 subunit, and two versions of the regulatory subunit PDS5, PDS5A and PDS5B. Mice deficient for any of the variant subunits are embryonic lethal, which indicates that they are not functionally redundant. However, their specific behavior at the molecular level is not fully understood. RESULTS: The genome-wide distribution of cohesin provides important information with functional consequences. Here, we have characterized the distribution of cohesin subunits and regulators in mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) either wild type or deficient for cohesin subunits and regulators by chromatin immunoprecipitation and deep sequencing. We identify non-CTCF cohesin-binding sites in addition to the commonly detected CTCF cohesin sites and show that cohesin-STAG2 is the preferred variant at these positions. Moreover, this complex has a more dynamic association with chromatin as judged by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), associates preferentially with WAPL and is more easily extracted from chromatin with salt than cohesin-STAG1. We observe that both PDS5A and PDS5B are exclusively located at cohesin-CTCF positions and that ablation of a single paralog has no noticeable consequences for cohesin distribution while double knocked out cells show decreased accumulation of cohesin at all its binding sites. With the exception of a fraction of cohesin positions in which we find binding of all regulators, including CTCF and WAPL, the presence of NIPBL and PDS5 is mutually exclusive, consistent with our immunoprecipitation analyses in mammalian cell extracts and previous results in yeast. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the idea that non-CTCF cohesin-binding sites represent sites of cohesin loading or pausing and are preferentially occupied by the more dynamic cohesin-STAG2. PDS5 proteins redundantly contribute to arrest cohesin at CTCF sites, possibly by preventing binding of NIPBL, but are not essential for this arrest. These results add important insights towards understanding how cohesin regulates genome folding and the specific contributions of the different variants that coexist in the cell.

Specific Contributions of Cohesin-SA1 and Cohesin-SA2 to TADs and Polycomb Domains in Embryonic Stem Cells.

Cohesin exists in two variants carrying either STAG/SA1 or SA2. Here we have addressed their specific contributions to the unique spatial organization of the mouse embryonic stem cell genome, which ensures super-enhancer-dependent transcription of pluripotency factors and repression of lineage-specification genes within Polycomb domains. We find that cohesin-SA2 facilitates Polycomb domain compaction through Polycomb repressing complex 1 (PRC1) recruitment and promotes the establishment of long-range interaction networks between distant Polycomb-bound promoters that are important for gene repression. Cohesin-SA1, in contrast, disrupts these networks, while preserving topologically associating domain (TAD) borders. The diverse effects of both complexes on genome topology may reflect two modes of action of cohesin. One, likely involving loop extrusion, establishes overall genome arrangement in TADs together with CTCF and prevents excessive segregation of same-class compartment regions. The other is required for organization of local transcriptional hubs such as Polycomb domains and super-enhancers, which define cell identity.

Distinct roles of cohesin-SA1 and cohesin-SA2 in 3D chromosome organization.

Two variant cohesin complexes containing SMC1, SMC3, RAD21 and either SA1 (also known as STAG1) or SA2 (also known as STAG2) are present in all cell types. We report here their genomic distribution and specific contributions to genome organization in human cells. Although both variants are found at CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) sites, a distinct population of the SA2-containing cohesin complexes (hereafter referred to as cohesin-SA2) localize to enhancers lacking CTCF, are linked to tissue-specific transcription and cannot be replaced by the SA1-containing cohesin complex (cohesin-SA1) when SA2 is absent, a condition that has been observed in several tumors. Downregulation of each of these variants has different consequences for gene expression and genome architecture. Our results suggest that cohesin-SA1 preferentially contributes to the stabilization of topologically associating domain boundaries together with CTCF, whereas cohesin-SA2 promotes cell-type-specific contacts between enhancers and promoters independently of CTCF. Loss of cohesin-SA2 rewires local chromatin contacts and alters gene expression. These findings provide insights into how cohesin mediates chromosome folding and establish a novel framework to address the consequences of mutations in cohesin genes in cancer.

Assessment of possible association between rs3787016 and prostate cancer risk in Serbian population.

Recent study, which included meta-analysis of two genome-wide association studies (GWAS), followed by a replication, identified the association between single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs3787016 at 19p13 and prostate cancer (PCa) risk. Considering possible genetic differences between populations, we conducted the study in order to evaluate the association of this polymorphism with prostate cancer risk in Serbian population. 261 samples of peripheral blood were obtained from the patients with PCa and 257 samples from patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). 106 volunteers who gave samples of bucal swabs comprised the control group. For individuals diagnosed with PCa clinicopathological characteristics including serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis, Gleason score (GS) and clinical stage were determined. Genotypization of rs3787016 was performed by using Taqman(®) SNP Genotyping Assay. The differences in alelle and genotype frequencies between analyzed groups of subjects were performed by using PLINK, SPSS 17.0 for Windows and SNPStats statistical software. No significant association of rs3787016 with PCa risk was determined comparing allele and genotype frequencies among group of patients diagnosed with PCa and the control group, as well as among groups of patients with PCa and BPH. Also, no evidence of association of rs3787016 with PCa risk was shown using tests for association under dominant and recessive genetic models. SNP rs3787016 showed no significant association with standard prognostic parameters regarding PCa progression, nor with the risk of disease progression assessed according to two different risk classification systems.