Selective Concurrence of the Long Non-Coding RNA MALAT1 and the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 to Promoter Regions of Active Genes in MCF7 Breast Cancer Cells.

In cancer cells, the long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) MALAT1 has arisen as a key partner for the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2), an epigenetic modifier. However, it is unknown whether this partnership occurs genome-wide at the chromatin level, as most of the studies focus on single genes that are usually repressed. Due to the genomic binding properties of both macromolecules, we wondered whether there are binding sites shared by PRC2 and MALAT1. Using public genome-binding datasets for PRC2 and MALAT1 derived from independent ChIP- and CHART-seq experiments performed with the breast cancer cell line MCF7, we searched for regions containing PRC2 and MALAT1 overlapping peaks. Peak calls for each molecule were performed using MACS2 and then overlapping peaks were identified by bedtools intersect. Using this approach, we identified 1293 genomic sites where PRC2 and MALAT1 concur. Interestingly, 54.75% of those sites are within gene promoter regions (<3000 bases from the TSS). These analyses were also linked with the transcription profiles of MCF7 cells, obtained from public RNA-seq data. Hence, it is suggested that MALAT1 and PRC2 can concomitantly bind to promoters of actively-transcribed genes in MCF7 cells. Gene ontology analyses revealed an enrichment of genes related to categories including cancer malignancy and epigenetic regulation. Thus, by re-visiting occupancy and transcriptomic data, we identified a key gene subset controlled by the collaboration of MALAT1 and PRC2.

The Arabidopsis APOLO and human UPAT sequence-unrelated long noncoding RNAs can modulate DNA and histone methylation machineries in plants.

BACKGROUND: RNA-DNA hybrid (R-loop)-associated long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs), including the Arabidopsis lncRNA AUXIN-REGULATED PROMOTER LOOP (APOLO), are emerging as important regulators of three-dimensional chromatin conformation and gene transcriptional activity. RESULTS: Here, we show that in addition to the PRC1-component LIKE HETEROCHROMATIN PROTEIN 1 (LHP1), APOLO interacts with the methylcytosine-binding protein VARIANT IN METHYLATION 1 (VIM1), a conserved homolog of the mammalian DNA methylation regulator UBIQUITIN-LIKE CONTAINING PHD AND RING FINGER DOMAINS 1 (UHRF1). The APOLO-VIM1-LHP1 complex directly regulates the transcription of the auxin biosynthesis gene YUCCA2 by dynamically determining DNA methylation and H3K27me3 deposition over its promoter during the plant thermomorphogenic response. Strikingly, we demonstrate that the lncRNA UHRF1 Protein Associated Transcript (UPAT), a direct interactor of UHRF1 in humans, can be recognized by VIM1 and LHP1 in plant cells, despite the lack of sequence homology between UPAT and APOLO. In addition, we show that increased levels of APOLO or UPAT hamper VIM1 and LHP1 binding to YUCCA2 promoter and globally alter the Arabidopsis transcriptome in a similar manner. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our results uncover a new mechanism in which a plant lncRNA coordinates Polycomb action and DNA methylation through the interaction with VIM1, and indicates that evolutionary unrelated lncRNAs with potentially conserved structures may exert similar functions by interacting with homolog partners.

De Novo Polycomb Recruitment and Repressive Domain Formation.

Every cell of an organism shares the same genome; even so, each cellular lineage owns a different transcriptome and proteome. The Polycomb group proteins (PcG) are essential regulators of gene repression patterning during development and homeostasis. However, it is unknown how the repressive complexes, PRC1 and PRC2, identify their targets and elicit new Polycomb domains during cell differentiation. Classical recruitment models consider the pre-existence of repressive histone marks; still, de novo target binding overcomes the absence of both H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub. The CpG islands (CGIs), non-core proteins, and RNA molecules are involved in Polycomb recruitment. Nonetheless, it is unclear how de novo targets are identified depending on the physiological context and developmental stage and which are the leading players stabilizing Polycomb complexes at domain nucleation sites. Here, we examine the features of de novo sites and the accessory elements bridging its recruitment and discuss the first steps of Polycomb domain formation and transcriptional regulation, comprehended by the experimental reconstruction of the repressive domains through time-resolved genomic analyses in mammals.

Epigenetic regulation of T cells by Polycomb group proteins.

T cells are critical for pathogen elimination, tumor surveillance, and immunoregulation. The development, activation, and differentiation of CD8 and CD4 T lymphocytes are a set of complex and dynamically regulated events that require epigenetic control. The Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are a family of diverse and evolutionarily conserved epigenetic modulators fundamentally involved in several mechanisms of gene regulation. PcG proteins can assemble into distinct repressor complexes, the two most understood being the Polycomb Repressor Complex (PRC)1 and PRC2, which control chromatin structure mainly through posttranslational modifications of histones. In this review, we will summarize the most recent findings regarding the diverse roles performed by PcG proteins in T cell biology. We will focus on PRC1 and PRC2 contribution to the regulation of T cell development in the thymus, CD4 T cell differentiation in helper or regulatory phenotypes and CD8 T cell fate commitment in the context of infections and cancer, highlighting the known mechanisms and knowledge gaps that still need to be addressed.

Long noncoding RNAs shape transcription in plants.

The advent of novel high-throughput sequencing techniques has revealed that eukaryotic genomes are massively transcribed although only a small fraction of RNAs exhibits protein-coding capacity. In the last years, long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have emerged as regulators of eukaryotic gene expression in a wide range of molecular mechanisms. Plant lncRNAs can be transcribed by alternative RNA polymerases, acting directly as long transcripts or can be processed into active small RNAs. Several lncRNAs have been recently shown to interact with chromatin, DNA or nuclear proteins to condition the epigenetic environment of target genes or modulate the activity of transcriptional complexes. In this review, we will summarize the recent discoveries about the actions of plant lncRNAs in the regulation of gene expression at the transcriptional level.

The impact of Polycomb group (PcG) and Trithorax group (TrxG) epigenetic factors in plant plasticity.

Current advances indicate that epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in the regulatory networks involved in plant developmental responses to environmental conditions. Hence, understanding the role of such components becomes crucial to understanding the mechanisms underlying the plasticity and variability of plant traits, and thus the ecology and evolution of plant development. We now know that important components of phenotypic variation may result from heritable and reversible epigenetic mechanisms without genetic alterations. The epigenetic factors Polycomb group (PcG) and Trithorax group (TrxG) are involved in developmental processes that respond to environmental signals, playing important roles in plant plasticity. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of TrxG and PcG functions in different developmental processes in response to internal and environmental cues and we also integrate the emerging evidence concerning their function in plant plasticity. Many such plastic responses rely on meristematic cell behavior, including stem cell niche maintenance, cellular reprogramming, flowering and dormancy as well as stress memory. This information will help to determine how to integrate the role of epigenetic regulation into models of gene regulatory networks, which have mostly included transcriptional interactions underlying various aspects of plant development and its plastic response to environmental conditions.

miRNA biogenesis: biological impact in the development of cancer.

microRNAs (miRNAs) are non coding RNAs with different biological functions and pathological implications. Given their role as post-transcriptional gene expression regulators, they are involved in several important physiological processes like development, cell differentiation and cell signaling. miRNAs act as modulators of gene expression programs in different diseases, particularly in cancer, where they act through the repression of genes which are critical for carcinogenesis. The expression level of mature miRNAs is the result of a fine mechanism of biogenesis, carried out by different enzymatic complexes that exert their function at transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. In this review, we will focus our discussion on the alterations in the miRNA biogenesis machinery, and its impact on the establishment and development of cancer programs.

Ezh1 and Ezh2 differentially regulate PSD-95 gene transcription in developing hippocampal neurons.

Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) mediates transcriptional silencing by catalyzing histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3), but its role in the maturation of postmitotic mammalian neurons remains largely unknown. We report that the PRC2 paralogs Ezh1 and Ezh2 are differentially expressed during hippocampal development. We show that depletion of Ezh2 leads to increased expression of PSD-95, a critical plasticity gene, and that reduced PSD-95 gene transcription is correlated with enrichment of Ezh2 at the PSD-95 gene promoter; however, the H3K27me3 epigenetic mark is not present at the PSD-95 gene promoter, likely due to the antagonizing effects of the H3S28P and H3K27Ac marks and the activity of the H3K27 demethylases JMJD3 and UTX. In contrast, increased PSD-95 gene transcription is accompanied by the presence of Ezh1 and elongation-engaged RNA Polymerase II complexes at the PSD-95 gene promoter, while knock-down of Ezh1 reduces PSD-95 transcription. These results indicate that Ezh1 and Ezh2 have antagonistic roles in regulating PSD-95 transcription.