Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, April 2001, p. 2867-2879, Vol. 21, No. 8
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.8.2867-2879.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Long-Range Nucleosome Ordering Is Associated with
Gene Silencing in Drosophila melanogaster Pericentric
Heterochromatin
Fang-Lin
Sun,
Matthew H.
Cuaycong,
and
Sarah C. R.
Elgin*
Department of Biology, Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Received 21 September 2000/Returned for modification 31 October
2000/Accepted 26 January 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
We have used line HS-2 of Drosophila melanogaster,
carrying a silenced transgene in the pericentric heterochromatin, to
investigate in detail the chromatin structure imposed by this
environment. Digestion of the chromatin with micrococcal nuclease
(MNase) shows a nucleosome array with extensive long-range order,
indicating regular spacing, and with well-defined MNase cleavage
fragments, indicating a smaller MNase target in the linker region. The
repeating unit is ca. 10 bp larger than that observed for bulk
Drosophila chromatin. The silenced transgene shows both a
loss of DNase I-hypersensitive sites and decreased sensitivity to DNase
I digestion within an array of nucleosomes lacking such sites; within
such an array, sensitivity to digestion by MNase is unchanged. The
ordered nucleosome array extends across the regulatory region of the
transgene, a shift that could explain the loss of transgene expression
in heterochromatin. Highly regular nucleosome arrays are observed over
several endogenous heterochromatic sequences, indicating that this is a
general feature of heterochromatin. However, genes normally active
within heterochromatin (rolled and light) do
not show this pattern, suggesting that the altered chromatin structure
observed is associated with regions that are silent, rather than being
a property of the domain as a whole. The results indicate that
long-range nucleosomal ordering is linked with the heterochromatic
packaging that imposes gene silencing.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
In eukaryotes, the very large genome
size demands extensive packaging of the DNA, starting with association
with histones in a nucleosome array and extending to the highly
condensed chromosomes observed at mitosis. Cytological observations
indicate that the genome can be subdivided into heterochromatin and
euchromatin, heterochromatin being defined as that portion of the
genome remaining heteropycnotic (deeply stained) as the chromosomes
decondense during the passage from metaphase to interphase
(31). In many species, large blocks of heterochromatin
flank the centromeres and telomeres. Little gene expression is
associated with this constitutive heterochromatin, which is primarily
(but not exclusively) made up of repetitive sequences. Facultative
heterochromatin is observed when one of the two homologues is silenced,
for example, one of the X chromosomes in the somatic cells of female
mammals. The inactive X chromosome is heteropycnotic, suggesting that
the chromatin in such silent regions is relatively condensed. The commonly accepted model of heterochromatin is of a folded higher-order structure that might preclude access for RNA polymerase and/or other
components of the transcriptional machinery. However, analyses using
three-dimensional microscopy indicate that the inactive and active X
chromosomes occupy the same amount of space in the mammalian nucleus, a
contradiction of the simplest model (21).
A mechanism dependent on chromatin folding has also been inferred to
explain the silencing of large domains in a mitotically heritable
pattern, commonly seen as part of the developmental program.
Well-studied examples of such epigenetic regulation include silencing
of the mating type loci in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (29); Polycomb group
(Pc-G)-dependent silencing of homeotic genes in
Drosophila (48); and parent-specific allelic
silencing of the imprinted genes in mammals (57). A
similar, heritable silencing is observed when a gene normally within
euchromatin is placed within or near heterochromatin by transposition
or chromosomal rearrangement; expression is extinguished in many of the
cells in which the gene is normally expressed. This position effect variegation (PEV) has been observed in a range of organisms (29, 46) but has been studied in the most detail in Drosophila
melanogaster (54, 63).
The apparent use of alternative packaging to regulate gene expression,
particularly to maintain patterns of gene silencing during development,
raises interesting questions concerning the mechanism involved.
Virtually all of the DNA in a eukaryotic nucleus is found in
association with the histones in a nucleosome array, detected by
digestion with micrococcal nuclease (MNase), with ca. 200 bp of DNA per
repeating subunit (39). Such packaging alters the
fundamental paradigms of gene regulation. The presence of a nucleosome
will block access to a promoter and must be countered by specific
multiprotein machines to activate transcription (39, 55).
The 5' regulatory regions of active genes are observed to be nucleosome
free, sensitive to a variety of nucleases; such sites are referred to
as DNase I-hypersensitive sites (DH sites) (26, 28). Early
studies showed consistently that active genes are more susceptible to
digestion by DNase I (but not MNase) than inactive genes (3,
65). Analysis using a variety of restriction enzymes has shown
reduced access across the silent domain of the S. cerevisiae
mating type locus (41). Transgenes inserted into heterochromatic domains in Drosophila show a loss of
accessibility in the 5' regulatory region normally established as a DH
site (61). Does the resistance to digestion indicate an
altered nucleosome array, with a concomitant loss of DH sites? Or might
the original nucleosome array be present but the DH sites obscured by
some higher-order folding of the chromatin or localization of the gene in an inaccessible compartment? If an altered nucleosome array is
indicated in heterochromatin, how does it differ from that seen in
euchromatin? There are some genes that are found within heterochromatin; how are these active genes packaged in comparison to
the silenced transgenes?
To address these questions in a systematic fashion, we have utilized a
P element carrying two reporter genes: an hsp70-driven white gene, providing a readily scored visual phenotype, and
a tagged copy of hsp26 (fused at position 490 with a
fragment of barley cDNA, pt, followed by a termination
sequence), providing a unique gene with a well-characterized regulatory
region for chromatin structure analysis. When this P element is present
in a euchromatic domain, the fly has a full red eye (at 25°C).
Insertion into a heterochromatic domain (pericentric heterochromatin,
telomeric regions, or a subset of sites within the small fourth
chromosome) results in a variegating phenotype (61). To
optimize comparison between the active transgene in a euchromatic site
and the silenced transgene in a heterochromatic site, a screen was
conducted to recover lines showing strong PEV (extensive silencing) at
28°C (18). (The higher temperature both favors
expression from the hsp70 promoter and suppresses PEV
[54], allowing expression of a transgene that otherwise
would be silent and thus allowing us to identify that fly in a screen.)
At 25°C, one line recovered (HS-2) exhibits a white eye, indicating
extensive silencing of the transgene at that temperature and suggesting
conversion to a fully heterochromatic form (Fig.
1). In situ hybridization has shown that
the transgene in this line is inserted into the pericentric heterochromatin of chromosome arm 3L (18).

View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Silencing of the hsp70-white transgene in
line HS-2 is suppressed by known Su(var) mutations. (A) Map
of the P-element construct used. The 3' and 5' P-element ends (black
boxes), hsp26 gene fragment (hatched box), pt
(barley gene) fragment (blue box), termination signal (white box),
hsp70 promoter region (cross-hatched box), and
white gene fragment (red box) are diagrammed. (B) Control
line 39C-X carries the P element in a euchromatic site, while HS-2 has
the P element inserted into pericentric heterochromatin. The HS-2
transgene shows loss of silencing in the presence of the
Su(var)2-502 and Su(var)3-7
mutations, while expression of the 39C-X transgene is unaffected.
|
|
Here we investigate the chromatin structure of the silenced transgene
in line HS-2 using MNase, DNase I, and restriction enzymes. The most
striking feature is the extensive ordered array of nucleosomes. A
distinct 10-nucleosome-size DNA fragment can be observed in the MNase
digestion pattern from the silenced transgene, while a five- or
six-nucleosome-size DNA fragment is the largest distinguishable fragment observed (by ethidum bromide staining) in the pattern of
digestion products for the genome as a whole. The repeating subunit is
ca. 10 bp larger than the average size in Drosophila. As
anticipated, reduced accessibility to restriction sites and loss of
DNase I hypersensitivity are associated with the heterochromatic state.
In addition, sensitivity to DNase I is decreased in regions that do not
include DH sites in the endogenous gene, even though the rate of
digestion by MNase does not appear to be significantly altered. Mapping
shows that positioned nucleosomes block access to the promoter. This
suggests that the high degree of silencing observed reflects a change
in the nucleosomal array, with a concomitant loss of DH sites. In
contrast to the HS-2 transgene, light and rolled,
two active genes normally found within heterochromatin, have nucleosome
arrays similar to that of the euchromatic transgene. The differences
observed in the heterochromatin nucleosome array
regular spacing, a
smaller MNase target, and general resistance to DNase I
are compatible
with a stable higher-order structure. These structural features may be
common characteristics of noncoding sequences in heterochromatin and
may be a major factor in the silencing observed.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Drosophila culture and genetic analysis.
Fly
stocks were raised in a standard cornmeal sucrose-based medium
(51) at 25°C. To test the effects of known modifiers of
PEV, homozygous female flies from HS-2 were crossed with male flies
carrying a Su(var) mutation; female progeny carrying both the transgene and the modifier were compared with hemizygous females in
a y w background carrying the transgene. (Siblings
containing the balancer chromosome were not used for comparison,
because the balancers frequently have accumulated mutations, including some that modify PEV.) The following stocks were used: (i) y
w67c23; Su(var)2-502/Cy; (ii)
y w1118;
Su(var)3-7/T(2;3)apXa; and (iii) y
w67c23 (control). Female progeny (4 to 5 days
postemergence) carrying both the transgene and the modifier mutation
were photographed. To measure eye pigmentation, five flies were
homogenized in 0.5 ml of 0.01 M HCl in ethanol. The homogenate was
placed at 4°C overnight and then warmed at 50°C for 5 min. After
centrifugation in a microcentrifuge for 10 min, the supernatant was
recovered, and the optical density at 480 nm was recorded
(37). Female y w67c23 flies were
used to establish background values. Four to six independent samples
(five flies each) were analyzed for each cross, and the mean was reported.
Chromatin structure analysis.
Chromatin structure was
assessed by determining the pattern of digestion products obtained
using MNase and DNase I, sensitivity to digestion by MNase and DNase I,
and accessibility to digestion by restriction enzymes. Nuclei were
prepared either from 6- to 18-h-old embryos (12) harvested
from population cages (51) or from third instar larvae
reared in bottles (44); all were maintained at 25°C.
Digestions of nuclei using MNase (catalog no. 107921; Boehringer) or
DNase I (catalog no. 776785; Boehringer) were performed
at 25°C for 3 min. Reactions (225 µl) were stopped by adding 5
µl of 0.4 M EDTA
and 6.5 µl of 20% sodium dodecyl sulfate. Restriction
enzyme
digestion was performed by the method of Cartwright et
al.
(
12). In all cases, DNA was purified using proteinase K
digestion overnight followed by phenol-chloroform extraction.
Samples
for mapping experiments using the indirect end labeling
technique were
cleaved to completion with the appropriate restriction
enzyme. Unless
otherwise specified, the purified DNA samples were
size separated on a
1.2 or 1.3% agarose gel, transferred to a
positively charged nylon
membrane (catalog no. 77419; Schleicher
& Schuell), and hybridized
using
32P-labeled probes. Autoradiograms were scanned and
analyzed using
Bio-Rad Quantity One software. See Lu et al.
(
43) or Cartwright
et al. (
12) for a detailed
protocol.
Because DNase I and MNase show sequence preferences in cutting DNA,
mapping experiments must take into account the pattern
of digestion on
naked (purified) DNA. Ten micrograms of genomic
DNA from control line
39C-X or silenced line HS-2 was mixed with
either DNase I digestion
buffer or MNase digestion buffer in a
final volume of 100 µl. DNase I
was used at 0, 0.001, 0.002, and
0.004 U/µl. MNase was used at 0, 0.002, 0.004, and 0.006 U/µl.
The reactions were performed at room
temperature for 2 min and
stopped with 2.5 µl of 0.4 M EDTA. The
naked DNA samples used
as controls for nucleosome mapping experiments
were digested with
SalI before treatment with MNase or DNase
I.
 |
RESULTS |
Silencing of the hsp70-white gene in line HS-2 is a
consequence of PEV.
Line HS-2 was recovered on the basis of an
extreme variegating phenotype at 28°C; most of the flies in the
population show a completely white eye at 25°C. To characterize the
nature and extent of silencing, levels of eye pigmentation were used to
provide a quantitative measurement. Responses to two known suppressors of PEV were assessed: Su(var)2-502, a point
mutation in the chromo domain of heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1)
(49), and Su(var)3-7, a mutation in a protein
similarly associated with pericentric heterochromatin
(15). The eye pigmentation level in HS-2 at 25°C is ca.
5% of that observed for euchromatic control line 39C-X. (The P element
in line 39C-X, inserted into euchromatic region 2D on the X chromosome,
gives a full red eye phenotype [61].) A significant loss
of silencing is observed in the presence of
Su(var)2-502 or Su(var)3-7 (Fig.
1). Eye pigmentation for HS-2 increased by a factor of 1.8 in the
presence of Su(var)2-502 and by a factor of 1.3 in the presence of Su(var)3-7. The results confirm that the
transgene in HS-2 is indeed subject to the PEV-silencing mechanism
associated with heterochromatin packaging.
The low levels of
white expression (only a few facets of red
in the eyes of some flies in the population) in the absence of
Su(var) mutations indicate that the test genes in line HS-2
are
off in most cells most of the time at 25°C. Previous studies of
the developmental regulation of heterochromatin-mediated gene
silencing
in
Drosophila have found that silencing is initiated
at the
onset of gastrulation (2.5 h of embryogenesis), approximately
1 h
after heterochromatin is first visible cytologically. Where
it has been
examined, expression of variegating genes in mitotically
active
embryonic and larval cells is generally less than that
observed in
differentiated cells. In particular, the red pigment
scored in the
adult eye appears to reflect a relaxation in silencing
that occurs
during differentiation of the eye imaginal disc in
late third instar
larvae (
42). Thus, the very low levels of
expression of
the transgenes in line HS-2, observed as low levels
of pigment in the
adult eye, indicate that this line is a suitable
substrate for analysis
of heterochromatin packaging. In the discussion
that follows, we will
refer to line HS-2 as having a heterochromatic
transgene and the
control line 39C-X as having a euchromatic
transgene.
Long-range nucleosomal ordering and an altered repeat size are
observed for the HS-2 heterochromatic transgene.
To examine the
nucleosome array, nuclei isolated from 6- to 18-h-old embryos of lines
39C-X and HS-2 were treated with increasing amounts of MNase. The
nucleosome array observed for the heterochromatic transgene in HS-2 is
distinct and highly ordered; up to 9 or 10 nucleosomes can be clearly
observed (Fig. 2A). The array for the euchromatic transgene in 39C-X shows only five or six
nucleosomes before the pattern becomes blurred, presumably because of
irregular spacing and the presence of DH sites (Fig. 2A). Ethidium
bromide staining of the products of MNase digestion of D. melanogaster chromatin generally shows an array of five to seven
nucleosomes, indicating that the pattern observed for the euchromatic
transgene holds for the major portion of the genome (data not shown).


View larger version (104K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
MNase digestion reveals long-range nucleosomal ordering,
with an altered repeat size, at the silenced transgene. (A) Nuclei
isolated from 6- to 18-h-old embryos from lines 39C-X and HS-2 were
treated with increasing amounts of MNase (concentrations of 0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, and 0.24 U/µl), and the DNA was purified and
run in a 1.5% agarose gel. The DNA was transferred to a positively
charged nylon membrane, and the membrane was hybridized with
-32P-labeled pt fragment. Linker sites
cleaved by MNase are indicated by arrows. (B) Densitometric scans from
the last lane of each sample set are compared (top to bottom of each
lane is left to right along the x axis), aligned at the
position of the mononucleosome (top panel). The same blot used in panel
A was stripped and rehybridized with a 0.8-kb
PvuII-SacII fragment from the 3' coding region of
the endogenous hsp26 gene as a control panel. Densitometric
scans from the last lane of this sample set are shown (bottom (data not
shown)). (C) The DNA samples used for the last two lanes of each set in
panel A were run in parallel on a 1.8% agarose gel. The blot was
hybridized with the 0.8-kb PvuII-SacII fragment
from the endogenous hsp26 coding region (left), stripped,
and rehybridized with the pt DNA fragment (center) or with a
fragment from the 5' end of the P element (right). The positions of
molecular size markers are indicated to the right of the gels. The map
below the gels indicates the probes used for the center and right
panels.
|
|
To assess the nucleosomal pattern of the transgene in lines 39C-X and
HS-2, the autoradiogram (final lanes) was scanned. In
addition to
showing the longer distinct array for the heterochromatic
transgene,
confirming the suggestion of a more uniform spacing
between the
nucleosomes, the scan clearly shows a pattern with
more pronounced
peaks and valleys for line HS-2 (Fig.
2B, top).
This suggests that the
MNase target is more highly defined in
the heterochromatic array, i.e.,
the portion of the linker DNA
available for cleavage by MNase is
smaller. However, there does
not appear to be any significant change in
sensitivity to digestion
with increasing amounts of enzyme (see also
Fig.
4C and D). As
a control for uniformity of chromatin digestion, the
Southern
blot used in Fig.
2A was stripped and rehybridized using a
0.8-kb
DNA fragment unique to the endogenous
hsp26 coding
region (see
the map in Fig.
4B). A scan of the resulting autoradiogram
(final
lanes) shows that the nucleosomal patterns of the
hsp26 endogenous
gene in the two lines are almost identical
(Fig.
2B, bottom).
This confirms that the differences observed reflect
the different
chromosomal environments occupied by the test transgenes
in lines
HS-2 and 39C-X.
The results in Fig.
2B also suggest an increase in average nucleosome
repeat size in the heterochromatic transgene in the
HS-2 line relative
to the euchromatic transgene in the 39C-X line.
The average nucleosome
repeat size in
Drosophila (assessed for
the genome as a
whole) is 190 bp (
11). Samples of DNA from the
MNase-treated HS-2 and 39C-X nuclei were run in parallel in a
1.8%
agarose gel. The results show the nucleosomal repeat at the
transgene
in HS-2 to be ca. 10 bp larger than that at the transgene
in 39C-X
(Fig.
2C, center and right panels). The Southern blot
was also analyzed
using the DNA fragment from the endogenous
hsp26 gene as a
control (Fig.
2C, left). A common nucleosome repeat
size is observed in
the control, confirming that the difference
found in repeat size for
the test transgene reflects the heterochromatic
environment.
Restriction site accessibility and DNase I hypersensitivity in the
5' regulatory region are severely reduced in the heterochromatic
transgene.
The presence of a long regular array of nucleosomes
implies the loss of local perturbations, such as DH sites. The upstream regulatory region of endogenous hsp26 is characterized by
two DH sites which encompass the heat shock regulatory elements,
allowing rapid activation of the gene (11, 60). Generation
of these DH sites is dependent upon GAGA factor binding sites
[(CT)n elements] (44). A molecule
of RNA polymerase II, already engaged but paused at positions +30 to
+50, also contributes to this chromatin configuration
(27). Fortuitously, each of the regulatory heat shock
elements contains one or two XbaI restriction sites (see the
map in Fig. 3). Digestion of the
chromatin with excess XbaI enzyme allows a quantitative
assessment of chromatin accessibility. Accessibility of the proximal
XbaI site is correlated with the inducible transcriptional
activity of the hsp26 gene. Alterations in the DNA sequence
that result in a loss of XbaI accessibility lead to a loss
of heat shock-inducible activity, apparently because of changes in the
local chromatin structure that reduce access for the heat shock factor
or other regulatory proteins (44, 45). Loss of
accessibility to restriction sites within the regulatory region of the
hsp26-pt transgene in heterochromatin has been previously reported, with the loss in accessibility roughly paralleling the loss
of gene expression, monitored either by eye phenotype or heat
shock-inducible transcription of hsp26-pt (56,
61). We have confirmed that this change in restriction enzyme
accessibility has also occurred for the HS-2 transgene; accessibility
of the XbaI proximal site in line HS-2 is ca. 5% that in
the euchromatic control line 39C-X (data not shown). To generalize this
result, the accessibility of two EcoRI sites, one at
position +7 in the hsp26-pt transgene and one immediately
upstream of the hsp70-white promoter, were also determined.
Accessibility to these sites, both close to 5' regulatory regions, was
also severely reduced to 5% in the former case and 4% in the latter
case relative to the 39C-X control (data not shown).

View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Configuration of DH sites in the heterochromatic
transgene. Nuclei isolated from third instar larvae were incubated with
DNase I at concentrations of 0, 0.03, 0.06, and 0.12 U/µl. Purified
DNA was cleaved with SalI, and the fragments were analyzed
by Southern blotting using the pt DNA fragment as the
hybridization probe. Proximal (PDH) and distal (DDH) DH sites are
indicated; the parental band, which is created by SalI
digestion of the DNA not cleaved in nuclei by DNase I, is indicated
(Prt). A partial restriction map of the hsp26 transgene is
shown below: the (CT)n regions (black box), heat shock elements (HSE)
(white box), the TATA box (gradient box), the PDH site (hatched box),
the DDH site (hatched box), and the positioned nucleosome between the
PDH and the DDH are diagrammed.
|
|
The indirect end labeling approach was used to examine the pattern of
DNase I sensitivity. Nuclei isolated from third instar
larvae were
treated with increasing amounts of DNase I, and the
purified DNA was
further digested with
SalI to generate a parental
DNA
fragment. As anticipated, two distinct DH sites are observed
in control
line 39C-X, confirming that the chromatin structure
of the
hsp26-pt transgene in a euchromatic site mimics that of
the
endogenous
hsp26 gene (
11). In line HS-2,
however, no distinct
DH sites are observed; a smeared signal is
apparent on digestion
with high concentrations of DNase I, indicating
that some DNase
I sensitivity remains (Fig.
3), likely due to the small
fraction
of cells in which silencing has been lost. Control samples of
naked DNA indicate some cleavage in this region, but it does not
resemble either the distinct DH sites of the euchromatic transgene
or
the faint smeared signal of the heterochromatic transgene.
The data
from these experiments indicate a loss of organized DH
sites in the
heterochromatic
transgene.
DNase I sensitivity of a nucleosomal region differs for the
heterochromatic and euchromatic transgenes, while MNase sensitivity is
not significantly altered.
The loss of organized DH sites raises
the question of whether the previously reported loss of general DNase I
sensitivity in inactive regions might be due simply to the loss of such
hypersensitive sites. To investigate, we examined changes in
susceptibility of the nucleosome array, looking at the disappearance of
a DNA fragment entirely packaged into nucleosomes (having no DH sites)
as a function of increasing levels of nuclease. The barley cDNA
fragment that is the 3' transcribed portion of the hsp26-pt
transgene was used. Disappearance of this
SacI-EcoRI fragment in this assay reflects the
first cleavage event in this region of the chromatin. The SacI-EcoRI DNA fragment in line HS-2 is
significantly more resistant to digestion than that in line 39C-X (Fig.
4A). To ensure uniformity in digestion,
samples were tested for disappearance of the
SacI-SacII fragment that is unique to the
endogenous, euchromatic hsp26 gene; this gene shows
equivalent susceptibility to digestion in both lines, as expected (Fig.
4B). The results indicate that the packaging of the transgene in
heterochromatin is altered in a manner that inhibits overall DNase I
sensitivity within the nucleosome array. However, no major differences
are observed when nuclei from lines 39C-X and HS-2 are treated with
MNase (compare Fig. 4C and control D), indicating that the
heterochromatin structure does not generate a barrier to digestion by
this enzyme. As MNase preferentially cuts the linker region between
nucleosomes, the results indicate that the increased inaccessibility to
nucleases that is characteristic of a heterochromatic structure is not
the consequence of a major change in linker accessibility in general.
Thus, the shift in sensitivity to DNase I digestion suggests a change
in higher-order packaging.

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
A nucleosome array in heterochromatin is resistant to
digestion with DNase I, but not with MNase. (A) Nuclei from 6- to
18-h-old non-heat-shocked embryos (lines 39C-X and HS-2) were treated
with DNase I at concentrations of 0.016, 0.032, 0.064, or 0.128 U/µl.
Purified DNA was then cut with SacI and EcoRI,
and the presence of the 1-kb restriction fragment was monitored using
Southern blotting with the pt DNA fragment as a probe. (B)
In the control experiment, the digested DNA was cut with
SacI and SacII, and a 0.8-kb DNA fragment from
the 3' portion of the endogenous hsp26 gene was used as a
probe. (C) An analogous experiment used MNase at concentrations of 0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, and 0.24 U/µl to digest the chromatin
in nuclei. The pt DNA fragment was used as a probe. (D) The
control experiment performed as described above for panel B to monitor
disappearance of the SacI-SacII fragment of the
endogenous hsp26 gene shows that digestion of the chromatin
from the two lines occurred at the same rate.
|
|
Nucleosome positions are altered over the heterochromatic transgene
in line HS-2.
The observation of long-range nucleosomal ordering
suggests that changes in nucleosome positioning might be involved in
the loss of DNase I hypersensitivity and restriction enzyme
accessibility in the 5' regulatory region of the heterochromatic
transgene. We therefore mapped the nucleosome positions across the
hsp26-pt transgene in 6- to 18-h-old embryos using the
indirect end labeling technique with a 93-bp
SalI-XhoI fragment (abutting the SalI
site) from the barley cDNA fragment as a probe. A comparison of
nucleosome positions in 39C-X and HS-2 (based on MNase cleavage
products) shows a loss of hypersensitivity in the 5' region and a shift in nucleosome positions (Fig. 5A). The DNA sequences in the proximal and distal DH sites detected in line 39C-X are incorporated into nucleosomes in line HS-2 (see the comparative scan in Fig.
5B). A similar shift in the nucleosome
pattern across the hsp26-pt transgene was observed when the
experiment was repeated using nuclei from third instar larvae (data not
shown). We also compared the nucleosome array across the
hsp70-white transgene in lines 39C-X and HS-2 using nuclei
isolated from 6- to 18-h-old embryos as described above. The distinct
nuclease hypersensitivity observed in the 5' regulatory region of the
hsp70-white transgene in line 39C-X is lost in line HS-2,
and the positions of the nucleosomes appear altered (Fig. 5C).

View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Mapping nucleosome positions in the heterochromatic
transgenes using the indirect end labeling technique. (A) Nuclei
isolated from 6- to 18-h-old embryos of lines 39C-X and HS-2 were
treated with MNase (concentrations 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, and 0.24 U/µl). The purified DNA was cut with SalI, size separated
by gel electrophoresis, and transferred to a positively charged nylon
membrane, and the membrane was hybridized with a 93-bp fragment from
the barley cDNA to map the hsp26-pt transgene. The positions
of the proximal and distal hypersensitive sites (PDH and DDH,
respectively) in the 39C-X samples are indicated. Control digestion of
purified DNA was performed as described in Materials and Methods. A map
of the hsp26-pt transgene, indicating the position of the
probe, is shown below the gel. (B) A scan of the MNase (0.12 U/µl)
digest samples, showing the shift in pattern at the 5' regulatory
region of the gene. Accessible sites in 39C-X (black circles) and HS-2
(white circles) are indicated. (C) DNA samples from a MNase digest done
as described above were cut with SacI and SacII,
and the DNA samples were size separated by gel electrophoresis,
transferred to a nylon filter, and hybridized with the pt
DNA fragment to map the hsp70-white transgene. The parental
DNA fragment (Prt) and the 5' DH sites are indicated. The
SacI and SacII restriction sites in the P element
are shown on the map below.
|
|
Other heterochromatic sequences show increased nucleosomal
ordering.
Having observed the difference in the nucleosome arrays
of heterochromatic and euchromatic transgenes (Fig. 2), we examined the
nucleosome arrays of endogenous heterochromatic sequences, both
noncoding and coding (63). The DNA immediately flanking the heterochromatic transgene in line HS-5 (inserted in the 2L pericentric heterochromatin, showing a variegating phenotype) has been
cloned by inverse PCR and shown to be unique (18). This
DNA was used as a probe to hybridize the filter from Fig. 2. The
nucleosome pattern of this heterochromatic region (in the absence of
the transgene) shows a shift toward long-range nucleosomal order,
giving a regular array with eight nucleosomes evident (Fig. 6A). When
the filter was stripped and rehybridized with a fragment from the F
element, a transposable element shown to be localized primarily in the
pericentric heterochromatin (estimated 71% [47]), an
extremely uniform array is observed; a distinct fragment encompassing 11 nucleosomes is seen (Fig. 6B).
Evidence of a shift toward long-range order was also obtained using
fragments from other transposable elements (including gypsy,
I, and copia) as the probe sequence (data not shown).
gypsy is estimated to be 88% heterochromatic, I
is estimated to be 73% heterochromatic, and copia is
estimated to be 82% heterochromatic (47). The results
suggest that a more uniform nucleosome array may be a common
characteristic of pericentric heterochromatin.

View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
Nucleosome arrays associated with heterochromatic DNA
sequences. Blots containing DNA samples from nuclei digested with MNase
as described in the legend to Fig. 2 were hybridized with a 1-kb DNA
fragment that flanks the HS-5 insertion site (A) or a 4.5-kb F-element
fragment (B). Linker sites cleaved by MNase are indicated by
arrowheads.
|
|
Endogenous genes active in heterochromatin show a euchromatic
nucleosome pattern.
While a euchromatic gene juxtaposed or
transposed into heterochromatin is silenced, there are genes present in
heterochromatin that are normally expressed in that environment and are
silenced if transposed to euchromatic regions (35). To
determine whether this type of gene has a nucleosomal array similar to
that of the nontranscribed heterochromatin, DNA from known
heterochromatic genes was used to assess the products of MNase
digestion. rolled, located in the 2R pericentric
heterochromatin, encodes a mitogen-activated protein kinase (7,
22); the rolled gene is widely expressed in all
stages of development (4, 6). light, located in
the 2L pericentric heterochromatin, encodes an essential gene with homology to VPS41, an S. cerevisiae gene involved in
cellular-protein trafficking; it is also widely expressed (20,
62, 64). The rolled cDNA, a 1.4-kb fragment at the 5'
end of rolled, and a 2.4-kb fragment including the first
exon and ca. 1 kb upstream of light were used as probes to
hybridize to filters prepared for Fig. 2. In these cases, five or six
nucleosomes can be clearly distinguished, a pattern similar to the
nucleosome array observed for the hsp26-pt transgene in
euchromatin (line 39C-X) (Fig. 7A to D).
In contrast, results obtained using a 0.8-kb fragment 14 kb upstream of
the rolled gene showed an extensive nucleosome array,
clearly indicating long-range order (Fig. 7E). Computer analysis of the
14-kb interval shows the presence of repetitious elements, including
sequences homologous to the F element. Thus, these active
heterochromatic genes show a nucleosome array characteristic of
euchromatin while (in the case studied) being flanked by regions that
are packaged in the characteristic heterochromatic fashion, with
long-range order. The data support the conclusion that the highly
ordered nucleosome array correlates with the inactive state, rather
than simply correlating with the chromosomal location (within pericentric heterochromatin), and suggest that there is a mechanism to
protect active genes normally found within heterochromatin from being
incorporated into the highly ordered form.

View larger version (101K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
Nucleosome arrays associated with genes active in
heterochromatin compared to the euchromatic transgene. Blots containing
DNA samples from nuclei digested with MNase as described in the legend
to Fig. 2 were hybridized with a 2.4-kb
BamHI-PstI fragment encompassing most of the
first exon and ca. 1 kb of upstream DNA at light
(20) (B), a 1.4-kb rolled gene cDNA (C), a
1,463-bp fragment starting at position +106 and extending upstream,
encompassing the putative 5' regulatory region of rolled
(D), and a 813-bp fragment located 14038 bp upstream of the
rolled gene start site (E). The fragments used for panels D
and E were prepared by PCR from NCBI clone AE003090. Panel A shows the
nucleosome array of the transgene in a euchromatic site (line 39C-X)
for reference.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Long-range order in nucleosome arrays as a characteristic of
heterochromatin.
We have used a P element carrying two reporter
genes, hsp26-pt and hsp70-white, to characterize
the changes in chromatin structure that occur when a euchromatic gene
is placed within a heterochromatic environment by P-element-mediated
transposition. Such transgenes are subject to silencing by the same
mechanism responsible for PEV, as shown by genetic analysis (Fig. 1);
several lines of evidence indicate that the silenced transgene has been
packaged in a heterochromatic form (63). The silenced
transgene in pericentric heterochromatin (line HS-2) shows a very
uniform nucleosome array on digestion with MNase, indicating long-range
order with a constant repeat length. The pattern of DNA fragments
generated, observed using Southern analysis, is characterized by
relatively sharp bands and by the ability to detect an extensive
nucleosome ladder, up to 9- or 10-mers. This stands in contrast to the
pattern obtained for the euchromatic transgene (line 39C-X), which
shows broader bands, and a distinct pattern only up to 5- or 6-mers
(Fig. 2). The latter pattern is characteristic of the genome as a whole on digestion of chromatin with MNase and visualization of the DNA
fragments on a gel using ethidium bromide. The heterochromatic pattern
suggests a distinctive nucleosome array with better-defined MNase
cleavage sites and a more uniform spacing of nucleosomes. These
characteristics are also observed for the endogenous heterochromatic sequences tested, the unique DNA identified as flanking the HS-5 transgene insertion site (Fig. 6A), the F element (Fig. 6B), and other
transposable elements found in heterochromatin (data not shown). The
nucleosome array of the D. melanogaster
1.688-g/cm3 satellite DNA, a major constituent of
pericentric heterochromatin, shows a ladder with such regularity that
20-mers can be detected (10). The data argue that these
characteristics of the nucleosome array are general for noncoding
pericentric heterochromatin in Drosophila. Similar
characteristics have been observed for telomeric domains of
Drosophila that induce silencing of transgenes
(19).
Could this organized structure be a default pattern, generated in the
absence of perturbations in the nucleosome array, such
as DH sites?
Previous chromatin structure studies suggest that
this is unlikely.
Mutations in the 5' regulatory region of
hsp26 can alter the
immediate chromatin structure, but they have not
been observed to
impact the overall nucleosome array of transgenes
in a euchromatic
domain (
44,
45). To suggest that the limited
genomic
pattern in which five or six nucleosomes are observed
is a consequence
of DH sites is to argue that DH sites occur every
1 to 2 kb throughout
the genome. Given that DH sites are generally
observed in conjunction
with active regulatory regions and other
signal sequences (
26,
28), this seems unlikely, even in a
compact genome such as that
of
D. melanogaster. Two assembly systems
derived from
Drosophila, ACF and CHRAC, have been found to generate
very
uniform nucleosome arrays on a variety of templates in vitro
(
38). Such systems could generate the chromatin structure
observed
for the HS-2 transgene. Whether some assembly systems
intrinsically
generate a more uniform array than others is unknown, as
the choice
of template DNA, presence of appropriate DNA-binding
proteins,
etc., may be
critical.
The nucleosome repeat length in the silenced heterochromatic transgene
studied here (HS-2) is larger than that of the euchromatic
transgene
(39C-X) (Fig.
2C). While some of the other heterochromatic
nucleosome
arrays also have a larger MNase unit size, there is
no consensus; in
fact, the array of the 1.688-g/cm
3 satellite DNA has a
relatively short MNase unit size at 180 bp
(
10),
presumably reflecting the underlying 359-bp DNA sequence
repeat (two
nucleosomes per repeat). In addition to the differences
reflecting the
DNA sequence, one would expect that repeat length
might vary depending
on the group of associated nonhistone chromosomal
proteins in a given
heterochromatic domain. Pericentric heterochromatin
is a mosaic, with
blocks of satellite DNA and transposable element
sequences (
40,
47). One can also anticipate a mosaic of protein
complexes,
analogous to those found at genes regulated by
Pc-G
proteins, where different members of the
Pc-G associate at
different
DNA sites to achieve silencing (
48). Thus, it is
not surprising
that different regions of heterochromatin appear to use
a different
repeating unit size in packaging DNA into nucleosome
arrays; what
is notable is that in all cases tested to date, we have
seen evidence
of increased long-term
order.
A striking feature is the sharper bands generated by MNase cleavage of
heterochromatin in comparison to the bands obtained
from euchromatin. A
change in DNA topology has been associated
with silencing at the
S. cerevisiae mating type loci, implying
a change in
nucleosomal structure in that domain (
5,
13).
The altered
topological state can be maintained until replication;
maintenance of
this state throughout the cell cycle requires the
cis-acting
silencing sites E and I (
14,
33). The change in
topology
suggests a shift either in the extent of DNA association
with the
histone core or in the path of the linker or both. The
change in the
MNase digestion pattern observed here, showing sharper
bands, suggests
a reduction in the target size in the linker DNA.
This could be
achieved by having a larger percentage of the DNA
in close association
with the histone core, a change that should
also result in the altered
topology observed in
S. cerevisiae.
Nuclease accessibility in Drosophila
heterochromatin.
In cases where the hsp70-white gene
shows a variegating phenotype, analysis of the chromatin structure of
the hsp26-pt gene shows a significant reduction in
restriction enzyme accessibility in the 5' regulatory region; the level
of accessibility is correlated with the observed degree of gene
silencing (56, 61). Consistent with this quantitative
shift, a loss of distinct DH sites is also observed in the extreme case
shown here, line HS-2 (Fig. 3). The loss of DH sites is reflected in
the shift in the nucleosome array seen in Fig. 5. There have been
previous reports that active and/or inducible genes are more readily
digested by DNase I than inactive regions of the genome (3,
65). One can infer that some of the difference can be attributed
to the lack of DH sites in inactive regions, including heterochromatic regions.
However, the change in chromatin accessibility in 5' regulatory regions
is not the only change observed. The reduced sensitivity
to digestion
by DNase I, monitored using a fragment that is entirely
nucleosomal and
contains no potential DH sites, in the comparison
of heterochromatic
(HS-2) and euchromatic (39C-X) transgenes,
indicates a change in
packaging in addition to the loss of DH
sites (Fig.
4). A consistent
reduction in accessibility as monitored
by restriction enzyme digestion
has been reported along the entire
silenced domains at the HML and HMR
loci in
S. cerevisiae and
across the pericentric
heterochromatin in
Schizosaccharomyces pombe (
1,
23,
41,
53). The consistent loss in general
accessibility across
broad nucleosomal regions implies that heterochromatic
domains in
different organisms may share a common form of altered
packaging.
Whether this can be accounted for by the changes in
the nucleosome
array or reflects some higher-order packaging has
not yet been
resolved.
Interestingly, no major difference in sensitivity to digestion by MNase
was observed for the nucleosomal chromatin fragment,
comparing the
heterochromatic transgene (HS-2) and euchromatic
transgene (39C-X)
(Fig.
4). MNase preferentially cleaves the nucleosomal
linker region.
Clearly, packaging of the transgene into heterochromatin
does not
impede access for this enzyme to the DNA, implying that
any
higher-order folding that occurs does not structurally block
such a
small protein (16,800 Da) and that the association of heterochromatic
proteins does not obscure the linker DNA in general. However,
mapping
of the nucleosome array using MNase (Fig.
5) has allowed
us to answer
our initial question: the nucleosome array in heterochromatin
is
altered. Changes in accessibility and gene expression do not
simply
reflect the imposition of some higher-order structure or
sequestration
of the original chromatin fiber, packaged at the
nucleosome level in
the form used in euchromatin, but reflect
an altered nucleosome array
with altered positioning of
nucleosomes.
Genes endogenous to heterochromatin.
Over 30 genetic functions
reside within D. melanogaster heterochromatin; those
characterized require a heterochromatic environment for their proper
expression, exhibiting a variegating phenotype or reduced expression
when rearrangements place them adjacent to a breakpoint in euchromatin
(63, 64). Particularly striking is the observation that
expression of the heterochromatic genes rolled and
light in their endogenous heterochromatic position is
reduced in larvae mutant for HP1, suggesting that proper maintenance of
heterochromatin structure is required for expression of these genes
(43). Thus, we were somewhat surprised to observe that light and rolled have nucleosome arrays similar
to that observed for the euchromatic transgene, rather than the
heterochromatic transgene (Fig. 7). This suggests that the regulation
of these heterochromatic genes by HP1 may not be based on the impact of HP1 on heterochromatin structure in general (which is correlated with
silencing of transgenes such as hsp70-white) but may be the consequence of a context-dependent (positive or negative) activity, similar to that displayed by RAP1 in S. cerevisiae.
Alternatively, the impact of HP1 on a heterochromatic gene may reflect
packaging of the surrounding area, rather than the transcribed region
(25). A more detailed analysis of the chromatin structure
encompassing these genes and their regulatory regions will be required
to resolve this question.
Mechanisms of heterochromatin-associated gene silencing.
A
number of models have been proposed to describe the formation of
heterochromatin and explain PEV-associated gene silencing (32,
63). PEV was initially observed as a result of chromosomal rearrangements (inversions and translocations), generally a product of
X-irradiation, which place a euchromatic gene close to a
heterochromatic breakpoint. The resulting inactivation suggested a
cis-acting silencing activity of heterochromatin acting
across the rearrangement breakpoint. This has been suggested to take
the form of continuing assembly of a heterochromatic structure
(59) or a coalescence biased toward repetitious sequences
(58), extending to encompass the formerly euchromatic
gene. Such a model is supported by the observation that proteins such
as HP1, visibly associated with the pericentric heterochromatin, have a
dosage-dependent impact on the effectiveness of silencing
(24).
In contrast, numerous studies have suggested that a gene might be
silenced by its transfer to a nuclear compartment that is
inimicable to
gene expression (
16). In its simplest form, such
a model
does not require any change in chromatin structure. Nuclear
compartmentalization suggests that the silencing of a euchromatic
gene
in heterochromatin could be due to the exclusion of critical
transcription factors or chromatin remodeling complexes from the
heterochromatic environment. Conversely, one could suggest that
association with a heterochromatic mass could prevent a gene from
gaining access to RNA polymerase factories localized in the nucleoplasm
(
17). Studies such as those with the Ikaros transcription
factor
have implicated a change in nuclear position as a mechanism to
achieve silencing (
9).
Regardless of the overall mechanism that drives heterochromatin
formation, the results reported here indicate that a distinctive
nucleosome array is generated and that packaging in this form
is
associated with gene silencing in heterochromatin. We find
that
heterochromatic sequences (excluding heterochromatic genes)
have a
nucleosome array distinct from the general pattern and
this array
appears to be imposed on the transgene resident in
heterochromatin. The
differences observed compared to the transgene
in a euchromatic site
(including incorporation of the
hsp26-pt promoter region
into a regular nucleosome array, with loss of
the DH site) would
certainly contribute to a loss of gene expression.
The presence of a
nucleosome will significantly reduce restriction
enzyme accessibility
(
2,
50) and prevent binding of TFIID
(
38,
39). Hence, such a loss of accessibility in the regulatory
regions of the transgene would be expected to result in a loss
of
inducible gene expression and is likely to constitute an important
aspect of the mechanism of gene silencing by heterochromatin formation.
Such a model is supported by the recent analysis of transgenes
silenced
within telomeric heterochromatin of
Drosophila, where
DNase
I footprinting showed a loss of GAGA factor and TFIID association,
while potassium permanganate experiments showed a loss of RNA
polymerase II association (
19).
What might drive the formation of the alternative heterochromatic
structure is unknown. In theory, either the DNA sequences
or the
associated proteins could play a determinative role in
the formation of
constitutive heterochromatin. While no DNA sequence
has been identified
as nucleating heterochromatin formation in
normal assembly, it has been
suggested that tandem arrays of repetitious
sequences might trigger
this event (
18,
32). Differences in
the local
concentrations of nuclear proteins, such as HP1 (
36),
might drive formation of one packaging mode over the other. The
final
model describing formation of the alternative chromatin
structure found
in heterochromatin is likely to depend both on
the underlying DNA
sequence and on the prevalent population of
chromosomal proteins,
perhaps defined by time of replication or
by nuclear
compartment

parameters that may be closely related.
The results shown
here (Fig.
7) indicate that the mechanism of
that drives assembly of
the heterochromatic nucleosome array must
be sufficiently sensitive to
recognize the genes within heterochromatin
(such as
rolled)
that are maintained in the active state, as these
show characteristics
of euchromatic nucleosome
arrays.
Some of the differences in heterochromatin structure might be explained
by a shift in histone acetylation. The core histones
in heterochromatin
are generally hypoacetylated; specific patterns
have been suggested to
be important in maintaining silencing (
8).
Studies of the

-globin genes of chickens have shown that activation
involves a
shift in histone acetylation, covering a large domain,
that comaps with
a change in general DNase I sensitivity (
30).
Histone
acetylation is frequently involved in the process of altering
chromatin
structure to create an accessible site (a DH site) for
initiation of
transcription in the 5' regulatory region of a gene
(
34,
38). Thus, a change in the chromatin environment that
blocked
histone acetylation and/or promoted histone deacetylation
might account
both for the loss of accessibility to the 5' regulatory
regions of the
test transgenes and for the shift in general DNase
I sensitivity
observed
here.
In contrast to other regions of the genome, where the activity
state can vary with the demands of development and environmental
response, the silent state in constitutive heterochromatin must
be
stably maintained. To be packaged in heterochromatin is to
be
removed from possible conversion by NURF or other chromatin
remodeling
machines to the chromatin structure of a transcriptionally
active gene.
Most intriguing is the possibility that the altered
nucleosome array
reflects packaging into a specific higher-order
structure, for example,
a stable solenoid. Heterochromatic silencing
is dependent on HP1 (Fig.
1), known to impact accessibility of
the transgene as measured by
XbaI digestion (
18). HP1 and other
heterochromatic proteins might play a role in stabilizing that
structure, protecting the region from conversion, much as the
Pc-G complex has been reported to protect nucleosome arrays
from
remodeling (
52). A final model of heterochromatin
will need
to encompass both the structural features delineated here and
the functional attributes that dictate gene
silencing.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Lori L. Wallrath (University of Iowa) for important
contributions during the initial stages of this work and Lori Wallrath,
Joel Eissenberg, and members of the Elgin lab for review and discussion
of the manuscript. We thank S. Lawrence Zipursky (University of
California, Los Angeles) for providing the rolled cDNA
probe, Barbara Wakimoto (University of Washington) for providing the
light DNA probe, and Sergio Pimpinelli (Rome, Italy) for
providing the probes for endogenous transposable elements.
This work was supported by Public Health Service grant HD23844 from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to S.C.R.E.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Biology, CB-1229, Washington University, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63130. Phone: (314) 935-5348. Fax: (314) 935-5125. E-mail: selgin{at}biology.wustl.edu.
Present address: UMDNJ-The New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Allshire, R. C.,
J.-P. Javerzat,
N. J. Redhead, and G. Cranston.
1994.
Position effect variegation at the fission yeast centromere.
Cell
76:157-169[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Almer, A., and W. Horz.
1986.
Nuclease hypersensitive regions with adjacent positioned nucleosomes mark the gene boundaries of the PHO5/PHO3 locus in yeast.
EMBO J.
5:268-287.
|
| 3.
|
Bellard, M.,
F. Gannon, and P. Chambon.
1978.
Nucleosome structure III: the structure and transcriptional activity of the chromatin containing the ovalbumin and globin genes in chick oviduct nuclei.
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
2:779-791.
|
| 4.
|
Berghella, L., and P. Dimitri.
1996.
The heterochromatic rolled gene of Drosophila melanogaster is extensively polytenized and transcriptionally active in the salivary gland chromocenter.
Genetics
144:117-125[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
Bi, X., and J. R. Broach.
1997.
DNA in transcriptionally silent chromatin assumes a distinct topology that is sensitive to cell cycle progression.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:7077-7087[Abstract].
|
| 6.
|
Biggs, W. H., III, and S. L. Zipursky.
1992.
Primary structure, expression, and signal-dependent tyrosine phosphorylation of a Drosophila homolog of extracellular signal-regulated kinase.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
89:6295-6299[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
Biggs, W. H., III,
K. H. Zavitz,
B. Dickson,
A. van der Straten,
D. Brunner,
E. Hafen, and S. L. Zipursky.
1994.
The Drosophila rolled locus encodes a MAP kinase required in the sevenless signal transduction pathway.
EMBO J.
13:1628-1635[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Braunstein, M.,
R. E. Sobel,
C. D. Allis,
B. M. Turner, and J. R. Broach.
1996.
Efficient transcriptional silencing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae requires a heterochromatin histone acetylation pattern.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16:4349-4356[Abstract].
|
| 9.
|
Brown, K. E.,
S. S. Guest,
S. T. Smale,
K. Hahm,
M. Merkenschlager, and A. G. Fisher.
1997.
Association of transcriptionally silent genes with Ikaros complexes at centromeric heterochromatin.
Cell
91:845-854[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Cartwright, I. L.,
R. P. Hertzberg,
P. B. Dervan, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1983.
Cleavage of chromatin with methidiumpropyl-EDTA · iron(II).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
80:3213-3217[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Cartwright, I. L., and S. C. R. Elgin.
1986.
Nucleosomal instability and induction of new upstream protein-DNA associations accompany activation of four small heat shock protein genes in Drosophila melanogaster.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
6:779-791[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Cartwright, I. L.,
D. E. Cryderman,
D. S. Gilmour,
L. A. Pile,
L. L. Wallrath,
J. A. Weber, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1999.
Analysis of Drosophila chromatin structure in vivo.
Methods Enzymol.
304:462-496[Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Cheng, T. H.,
Y. C. Li, and M. R. Gartenberg.
1998.
Persistence of an alternate chromatin structure at silenced loci in the absence of silencers.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
95:5521-5526[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Cheng, T. H., and M. R. Gartenberg.
2000.
Yeast heterochromatin is a dynamic structure that requires silencers continuously.
Genes Dev.
14:452-463[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Cleard, F.,
M. Delattre, and P. Spierer.
1997.
SU(VAR)3-7, a Drosophila heterochromatin-associated protein and companion of HP1 in the genomic silencing of position-effect variegation.
EMBO J.
16:5280-5288[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Cockell, M., and S. M. Gasser.
1999.
Nuclear compartments and gene regulation.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
9:199-205[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Cook, P. R.
1999.
The organization of replication and transcription.
Science
284:1790-1795[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Cryderman, D. E.,
M. H. Cuaycong,
S. C. R. Elgin, and L. L. Wallrath.
1998.
Characterization of sequences associated with position-effect variegation at pericentric sites in Drosophila heterochromatin.
Chromosoma
107:277-285[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Cryderman, D. E.,
H. Tang,
C. Bell,
D. S. Gilmour, and L. L. Wallrath.
1999.
Heterochromatic silencing of Drosophila heat shock genes acts at the level of promoter potentiation.
Nucleic Acids Res.
27:3364-3370[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Devlin, R. H.,
B. Bingham, and B. T. Wakimoto.
1990.
The organization and expression of the light gene, a heterochromatic gene of Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics
125:129-140[Abstract].
|
| 21.
|
Dietzel, S.,
K. Schiebel,
G. Little,
P. Edelmann,
G. A. Rappold,
R. Eils,
C. Cremer, and T. Cremer.
1999.
The 3D positioning of ANT2 and ANT3 genes within female X chromosome territories correlates with gene activity.
Exp. Cell Res.
252:363-375[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Dimitri, P.
1991.
Cytogenetic analysis of the second chromosome heterochromatin of Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics
127:553-564[Abstract].
|
| 23.
|
Donze, D.,
C. R. Adam,
J. Rine, and R. T. Kamakaka.
1999.
The boundaries of the silenced HMR domain in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Genes Dev.
13:698-708[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Eissenberg, J. C.,
G. D. Morris,
G. Reuter, and T. Hartnett.
1992.
The heterochromatin-associated protein HP1 is an essential protein in Drosophila with dosage-dependent effects on position-effect variegation.
Genetics
131:345-352[Abstract].
|
| 25.
|
Eissenberg, J. C., and S. C. R. Elgin.
2000.
The HP1 protein family: getting a grip on chromatin.
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
10:204-210[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Elgin, S. C. R.
1988.
The formation and function of DNase I hypersensitive sites in the process of gene activation.
J. Biol. Chem.
263:19259-19262[Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Giardina, C.,
M. Perez-Riba, and J. T. Lis.
1992.
Promoter melting and TFIID complexes on Drosophila genes in vivo.
Genes Dev.
6:2190-2200[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Gross, D. S., and W. T. Garrard.
1988.
Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
57:159-197[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Grunstein, M.
1998.
Yeast heterochromatin: regulation of its assembly and inheritance by histones.
Cell
93:325-328[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 30.
|
Hebbes, T. R.,
A. L. Clayton,
A. W. Thorne, and C. Crane-Robinson.
1994.
Core histone hyperacetylation co-maps with generalized DNase I sensitivity in the chicken -globin chromosomal domain.
EMBO J.
13:1823-1830[Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Heitz, E.
1928.
Das heterochromatin der moose.
Jahrb. Wiss. Bot.
69:726-818.
|
| 32.
|
Henikoff, S.
2000.
Heterochromatin function in complex genomes.
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1470:1-8.
|
| 33.
|
Holmes, S. G., and J. R. Broach.
1996.
Silencers are required for inheritance of the repressed state in yeast.
Genes Dev.
10:1021-1032[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
Howe, L.,
C. E. Brown,
T. Lechner, and J. L. Workman.
1999.
Histone acetyltransferase complexes and their link to transcription.
Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Exp.
9:231-243[Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Howe, M.,
P. Dimitri,
M. Berloco, and B. T. Wakimoto.
1995.
Cis-effects of heterochromatin on heterochromatic and euchromatic gene activity in Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics
140:1033-1045[Abstract].
|
| 36.
|
James, T. C.,
J. E. Eissenberg,
C. Craig,
V. Dietrich,
A. Hobson, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1989.
Distribution patterns of HP1, a heterochromatin-associated nonhistone chromosomal protein of Drosophila.
Eur. J. Cell Biol.
50:170-180[Medline].
|
| 37.
|
Khesin, R. B., and B. A. Leibovitch.
1978.
Influence of deficiency of the histone gene-containing 38B-40 region on X-chromosome template activity and the white gene position effect variegation in Drosophila melanogaster.
Mol. Gen. Genet.
162:323-328[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Kingston, R. E., and G. J. Narlikar.
1999.
ATP-dependent remodeling and acetylation as regulators of chromatin fluidity.
Genes Dev.
13:2339-2352[Free Full Text].
|
| 39.
|
Kornberg, R. D., and Y. T. Lorch.
1999.
Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental particle of the eukaryote chromosome.
Cell
98:285-294[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 40.
|
Le, M. H.,
D. Duricka, and G. H. Karpen.
1995.
Islands of complex DNA are widespread in Drosophila centric heterochromatin.
Genetics
141:283-303[Abstract].
|
| 41.
|
Loo, S., and J. Rine.
1994.
Silencers and domains of generalized repression.
Science
164:1768-1771.
|
| 42.
|
Lu, B. Y., and J. C. Eissenberg.
1998.
Developmental regulation of heterochromatin-mediated gene silencing in Drosophila.
Development
125:2223-2234[Abstract].
|
| 43.
|
Lu, B. Y.,
P. C. R. Emtage,
B. J. Duyf,
A. J. Hilliker, and J. C. Eissenberg.
2000.
Heterochromatin Protein 1 is required for the normal expression of two heterochromatin genes in Drosophila.
Genetics
155:699-708[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 44.
|
Lu, Q.,
L. L. Wallrath,
H. Granok, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1993.
(CT)n · (GA)n repeats and heat shock elements have distinct roles in chromatin structure and transcriptional activation of the Drosophila hsp26 gene.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13:2802-2814[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 45.
|
Lu, Q.,
L. L. Wallrath, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1995.
The role of a positioned nucleosome at the Drosophila melanogaster hsp26 promoter.
EMBO J.
14:4738-4746[Medline].
|
| 46.
|
Matzke, A. J., and M. A. Matzke.
1998.
Position effects and epigenetic silencing of plant transgenes.
Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.
1:142-148[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 47.
|
Pimpinelli, S.,
M. Berloco,
L. Fanti,
P. Dimitri,
S. Bonaccorsi,
E. Marchetti,
R. Caizzi,
C. Caggese, and M. Gatti.
1995.
Transposable elements are stable structural components of Drosophila melanogaster heterochromatin.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
92:3804-3808[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 48.
|
Pirrotta, V.
1998.
Polycombing the genome: PcG, trxG, and chromatin silencing.
Cell
93:333-336[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 49.
|
Platero, J. S.,
T. Hartnett, and J. C. Eissenberg.
1995.
Functional analysis of the chromo domain of HP1.
EMBO J.
14:3977-3986[Medline].
|
| 50.
|
Polach, K. J., and J. Widom.
1995.
Mechanism of protein access to specific DNA sequences in chromatin: a dynamic equilibrium model for gene regulation.
J. Mol. Biol.
254:130-149[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 51.
|
Shaffer, C. D.,
J. M. Wuller, and S. C. R. Elgin.
1994.
Raising large quantities of Drosophila for biochemical experiments.
Methods Cell Biol.
44:99-108[Medline].
|
| 52.
|
Shao, Z.,
F. Raible,
R. Mollaaghababa,
J. R. Guyon,
C. T. Wu,
W. Bender, and R. E. Kingston.
1999.
Stabilization of chromatin structure by PRC1, a Polycomb complex.
Cell
98:37-46[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 53.
|
Singh, J., and A. J. Klar.
1992.
Active genes in budding yeast display enhanced in vivo accessibility to foreign DNA methylases: a novel in vivo probe for chromatin structure of yeast.
Genes Dev.
6:186-196[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 54.
|
Spofford, J. B.
1976.
Position-effect variegation in Drosophila, p. 955-1018.
In
M. Ashburner, and E. Novitski (ed.), The genetics and biology of Drosophila, vol. 1c. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 55.
|
Struhl, K.
1999.
Fundamentally different logic of gene regulation in eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Cell
9:1-4.
|
| 56.
|
Sun, F. L.,
H. M. Cuaycong,
C. A. Craig,
L. L. Wallrath,
J. Locke, and S. C. R. Elgin.
2000.
The fourth chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster: interspersed euchromatic and heterochromatic domains.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97:5340-5345[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 57.
|
Surani, M. A.
1998.
Imprinting and the initiation of gene silencing in the germ line.
Cell
93:309-312[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 58.
|
Talbert, P. B., and S. Henikoff.
2000.
A re-examination of spreading of position-effect variegation in the white-roughest region of Drosophila melanogaster.
Genetics
154:259-272[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 59.
|
Tartof, K. D.,
C. Hobbs, and M. Jones.
1984.
A structural basis for variegating position effects.
Cell
37:869-878[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 60.
|
Thomas, G. H., and S. C. R. Elgin.
1988.
Protein/DNA architecture of the DNase I hypersensitive region of the Drosophila hsp26 promoter.
EMBO J.
7:2191-2201[Medline].
|
| 61.
|
Wallrath, L. L., and S. C. R. Elgin.
1995.
Position effect variegation in Drosophila is associated with an altered chromatin structure.
Genes Dev.
9:1263-1277[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 62.
|
Warner, T. S.,
D. A. Sinclair,
K. A. Fitzpatrick,
M. Singh,
R. H. Devlin, and B. M. Honda.
1998.
The light gene of Drosophila melanogaster encodes a homologue of VPS41, a yeast gene involved in cellular-protein trafficking.
Genome
41:236-243[Medline].
|
| 63.
|
Weiler, K. S., and B. T. Wakimoto.
1995.
Heterochromatin and gene expression in Drosophila.
Annu. Rev. Genet.
29:577-605[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 64.
|
Weiler, K. S., and B. T. Wakimoto.
1998.
Chromosome rearrangements induce both variegated and reduced, uniform expression of heterochromatic genes in a development-specific manner.
Genetics
149:1451-1464[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 65.
|
Weintraub, H., and M. Groudine.
1976.
Chromosomal subunits in active genes have an altered conformation.
Science
193:848-856[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Molecular and Cellular Biology, April 2001, p. 2867-2879, Vol. 21, No. 8
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.8.2867-2879.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Hines, K. A., Cryderman, D. E., Flannery, K. M., Yang, H., Vitalini, M. W., Hazelrigg, T., Mizzen, C. A., Wallrath, L. L.
(2009). Domains of Heterochromatin Protein 1 Required for Drosophila melanogaster Heterochromatin Spreading. Genetics
182: 967-977
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Riddle, N. C., Leung, W., Haynes, K. A., Granok, H., Wuller, J., Elgin, S. C. R.
(2008). An Investigation of Heterochromatin Domains on the Fourth Chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics
178: 1177-1191
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sripathy, S. P., Stevens, J., Schultz, D. C.
(2006). The KAP1 Corepressor Functions To Coordinate the Assembly of De Novo HP1-Demarcated Microenvironments of Heterochromatin Required for KRAB Zinc Finger Protein-Mediated Transcriptional Repression. Mol. Cell. Biol.
26: 8623-8638
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Valley, C. M., Pertz, L. M., Balakumaran, B. S., Willard, H. F.
(2006). Chromosome-wide, allele-specific analysis of the histone code on the human X chromosome. Hum Mol Genet
15: 2335-2347
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Fire, A., Alcazar, R., Tan, F.
(2006). Unusual DNA Structures Associated With Germline Genetic Activity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics
173: 1259-1273
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Dalal, Y., Fleury, T. J., Cioffi, A., Stein, A.
(2005). Long-range oscillation in a periodic DNA sequence motif may influence nucleosome array formation. Nucleic Acids Res
33: 934-945
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sun, F.-L., Haynes, K., Simpson, C. L., Lee, S. D., Collins, L., Wuller, J., Eissenberg, J. C., Elgin, S. C. R.
(2004). cis-Acting Determinants of Heterochromatin Formation on Drosophila melanogaster Chromosome Four. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 8210-8220
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Shestakova, E. A., Mansuroglu, Z., Mokrani, H., Ghinea, N., Bonnefoy, E.
(2004). Transcription factor YY1 associates with pericentromeric {gamma}-satellite DNA in cycling but not in quiescent (G0) cells. Nucleic Acids Res
32: 4390-4399
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Danzer, J. R., Wallrath, L. L.
(2004). Mechanisms of HP1-mediated gene silencing in Drosophila. Development
131: 3571-3580
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Oki, M., Valenzuela, L., Chiba, T., Ito, T., Kamakaka, R. T.
(2004). Barrier Proteins Remodel and Modify Chromatin To Restrict Silenced Domains. Mol. Cell. Biol.
24: 1956-1967
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
HAYNES, K.A., LEIBOVITCH, B.A., RANGWALA, S.H., CRAIG, C., ELGIN, S.C.R.
(2004). Analyzing Heterochromatin Formation Using Chromosome 4 of Drosophila melanogaster. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol
69: 267-272
[Abstract]
-
Jiang, G., Yang, F., van Overveld, P. G. M., Vedanarayanan, V., van der Maarel, S., Ehrlich, M.
(2003). Testing the position-effect variegation hypothesis for facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy by analysis of histone modification and gene expression in subtelomeric 4q. Hum Mol Genet
12: 2909-2921
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Li, Y., Danzer, J. R., Alvarez, P., Belmont, A. S., Wallrath, L. L.
(2003). Effects of tethering HP1 to euchromatic regions of the Drosophila genome. Development
130: 1817-1824
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Koryakov, D. E., Domanitskaya, E. V., Belyakin, S. N., Zhimulev, I. F.
(2003). Abnormal tissue-dependent polytenization of a block of chromosome 3 pericentric heterochromatin in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell Sci.
116: 1035-1044
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Shaffer, C. D., Stephens, G. E., Thompson, B. A., Funches, L., Bernat, J. A., Craig, C. A., Elgin, S. C. R.
(2002). Heterochromatin protein 2 (HP2), a partner of HP1 in Drosophila heterochromatin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99: 14332-14337
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Yan, C. M., Dobie, K. W., Le, H. D., Konev, A. Y., Karpen, G. H.
(2002). Efficient Recovery of Centric Heterochromatin P-Element Insertions in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics
161: 217-229
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Meehan, R. R., Pennings, S., Stancheva, I.
(2001). Lashings of DNA methylation, forkfuls of chromatin remodeling. Genes Dev.
15: 3231-3236
[Full Text]
-
Gilbert, N., Allan, J.
(2001). Distinctive higher-order chromatin structure at mammalian centromeres. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
98: 11949-11954
[Abstract]
[Full Text]