| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, June 2007, p. 3951-3961, Vol. 27, No. 11
0270-7306/07/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/MCB.02180-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Kathryn E. Gardner,1,
Gaoyang Liang,1
Hediye Erdjument-Bromage,2
Paul Tempst,2 and
Yi Zhang1*
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7295,1 Molecular Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 100212
Received 21 November 2006/ Returned for modification 8 January 2007/ Accepted 12 March 2007
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Until recently, histone methylation was considered to be a static modification, but the identification of histone demethylase enzymes has revealed that this modification can be dynamically regulated (6, 15, 16, 32, 36, 41, 44). Thus far, two histone demethylase enzyme families have been identified, the LSD1 family and the JmjC-domain-containing family. These enzymes are potentially important chromatin regulators, given their capacity to modify epigenetic information through the direct removal of histone lysine methylation marks. Functional characterization of existing histone demethylase enzymes has revealed that individual enzymes recognize specific lysine residues and can distinguish between the monomethylation (me1), dimethylation (me2), and trimethylation (me3) states of their target substrates (16). The budding yeast genome is predicted to encode five JmjC-domain-containing proteins but has no apparent LSD1 homologue. JmjC-domain-containing proteins achieve histone demethylation by an oxidative mechanism requiring iron and alpha-ketoglutarate as cofactors and are capable of removing all three histone lysine methylation states (16). Jhd1 is the only active JmjC-domain-containing histone demethylase identified in budding yeast, and it targets the demethylation of H3K36me2 and H3K36me1 (36). Bioinformatic analysis indicates that other JmjC-domain-containing proteins in budding yeast may be enzymatically active based on the conservation of important cofactor binding residues and therefore may constitute novel histone demethylases (15).
Here, we characterize a second budding yeast JmjC-domain-containing protein, Rph1, and reveal that it is an H3K36 demethylase capable of removing the me3 modification state. Biochemical analysis of Rph1 demonstrates that this enzyme is also capable of removing H3K9 methylation despite the fact that S. cerevisiae chromatin lacks this modification. These observations reveal that H3K36me3 is a reversible modification in budding yeast and suggest that Rph1-mediated demethylation of H3K9 may be a functional vestige of an extinct H3K9 methylation system in S. cerevisiae.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Demethylation assay and mass spectrometry. All histone substrates were radioactively labeled as described previously (16, 36) using equal counts of labeled substrate for histone demethylation reactions. Histone demethylation and mass spectrometry assays were carried out as described previously (36). H3K36 peptide substrates used in mass spectrometry analyses encompass amino acids 28 to 45, containing a trimethyl modification, amino acids 32 to 42, containing a dimethyl modification, and amino acids 21 to 45, containing a monomethyl modification (Upstate Biotechnology). The H3K9me3 peptide substrate used in mass spectrometry analyses encompass amino acids 1 to 18 of histone H3 (Upstate Biotechnology). For Western blot analysis of histones after demethylase assays, the following antibodies were used at dilutions ranging from 1:200 to 1:1,000: Ab8898 for H3K9me3 (Abcam), Ab9050 for H3K36me3 (Abcam), and Ab9048 for H3K36me2 and H3K36me1 (Abcam).
Strains.
All strains except those in the telomeric silencing assay are of the BY4741 background. Strains used in the telomeric silencing assay are isogenic to strain YCB647 (35). The rph1
strain was generated by homologous recombination using a PCR-amplified natMX knockout cassette (10). Rph1 was Flag tagged by amplification of a p3Flag-KanMX cassette (9) using primer A (CCGCAGGACGGGAAAGCGGCCATTAATCAACAGAGTACACCTTTAAACAGGGAACAAAAGCTGGAG) and primer B (GCCTTCAAAATGAGAGATCTCGGTAAACAACTGGCAATGGTGAGTCACTATAGGGCGAATTGGGT) and introduced into strain BY4741 by homologous recombination.
Size exclusion chromatography and sucrose gradient analysis. Whole-cell yeast extract or recombinant Rph1 (rRph1) was fractionated over a 24-ml Superose 6 size exclusion column (Amersham Biosciences) equilibrated with BC400 (40 mM HEPES [pH 7.9], 400 mM KCl, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 10% glycerol, 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) with the aid of an AKTA purifier (Amersham biosciences) at a flow rate of 0.2 ml/min, and 250-µl fractions were collected. Every other fraction was analyzed for Rph1 by Western blotting or Coomassie staining. Sucrose gradients were formed at 4°C in 13-ml SW40 tubes using a manual two-chamber gradient former. Chamber 1 was loaded with buffer A (300 mM KCl, 20 mM HEPES [pH 7.9], 10% glycerol, 10 mM beta-mercaptoethanol) containing 5% sucrose, and chamber 2 was loaded with buffer A containing 20% sucrose. Rph1 and protein molecular weight markers were applied to the 5 to 20% sucrose gradient and centrifuged at 40,000 rpm in an SW40 rotor for 19 h at 4°C. Fractions (500 µl) were collected manually from the top of the gradient using a peristaltic pump fitted with a capillary tube. Each fraction was trichloroacetic acid precipitated and analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and Coomassie staining.
Native molecular weight and frictional coefficient calculations.
To determine the native molecular weight (Mr) and frictional coefficient (f/f0) of rRph1, the values obtained for radius and sedimentation in Fig. 4 were applied to equations 1 and 2 (34):
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
20,w is the viscosity of water at 20°C (0.01002 g·s1 cm1), N is Avogadro's number (6.022 x 1023·mol1),
20,w is the density of water at 20°C (0.9981 g·cm3), and
is the partial specific volume (used 0.725 cm3/g).
|
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To test whether Rph1 is a histone demethylase, rRph1 or rRph1 with a replacement in a predicted iron binding residue (H235A) was used in a histone demethylase assay containing radioactively labeled methyl groups on histone H3 at positions K4, K36, and K79 (Fig. 1A). Histone demethylase activity was monitored by the release of the labeled reaction product formaldehyde. Demethylase activity was observed only when H3K36-labeled substrate was present in the reaction mixture, suggesting that Rph1 is an H3K36-specific histone demethylase (Fig. 1A). Mutation of a predicted iron binding residue within Rph1 completely abolished enzymatic activity, verifying that Rph1 relies on the JmjC domain for catalysis. Because histone lysine methylation can occur in three modification states, we sought to identify which H3K36 modification states are targeted by Rph1. Rph1 was incubated with core histones or oligonucleosomes, and the resulting methylation states were analyzed by Western blotting using modification-specific antibodies (Fig. 1B). Rph1-mediated demethylation culminated in a reduction of H3K36me3 and an accumulation of H3K36me1 but did not affect H3K4me3 or H3K79me3 methylation. Interestingly, this property of Rph1 differs from that of mammalian JHDM3/JMJD2 proteins, which are incapable of efficiently demethylating oligonucleosomal substrates (16).
|
Rph1 requires both the JmjN and JmjC domains to catalyze histone demethylation. The Rph1 protein has three curated protein domains including a JmjN domain, a JmjC domain, and a zinc finger (ZF) domain. Mutation of a predicted iron binding site within the Rph1 JmjC domain abrogates demethylase activity, demonstrating that the JmjC domain is the catalytic core of the enzyme. Characterization of other JmjC-domain-containing proteins has revealed that additional domains can contribute to demethylase activity (8, 16, 36, 44). To understand which Rph1 domains are required for histone demethylation, a series of deletion proteins (Fig. 2A) were generated and analyzed for H3K36 demethylase activity using the formaldehyde release assay (Fig. 2B). A unique feature of Rph1 is its C-terminal ZF DNA binding domain, which is absent from the related mammalian JHDM3/JMJD2 histone demethylases (12). To determine whether this domain contributes to demethylase activity, the ZF was deleted, and the activity of the recombinant protein was analyzed by formaldehyde release (Fig. 2B). Removal of the ZF domain had no effect on enzymatic activity, suggesting that this domain may have alternative roles in vivo. In contrast, deletion of the JmjN domain completely abrogated H3K36 demethylase activity (Fig. 2B). Recently, the crystal structure of the human JHDM3A/JMJD2A protein was solved, revealing that the JmjN domain folds into the JmjC domain, creating a single structural entity that is enzymatically active (5). Given that Rph1 also relies on its JmjN domain for enzymatic activity, it seems likely that this domain contributes to the structure of the functional yeast enzyme. To determine whether the JmjN/JmjC domain alone is enzymatically active, a protein encompassing only these domains was generated and used in a histone demethylase assay. Although this protein showed a slight reduction in H3K36 demethylase activity, it was still capable of removing H3K36 methylation, demonstrating that the JmjN/JmjC domain is sufficient for demethylase activity (Fig. 2B). Together, these data show that Rph1 demethylase activity relies on the function of the JmjN and JmJC domains and indicate that the ZF domain may have alternative roles in vivo, perhaps involving protein targeting.
|
|
|
Rph1 is not stably associated with other proteins in vivo.
Many chromatin remodeling and chromatin-modifying enzymes are found in high-molecular-weight complexes containing auxiliary proteins that are required to regulate enzymatic function and target the enzyme to defined genomic regions (2-4, 13, 14, 20, 22, 27, 40). To identify potential Rph1 functional protein partners, we performed TAP-Tag purification, which failed to reveal any stably associated proteins (data not shown). To verify that Rph1 is not a component of a high-molecular-weight protein complex, extract from a Flag-tagged Rph1 strain (Fig. 5A) was fractionated by size exclusion chromatography (Fig. 5B). Rph1-containing fractions were identified by Western blot analysis using Flag-specific antibodies (Fig. 5B). Rph1 eluted from the size exclusion column with an apparent native molecular mass of greater that 440 kDa, which is much larger than its theoretical molecular mass of 90.2 kDa based on the amino acid composition (Fig. 5B). Rph1 affinity purification failed to reveal associated proteins, but size exclusion analysis suggests that the native molecular weight of Rph1 is larger than that expected for Rph1 alone. To determine whether the high apparent native molecular weight of Rph1 in size exclusion fractionations was due to an association with other proteins, rRph1 was separated over the same size exclusion column and analyzed by Coomassie staining (Fig. 5C). Surprisingly the recombinant protein also eluted from the size exclusion column with a native molecular mass of greater than 440 kDa (Fig. 5C). This observation indicates that the high apparent native molecular weight of Rph1 in yeast extracts is not due to additional stably associated proteins but instead is an intrinsic property of Rph1 alone. Given that size exclusion chromatography separates proteins based on radius and not molecular weight, the aberrant size of Rph1 in these experiments could be due to an abnormally elongated Rph1 molecule or the result of a homogenous multimeric Rph1 complex. Over four decades ago, Siegel and Monty derived a series of formulae that combine biophysical properties obtained from size exclusion chromatography and sedimentation analysis to accurately determine the native molecular weight of proteins and protein complexes (34). Using those formulae, the experimentally determined radius and sedimentation coefficient can be exploited to determine whether a given protein species has an abnormal elution profile due to a highly elongated shape or multimerization. The Stokes radius of rRph1 calculated from size exclusion chromatography was
6.77 nm (Fig. 5C). To determine the sedimentation coefficient, rRph1 was analyzed by sucrose gradient sedimentation. The sedimentation coefficient (s20,w) of rRph1 calculated from the sucrose gradient was
12.76 S (Fig. 5D). By applying values obtained from the size exclusion and sedimentation analysis to the Siegel and Monty formulas, the derived native molecular mass of Rph1 was calculated to be 355.43 kDa, and the frictional ratio (f/f0) was 1.45. This analysis suggests that Rph1 is not an elongated molecule but instead consists of four 90.2-kDa (theoretical mass) Rph1 subunits. It is surprising that Rph1 does not form a stable heterogeneous protein complex in budding yeast
given that many other chromatin-modifying enzymes are found in high-molecular-weight complexes that have accessory proteins involved in targeting the enzymatic activity to chromatin. One explanation for the apparent absence of a stable Rph1 complex could be the intrinsic ability of Rph1 to directly bind DNA through its C-terminal ZF domain (12). The DNA binding properties of Rph1 may allow it to function independently of associated factors in recognizing target sites in chromatin and permit more transient interactions with additional protein factors while antagonizing H3K36 methylation.
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Here, we identify Rph1 as being a histone demethylase with activity towards histone H3K36me3 and H3K36me2 modification states. Deletion of RPH1 does not affect global histone H3K36 methylation profiles, and deletion strains are viable, displaying no obvious morphological or cellular defects. This observation is not surprising given that a deletion of SET2, the sole H3K36 methyltransferase in budding yeast, causes no obvious cellular defects and has subtle effects on gene expression. The overexpression of Rph1 leads to a cellular growth defect, but this property appears to be independent of H3K36 demethylase activity and instead relies on the C-terminal ZF DNA binding domain. It remains possible that the growth defect in Rph1-overexpressing cells is due to demethylase-independent repression of growth-related genes through the ZF DNA binding domain. The overexpression of the Rph1 JmjN/JmjC domains alone is sufficient to mediate the demethylation of H3K36, verifying that this portion of the protein is catalytically competent in vivo. In contrast to many other chromatin-modifying enzymes, Rph1 does not stably associate with other proteins but instead forms a homogenous complex comprised of four Rph1 subunits. Often, chromatin remodeling complexes rely on associated protein factors for enzyme targeting, but the fact that Rph1 has an intrinsic DNA binding domain may alleviate the requirement for genomic targeting by auxiliary protein factors in some instances. Removal of the ZF relieves growth defects in cells overexpressing Rph1, supporting the argument that this domain contributes to protein function and perhaps genomic targeting in vivo. Additional functional analyses will be required to define specific genomic targets of Rph1 and to understand how Rph1-mediated demethylation contributes to transcriptional regulation by Rph1.
The two characterized budding yeast histone demethylase enzymes, Jhd1 and Rph1, both target H3K36 methylation. Two of the three remaining JmjC-domain-containing proteins, Gis1 and Ecm5, have mutations in cofactor binding residues that ablate demethylase activity (Y. Tsukada, K. E. Gardner, and Y. Zhang, unpublished data). The remaining protein, Yjr119C, is an H3K4 demethylase that catalyzes the removal of the H3K4me3 modification state (our unpublished data). Therefore, it appears that JmjC-domain-containing proteins in budding yeast target the removal of H3K4 and H3K36 methylation but not H3K79 methylation. H3K4 and H3K36 methylation are placed by SET domain-containing histone methyltransferases. In contrast, H3K79 methylation is catalyzed by DOT1, which does not have a SET domain. The inability of JmjC-domain-containing proteins to remove H3K79 methylation strikingly parallels the fact that a unique enzyme is required to place this modification. Perhaps H3K79 methylation is also removed by a novel class of demethylase enzymes with unique enzymatic properties. Further biochemical and genetic analyses of H3K79 methylation in budding yeast will be instrumental in determining whether this modification is dynamically regulated and provide insight into potentially novel enzymes involved in metabolizing this modification.
The JmjC-domain-containing histone demethylase enzymes characterized thus far have a very defined substrate specificity towards the lysine modification site and state. The catalytic domain of Rph1 is homologous to the mammalian JHMD3/JMJD2 enzymes, which target both H3K36 and H3K9 demethylation. The capacity of mammalian enzymes to target H3K9 methylation, a modification which is absent from budding yeast chromatin, may have adaptively evolved in the presence of enzymes that place this modification. Surprisingly, the characterization of Rph1 substrate specificity revealed that Rph1 is also capable of demethylating H3K9 in vitro as well as on mammalian chromatin in vivo. This property of Rph1 is not simply due to promiscuous substrate specificity, as Rph1 does not affect other yeast or mammalian histone methylation sites. The capacity of Rph1 to demethylate this modification suggests that an H3K9 methylation system may have once existed in budding yeast. Despite the fact that H3K9 methylation is no longer found in budding yeast chromatin, the enzymatic activity of Rph1 towards this modification may have been inadvertently retained due to its bifunctional requirement as a regulator of H3K36 methylation. Other components of the H3K9 methylation system, including the H3K9 methyltransferase, may have been lost or become functionally inactive.
No SET-domain-containing protein has been shown to modify H3K9 in budding yeast. The SET-domain-containing protein Set3 is a structurally integral component of a high-molecular-weight histone deacetylase complex (30) that, much like Set2, is targeted to the body of active genes, where it regulates chromatin modification (39). Deletion of Set2 in a strain lacking any component of the Set3 complex results in synthetic growth defects, suggesting that these factors contribute to similar processes (18). It has recently been demonstrated that in addition to H3K36 methylation, H3K9 methylation is targeted to the body of actively transcribed genes in mammalian cells (37, 38), and at least one mammalian histone deacetylase complex also contains H3K9 methyltransferase activity (33). No histone methyltransferase activity has been identified for the budding yeast Set3 complex, and residues within the SET domain that are required for methyltransferase activity are substituted. The role of this complex in the transcribed regions of yeast genes raises the possibility that Set3 may have once played a role analogous to that of the methyltransferases that place H3K9 methylation in the body of mammalian genes. During the evolution of the yeast chromatin modification system, a loss of selective pressure for H3K9 methylation could have potentially allowed components of this system to functionally deteriorate, while an intact H3K9 methylation system in higher eukaryotes was retained. Perhaps Set3 remains as a relic of this modification system due to its essential structural role in the assembly of the Set3 protein complex and its role in histone deacetylation. It will be interesting to determine whether the SET domain of Set3 can be replaced with the SET domain from an active H3K9 methyltransferase to recapitulate H3K9 methylation profiles in budding yeast that are found in the body of transcribed genes in mammals. The revelation that Rph1 can demethylate H3K9 provides the first evidence for the possibility of an extinct H3K9 methylation system in budding yeast and suggests that Rph1 may represent a functional vestige of this system.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
, spt4
, rtf1
, snf2
, spt7
, htz1
, and sir2
strains. We thank Emma Turnbull and Nara Lee for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by NIH grants GM68804 (to Y.Z.) and P30 CA08748 (to P.T.). Y.Z. is an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. R.J.K. is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Published ahead of print on 19 March 2007. ![]()
R.J.K. and K.E.G. contributed equally to this study. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Cairns, B. R. 2005. Chromatin remodeling complexes: strength in diversity, precision through specialization. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 15:185-190.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Cao, R., L. Wang, H. Wang, L. Xia, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, R. S. Jones, and Y. Zhang. 2002. Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb-group silencing. Science 298:1039-1043.
4. Carrozza, M. J., B. Li, L. Florens, T. Suganuma, S. K. Swanson, K. K. Lee, W. J. Shia, S. Anderson, J. Yates, M. P. Washburn, and J. L. Workman. 2005. Histone H3 methylation by Set2 directs deacetylation of coding regions by Rpd3S to suppress spurious intragenic transcription. Cell 123:581-592.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Chen, Z., J. Zang, J. Whetstine, X. Hong, F. Davrazou, T. G. Kutateladze, M. Simpson, Q. Mao, C. H. Pan, S. Dai, J. Hagman, K. Hansen, Y. Shi, and G. Zhang. 2006. Structural insights into histone demethylation by JMJD2 family members. Cell 125:691-702.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Cloos, P. A., J. Christensen, K. Agger, A. Maiolica, J. Rappsilber, T. Antal, K. H. Hansen, and K. Helin. 2006. The putative oncogene GASC1 demethylates tri- and dimethylated lysine 9 on histone H3. Nature 442:307-311.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Desmoucelles, C., B. Pinson, C. Saint-Marc, and B. Daignan-Fornier. 2002. Screening the yeast "disruptome" for mutants affecting resistance to the immunosuppressive drug, mycophenolic acid. J. Biol. Chem. 277:27036-27044.
8. Fodor, B. D., S. Kubicek, M. Yonezawa, R. J. O'Sullivan, R. Sengupta, L. Perez-Burgos, S. Opravil, K. Mechtler, G. Schotta, and T. Jenuwein. 2006. Jmjd2b antagonizes H3K9 trimethylation at pericentric heterochromatin in mammalian cells. Genes Dev. 20:1557-1562.
9. Gelbart, M. E., T. Rechsteiner, T. J. Richmond, and T. Tsukiyama. 2001. Interactions of Isw2 chromatin remodeling complex with nucleosomal arrays: analyses using recombinant yeast histones and immobilized templates. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21:2098-2106.
10. Goldstein, A. L., and J. H. McCusker. 1999. Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15:1541-1553.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Hampsey, M. 1997. A review of phenotypes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 13:1099-1133.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Jang, Y. K., L. Wang, and G. B. Sancar. 1999. RPH1 and GIS1 are damage-responsive repressors of PHR1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19:7630-7638.
13. Joshi, A. A., and K. Struhl. 2005. Eaf3 chromodomain interaction with methylated H3-K36 links histone deacetylation to Pol II elongation. Mol. Cell 20:971-978.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Keogh, M. C., S. K. Kurdistani, S. A. Morris, S. H. Ahn, V. Podolny, S. R. Collins, M. Schuldiner, K. Chin, T. Punna, N. J. Thompson, C. Boone, A. Emili, J. S. Weissman, T. R. Hughes, B. D. Strahl, M. Grunstein, J. F. Greenblatt, S. Buratowski, and N. J. Krogan. 2005. Cotranscriptional set2 methylation of histone H3 lysine 36 recruits a repressive Rpd3 complex. Cell 123:593-605.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Klose, R. J., E. M. Kallin, and Y. Zhang. 2006. JmjC-domain-containing proteins and histone demethylation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7:715-727.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Klose, R. J., K. Yamane, Y. Bae, D. Zhang, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, J. Wong, and Y. Zhang. 2006. The transcriptional repressor JHDM3A demethylates trimethyl histone H3 lysine 9 and lysine 36. Nature 442:312-316.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Kornberg, R. D., and Y. Lorch. 1999. Twenty-five years of the nucleosome, fundamental particle of the eukaryote chromosome. Cell 98:285-294.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Krogan, N. J., M. Kim, S. H. Ahn, G. Zhong, M. S. Kobor, G. Cagney, A. Emili, A. Shilatifard, S. Buratowski, and J. F. Greenblatt. 2002. RNA polymerase II elongation factors of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a targeted proteomics approach. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22:6979-6992.
19. Krogan, N. J., M. Kim, A. Tong, A. Golshani, G. Cagney, V. Canadien, D. P. Richards, B. K. Beattie, A. Emili, C. Boone, A. Shilatifard, S. Buratowski, and J. Greenblatt. 2003. Methylation of histone H3 by Set2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is linked to transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase II. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23:4207-4218.
20. Kuzmichev, A., K. Nishioka, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, and D. Reinberg. 2002. Histone methyltransferase activity associated with a human multiprotein complex containing the Enhancer of Zeste protein. Genes Dev. 16:2893-2905.
21. Li, B., L. Howe, S. Anderson, J. R. Yates III, and J. L. Workman. 2003. The Set2 histone methyltransferase functions through the phosphorylated carboxyl-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II. J. Biol. Chem. 278:8897-8903.
22. Li, H., S. Ilin, W. Wang, E. M. Duncan, J. Wysocka, C. D. Allis, and D. J. Patel. 2006. Molecular basis for site-specific read-out of histone H3K4me3 by the BPTF PHD finger of NURF. Nature 442:91-95.[Medline]
23. Li, J., D. Moazed, and S. P. Gygi. 2002. Association of the histone methyltransferase Set2 with RNA polymerase II plays a role in transcription elongation. J. Biol. Chem. 277:49383-49388.
24. Martin, C., and Y. Zhang. 2005. The diverse functions of histone lysine methylation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6:838-849.[Medline]
25. Millar, C. B., and M. Grunstein. 2006. Genome-wide patterns of histone modifications in yeast. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7:657-666.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Mizuguchi, G., X. Shen, J. Landry, W. H. Wu, S. Sen, and C. Wu. 2004. ATP-driven exchange of histone H2AZ variant catalyzed by SWR1 chromatin remodeling complex. Science 303:343-348.
27. Muller, J., C. M. Hart, N. J. Francis, M. L. Vargas, A. Sengupta, B. Wild, E. L. Miller, M. B. O'Connor, R. E. Kingston, and J. A. Simon. 2002. Histone methyltransferase activity of a Drosophila Polycomb group repressor complex. Cell 111:197-208.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Neigeborn, L., and M. Carlson. 1984. Genes affecting the regulation of SUC2 gene expression by glucose repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 108:845-858.
29. Patton-Vogt, J. L., and S. A. Henry. 1998. GIT1, a gene encoding a novel transporter for glycerophosphoinositol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 149:1707-1715.
30. Pijnappel, W. W., D. Schaft, A. Roguev, A. Shevchenko, H. Tekotte, M. Wilm, G. Rigaut, B. Seraphin, R. Aasland, and A. F. Stewart. 2001. The S. cerevisiae SET3 complex includes two histone deacetylases, Hos2 and Hst1, and is a meiotic-specific repressor of the sporulation gene program. Genes Dev. 15:2991-3004.
31. Schaft, D., A. Roguev, K. M. Kotovic, A. Shevchenko, M. Sarov, A. Shevchenko, K. M. Neugebauer, and A. F. Stewart. 2003. The histone 3 lysine 36 methyltransferase, SET2, is involved in transcriptional elongation. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2475-2482.
32. Shi, Y., F. Lan, C. Matson, P. Mulligan, J. R. Whetstine, P. A. Cole, R. A. Casero, and Y. Shi. 2004. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell 119:941-953.[CrossRef][Medline]
33. Shi, Y., J.-I. Sawada, G. Sui, E. B. Affar, J. R. Whetstine, F. Lan, H. Ogawa, M. P.-S. Luke, Y. Nakatani, and Y. Shi. 2003. Coordinated histone modifications mediated by a CtBP co-repressor complex. Nature 422:735-738.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Siegel, L. M., and K. J. Monty. 1966. Determination of molecular weights and frictional ratios of proteins in impure systems by use of gel filtration and density gradient centrifugation. Application to crude preparations of sulfite and hydroxylamine reductases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 112:346-362.[Medline]
35. Smith, J. S., C. B. Brachmann, I. Celic, M. A. Kenna, S. Muhammad, V. J. Starai, J. L. Avalos, J. C. Escalante-Semerena, C. Grubmeyer, C. Wolberger, and J. D. Boeke. 2000. A phylogenetically conserved NAD+-dependent protein deacetylase activity in the Sir2 protein family. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:6658-6663.
36. Tsukada, Y., J. Fang, H. Erdjument-Bromage, M. E. Warren, C. H. Borchers, P. Tempst, and Y. Zhang. 2006. Histone demethylation by a family of JmjC domain-containing proteins. Nature 439:811-816.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. Vakoc, C. R., S. A. Mandat, B. A. Olenchock, and G. A. Blobel. 2005. Histone H3 lysine 9 methylation and HP1gamma are associated with transcription elongation through mammalian chromatin. Mol. Cell 19:381-391.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Vakoc, C. R., M. M. Sachdeva, H. Wang, and G. A. Blobel. 2006. A profile of histone lysine methylation across transcribed mammalian chromatin. Mol. Cell. Biol. 26:9185-9195.
39. Wang, A., S. K. Kurdistani, and M. Grunstein. 2002. Requirement of Hos2 histone deacetylase for gene activity in yeast. Science 298:1412-1414.
40. Wang, H., W. An, R. Cao, L. Xia, H. Erdjument-Bromage, B. Chatton, P. Tempst, R. G. Roeder, and Y. Zhang. 2003. mAM facilitates conversion by ESET of dimethyl to trimethyl lysine 9 of histone H3 to cause transcriptional repression. Mol. Cell 12:475-487.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Whetstine, J. R., A. Nottke, F. Lan, M. Huarte, S. Smolikov, Z. Chen, E. Spooner, E. Li, G. Zhang, M. Colaiacovo, and Y. Shi. 2006. Reversal of histone lysine trimethylation by the JMJD2 family of histone demethylases. Cell 125:467-481.[CrossRef][Medline]
42. Xiao, B., C. Jing, J. R. Wilson, P. A. Walker, N. Vasisht, G. Kelly, S. Howell, I. A. Taylor, G. M. Blackburn, and S. J. Gamblin. 2003. Structure and catalytic mechanism of the human histone methyltransferase SET7/9. Nature 421:652-656.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Xiao, T., H. Hall, K. O. Kizer, Y. Shibata, M. C. Hall, C. H. Borchers, and B. D. Strahl. 2003. Phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II CTD regulates H3 methylation in yeast. Genes Dev. 17:654-663.
44. Yamane, K., C. Toumazou, Y. Tsukada, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, J. Wong, and Y. Zhang. 2006. JHDM2A, a JmjC-containing H3K9 demethylase, facilitates transcription activation by androgen receptor. Cell 125:483-495.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | J. Virol. | Eukaryot. Cell |
|---|
| Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. | Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | All ASM Journals |
|---|