a jumonji protein with e3 ligase and histone h3 binding activities … · 4 89 chromatin structure...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Short title: E3 ubiquitin ligase JMJ24 and TE silencing 1
Corresponding author: Isabel Bäurle 2
3
4
A jumonji protein with E3 ligase and histone H3 binding activities 5
affects transposon silencing in Arabidopsis 6
7
Tina Kabelitz1, Krzysztof Brzezinka1, Thomas Friedrich1, Michał Górka2, Alexander Graf2, 8
Christian Kappel1, Isabel Bäurle1* 9
10 1Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany 11 2 Max-Planck-Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Potsdam, Germany 12
13
*Corresponding author email: [email protected] 14
15
16
17
One sentence summary: 18
A conserved jumonji protein with E3 ubiquitin ligase activity affects transposon silencing. 19
20
21
22
Funding information 23
This work was supported by a Sofja-Kovalevskaja-Award from the Alexander-von-Humboldt-24
Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant SFB 973, Project A2) to I.B.. 25
26
Author contributions 27
TK and IB conceived and designed research. TK, KB, TF, MG, AG, IB performed research. 28
TK, KB, AG, CK, IB analyzed the data. TK and IB wrote the manuscript with input from all 29
authors. 30
31
32
Plant Physiology Preview. Published on March 15, 2016, as DOI:10.1104/pp.15.01688
Copyright 2016 by the American Society of Plant Biologists
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
2
Abstract 33
Transposable elements (TEs) make up a large proportion of eukaryotic genomes. As their 34
mobilization creates genetic variation that threatens genome integrity, TEs are epigenetically 35
silenced through several pathways and this may spread to neighboring sequences. 36
JUMONJI (JMJ) proteins can function as anti-silencing factors and prevent silencing of genes 37
next to TEs. Whether TE silencing is counterbalanced by the activity of anti-silencing factors 38
is still unclear. Here, we characterize JMJ24 as a regulator of TE silencing. We show that 39
loss of JMJ24 results in increased silencing of the DNA transposon AtMu1c, while 40
overexpression of JMJ24 reduces silencing. JMJ24 has a JumonjiC (JmjC) domain and two 41
RING domains. JMJ24 auto-ubiquitinates in vitro, demonstrating E3 ligase activity of the 42
RING domain(s). JMJ24-JmjC binds the N-terminal tail of histone H3 and full-length JMJ24 43
binds histone H3 in vivo. JMJ24 activity is anti-correlated with histone H3 lysine 9 44
dimethylation (H3K9me2) levels at AtMu1c. Double mutant analyses with epigenetic 45
silencing mutants suggest that JMJ24 antagonizes histone H3K9me2, and requires H3K9 46
methyltransferases for its activity on AtMu1c. Genome-wide transcriptome analysis indicates 47
that JMJ24 affects silencing at additional TEs. Our results suggest that the JmjC domain of 48
JMJ24 has lost demethylase activity but has been retained as a binding domain for histone 49
H3. This is in line with phylogenetic analyses indicating that JMJ24 [with the mutated JmjC 50
domain] is widely conserved in angiosperms. Taken together, this study assigns a role in TE 51
silencing to a conserved JmjC-domain protein with E3 ligase activity, but no demethylase 52
activity. 53
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
3
Introduction 54
Eukaryotic genomes contain a large proportion of transposable elements (TEs) and repetitive 55
sequences (Tenaillon et al., 2010; Fedoroff, 2012). Through their mobilization and 56
transposition, these sequences have a high mutagenic potential. This threatens genome 57
integrity but also provides an important source of genetic variation for selection to act upon 58
(Levin and Moran, 2011; Bennetzen and Wang, 2014). Thus, organisms have evolved 59
mechanisms to limit TE activity. These mechanisms mostly involve DNA methylation, small 60
RNAs and histone modifications (Law and Jacobsen, 2010; Castel and Martienssen, 2013; 61
Matzke and Mosher, 2014). TEs can be silenced to different degrees depending on which 62
pathways dominate at individual loci. Many TEs are silenced through CG methylation that 63
requires METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 (MET1) and DECREASED DNA METHYLATION 1 64
(DDM1) for maintenance in A. thaliana (Saze et al., 2003; Zemach et al., 2013). In RNA-65
dependent DNA methylation (RdDM), the generation of small-interfering RNA (siRNA) 66
triggers the deposition of chromatin-associated silencing marks such as DNA methylation in 67
CHG and CHH contexts (where H is A, C or T) and histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation 68
(H3K9me2) at targeted loci (Castel and Martienssen, 2013; Matzke and Mosher, 2014). This 69
involves the DNA methyltransferase DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANSFERASE 70
(DRM1, DRM2) and CHROMOMETHYLASE (CMT2, CMT3) proteins (Cao and Jacobsen, 71
2002; Stroud et al., 2013; Stroud et al., 2014). H3K9me2 is a repressive chromatin mark 72
associated with the silencing of repeats and TEs (Jackson et al., 2002; Ebbs et al., 2005; 73
Ebbs and Bender, 2006). The H3K9 methyltransferases KRYPTONITE (KYP/ SUVH4), 74
SUVH5 and SUVH6 regulate CHH methylation in an siRNA-independent manner and have 75
been shown to be required for CMT3-dependent CHG methylation (Jackson et al., 2002; 76
Ebbs et al., 2005; Ebbs and Bender, 2006; Stroud et al., 2013). CHG methylation and 77
H3K9me2 reinforce each other through a positive feedback loop (Du et al., 2012). 78
The class II transposon Robertson’s Mutator element has originally been isolated from 79
maize, where it transposes frequently (Lisch, 2012). Mutator elements from Arabidopsis 80
thaliana have been characterized (Singer et al., 2001). For AtMu1 it was shown that it is 81
targeted by several epigenetic silencing pathways including RdDM (Lippman et al., 2003; 82
Bäurle et al., 2007) and AtMu1 transposition was found in DNA methylation-deficient 83
backgrounds and in the vegetative nucleus of pollen, where global reactivation of TEs occurs 84
(Singer et al., 2001; Slotkin et al., 2009). AtMu1c is the most active of the three AtMu1 copies 85
(Kabelitz et al., 2014). At the phylogenetic level AtMu1c transposition was found in the A. 86
thaliana lineage (Kabelitz et al., 2014). AtMu1c contains two highly homologous Terminal 87
Inverted Repeats (TIRs) and a conserved transposase gene. 88
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
4
Chromatin structure is an important regulator of gene expression in all organisms. It is 89
regulated to a large extent by the composition, localization and posttranslational modification 90
of nucleosomes (Struhl and Segal, 2013; Zentner and Henikoff, 2013). Nucleosomes consist 91
of octamers of H2A, H2B, H3 and H4 proteins. All histones, but especially histone H3, can be 92
modified at several residues with various modifications including methylation, acetylation and 93
ubiquitination. Many of these modifications are reversible, thus contributing to the dynamic 94
regulation of gene expression. For example, in the case of histone lysine methylation histone 95
methyltransferases perform mono-, di- or tri-methylation of lysine (Black et al., 2012). 96
Conversely, the recently discovered histone demethylases reverse methylation. Two histone 97
lysine demethylase classes are present in animals, plants and yeast (Lu et al., 2008; Hong et 98
al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Mosammaparast and Shi, 2010; Chen et al., 2011). The JMJ gene 99
class is characterized by the catalytic JmjC domain and contains Fe2+- and α-ketoglutarate-100
dependent dioxygenases (Klose et al., 2006; Mosammaparast and Shi, 2010). Animal JMJ 101
proteins have been implicated in many processes regulating development and disease 102
(Klose et al., 2006; Landeira and Fisher, 2011). In A. thaliana, there are 21 JMJ genes, which 103
can be categorized into five groups, namely the KDM3/JHDM2, KDM4/JHDM3/JMJD2, 104
KDM5/JARID1, JMJD6 and JmjC domain-only groups, based on sequence analysis and 105
domain architecture (Lu et al., 2008; Hong et al., 2009). Members of the same clade tend to 106
have similar target specificities (Klose et al., 2006). About half of these genes have been 107
functionally characterized so far and they act in development and responses to endogenous 108
and exogeneous cues. For example, several characterized JMJ genes regulate flowering 109
time through repression or activation of different target genes and different modifications 110
(Noh et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2012; Crevillen et al., 2014; Gan et al., 2014). The histone H3 111
K4 demethylase JMJ14 is required for RNA-mediated DNA methylation (Deleris et al., 2010; 112
Searle et al., 2010; Le Masson et al., 2012; Greenberg et al., 2013). A H3K4 demethylase 113
from rice has been implicated in the repression of TE sequences (Cui et al., 2013). The H3 114
K9 me2/me1 demethylase IBM1 prevents genes from being silenced through invasion of 115
H3K9 methylation from neighboring TEs and repetitive elements (Saze et al., 2008; Inagaki 116
et al., 2010). IBM1/JMJ25 does not generally target TEs (Inagaki et al., 2010; Rigal et al., 117
2012) and indirectly represses TEs through the activation of DCL3 and RDR2 (Fan et al., 118
2012). Very recently, JMJ24 has been proposed to function in the base transcription of 119
silenced loci (Deng et al., 2015). However, its mode of action remains unclear. 120
Several members of the KDM3/JHDM2 clade from both kingdoms contain RING-finger 121
domains that may function in target protein ubiquitinylation (Lu et al., 2008; Zhou and Ma, 122
2008; Aiese Cigliano et al., 2013). However, in none of these proteins the RING domain has 123
been functionally characterized so far. Here, we functionally characterize the RING-finger- 124
and JmjC-domain containing protein JMJ24. Like IBM1, JMJ24 belongs to the KDM3 clade of 125
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
5
putative histone H3 K9 demethylases. Interestingly, although the co-factor binding residues 126
of the JmjC domain indicate loss of catalytic activity, JMJ24 is conserved across the 127
angiosperm lineage and binds to histone H3 through this domain. JMJ24 also has 128
ubiquitination activity. JMJ24 has a role in transposon silencing by antagonizing H3K9me2 129
through locus-specific interactions. Taken together, JMJ24 likely functions in TE silencing 130
through ubiquitination of histones or associated target proteins. 131
132
133
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
6
Results 134
JMJ24 counteracts transcriptional silencing of AtMu1c 135
In a reverse genetics screen for potential regulators of AtMu1c silencing, we found that a 136
mutant in the JMJ24 gene had a moderate but consistent decrease in AtMu1c transcript 137
levels (Fig. 1, Supplemental Fig. S1). At the morphological level the jmj24-2 mutant, which 138
carries a T-DNA insertion in the second exon (Supplemental Fig. S1), did not show any 139
apparent defects. To corroborate this observation, we generated lines expressing an artificial 140
miRNA against JMJ24 in the Col background. In these lines, JMJ24 transcript levels were 141
decreased to 76-20 % of the transcript levels in Col (Fig. 1). Correspondingly, AtMu1c 142
transcript levels were also decreased and the degree of reduction was correlated with the 143
strength of JMJ24 down-regulation. Thus, JMJ24 antagonizes AtMu1c silencing. We next 144
asked whether overexpression of JMJ24 was able to reduce AtMu1c silencing. To this end, 145
we generated transgenic plants overexpressing JMJ24 under the control of the 35S promoter 146
in the Col wild type background. We did not observe any obvious morphological alterations in 147
the 35S::JMJ24 plants. Indeed, we observed reduced silencing of AtMu1c as evidenced by 148
enhanced transcript levels (Fig. 1). The degree of reactivation correlated with the magnitude 149
of JMJ24 overexpression. The analysis of unspliced AtMu1c transcripts (Kabelitz et al., 2014) 150
in jmj24-2 and 35S::JMJ24 plants (Supplemental Fig. S2) suggests that the release of 151
silencing occurs at the level of transcription (i. e. before splicing). Together, our results 152
indicate that JMJ24 is both necessary and sufficient to antagonize AtMu1c silencing. 153
154
JMJ24 is conserved across angiosperms but has lost Fe2+-binding activity 155
We next sought to determine the molecular function of JMJ24. JMJ24 contains a JmjC 156
domain and two RING finger domains as well as a nuclear localization signal (NLS, Fig. 2A). 157
JMJ24 is a single copy gene in A. thaliana and is most closely related to the KDM3/JHDM2 158
clade of JmjC proteins, which also contains IBM1/JMJ25 (Hong et al., 2009). JMJ24 and 159
three additional members of this clade (JMJ26, 27, 29) contain two RING domains of the 160
RING-C2 type, which are potential E3 ubiquitin ligase enzymes (Lorick et al., 1999; Stone et 161
al., 2005; Hong et al., 2009; Aiese Cigliano et al., 2013). Based on sequence similarity, the 162
KDM3/JHDM2 clade is predicted to have histone H3 K9 demethylase activity. In line with this 163
prediction, histone H3 K9 demethylase activity was demonstrated for IBM1 (Inagaki et al., 164
2010). To function as a demethylase, the JmjC domain requires Fe2+ and α-ketoglutarate as 165
cofactors (Klose et al., 2006). In JMJ24, the two residues that are required for α-166
ketoglutarate binding are present (Fig. 2A, Supplemental Fig. S3A). However, two of the 167
three highly conserved residues that bind Fe2+ are not present, suggesting that JMJ24-JmjC 168
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
7
may not be able to bind Fe2+ and thus may not be an active demethylase. Given this potential 169
inactivity, it was interesting to study whether there are JMJ24-related proteins with a similarly 170
mutated binding site in other species. We found potential JMJ24 orthologues in all 171
angiosperm families investigated, including the basal angiosperm Amborella trichopoda and 172
a representative selection of monocot and dicot families, but not in the moss Physcomitrella 173
patens and not outside the plant kingdom (Fig. 2B). These results confirm and extend a 174
recent phylogenetic study, which identified a putative JMJ24 orthologue in Amborella 175
trichopoda (Qian et al., 2015). Comparing the conservation of the five amino acid residues 176
that are essential for co-factor binding (F/T/YHD/EKH), we found that all JMJ24-like proteins 177
had a degenerated motif (e. g. THNKF in JMJ24, Fig. 2A). Moreover, in the JMJ24-like 178
proteins the second histidine of the Fe2+ -binding motif was always converted into a 179
phenylalanine and the aspartate at position three almost always into an asparagine or lysine. 180
Thus, although JMJ24 has lost the THDKH motif of the canonical KDM3-JmjC domain, the 181
high degree of conservation of the modified JMJ24 motif suggests that this motif continues to 182
be under positive selection and that the JMJ24-JmjC domain is functionally active, albeit 183
probably not as a demethylase. Together, our phylogenetic analysis of protein sequences 184
revealed that JMJ24 has evolved before the separation of monocotyledonous and 185
dicotyledonous plants during basal angiosperm evolution and may have a functional activity 186
differing from that of the canonical JmjC domain. 187
Next, we tested the ability of the JMJ24-JmjC-domain to bind Fe directly. JMJ24-JmjC was 188
expressed in E. coli and purified (Supplemental Fig. S3B). As a control, we also expressed 189
and purified JMJ18-JmjC, in which all important residues are conserved. JMJ18-JmjC was 190
previously shown to be a functional histone H3K4me3/me2 demethylase (Yang et al., 2012). 191
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
8
Using inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), we analyzed the 192
presence of Fe in GST, GST-JMJ24-JmjC and GST-JMJ18-JmjC (Fig. 2C, Supplemental 193
Table S1). GST-JMJ18-JmjC had a near equimolar Fe content (70%) consistent with the 194
binding of one Fe2+ per JmjC molecule. For GST-JMJ24-JmjC and GST alone, only 195
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
9
background levels were observed (17-18%). This is consistent with the notion that JMJ24 is 196
unable to bind Fe2+ and is therefore not an active histone demethylase. It is also consistent 197
with a previous report that did not find demethylase activity for JMJ24 using an in vitro assay 198
(Deng et al., 2015). 199
200
Nuclear JMJ24 shows E3 ubiquitin ligase activity 201
We next sought to identify alternative molecular functions of JMJ24 by investigating the 202
potential E3 ubiquitin ligase activitiy of the two RING finger domains. As E3 ubiquitin ligases 203
are known to bind to E2 enzymes promiscuously (Kraft et al., 2005), we first tested whether 204
JMJ24 was able to interact with the AtUBC10 E2 enzyme in the Yeast-Two-Hybrid system. 205
Using ß-galactosidase activity as a read-out, we observed interaction of AtUBC10 with the 206
full-length JMJ24 protein (aa 6-945), or with truncated versions of JMJ24 containing an N-207
terminal fragment (aa 6-432), both RING domains (aa 205-432), or only RING1 (aa 205-281; 208
Supplemental Fig. S4). No interaction was found when JMJ24-RING2 (aa 337-441) was 209
used as bait. Thus, JMJ24 interacts with AtUBC10 through the N-terminal RING1 domain. To 210
test whether JMJ24 functions as an E3 ubiquitin ligase we next performed an in vitro 211
ubiquitination assay (Stone et al., 2005). The BB protein (Disch et al., 2006), which was used 212
as a positive control, underwent poly-ubiquitination under our assay conditions (Fig. 3A). For 213
GST-JMJ24-RING1 we observed a size shift of about 10 kDa, consistent with mono-214
ubiquitination of the protein (Fig. 3A, lane 4, bottom panel). A band of the same size 215
appeared in the corresponding lane in an immunoblot against the FLAG-tagged ubiquitin 216
(Fig. 3A, top panel). A similar but weaker band shift was found for GST-JMJ24-RING2 (lane 217
8). Thus, JMJ24 is a functional E3 ubiquitin ligase with RING1 being the primarily active 218
RING domain. 219
To test whether the predicted NLS in form of a Trp-Arg-Cys-motif (WRC-motif) near the N-220
terminus is functional, we determined the subcellular localization of JMJ24-YFP. In A. 221
thaliana plants stably transformed with JMJ24::JMJ24-YFP, we observed nuclear 222
fluorescence (Fig. 3B) as indicated by the overlap of YFP and DAPI signals. This transgenic 223
line complemented the jmj24-2 mutant phenotype as evidenced by restoration of AtMu1c 224
transcript levels (Supplemental Fig. S5). Taken together, our results indicate that JMJ24 is 225
an E3 ubiquitin ligase localized to the nucleus. 226
227
JMJ24-JmjC binds histone H3 228
Even if JMJ24-JmjC is not an active demethylase, the domain may still function as a histone 229
binding module. We therefore tested whether differently modified histone H3 peptides were 230
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
10
able to interact with GST-JMJ24-JmjC purified from E. coli (Shi et al., 2006). As controls, we 231
used GST-PHD-AtING1, for which a very high affinity for histone H3K4me3 was reported 232
(Lee et al., 2009), and GST. GST-JMJ24-JmjC was precipitated by unmodified H3 aa 1-20 or 233
H3 aa 1-20 that was mono-, di- or tri-methylated at either K4 or K9 (Fig. 4A). In contrast, 234
GST-JMJ24-JmjC was not precipitated by unmodified H3 aa 21-44. GST alone was not 235
precipitated by the tested H3 peptides (aa 21-44 or aa 1-20 K4me3). Thus, JMJ24-JmjC 236
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
11
binds to the very N-terminus of histone H3 irrespective of the methylation states of K4 and 237
K9 in vitro. It can, however, not be excluded that in vivo the substrate specificity is further 238
determined by other parts of JMJ24, by modifications of the protein that are missing in 239
recombinant JMJ24-JmjC or by interacting molecules, as was reported for other JMJ proteins 240
(Hou and Yu, 2010). 241
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
12
To identify JMJ24-interacting proteins in vivo, we performed purification of native protein 242
complexes followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) using 243
7 d old seedlings of a complementing 35S::JMJ24-vYFP transgenic A. thaliana line in the 244
jmj24-2 background (Supplemental Fig. S5). In two separate experiments with two technical 245
replicates each, we identified JMJ24 peptides with a very high score. We also identified 246
histone peptides of H2A, H2B, H3.1/H3.3, H3.3 and H4 with high scores (Fig. 4B). Neither of 247
these peptides was found in a control experiment using Col-0. Among the H3 peptides, we 248
found one peptide specific for H3.3 and several others that were redundant between H3.1 249
and H3.3 isoforms (Stroud et al., 2012; Shu et al., 2014). 250
We next investigated whether the binding of JMJ24 to histone H2B was likely direct or via 251
H3. To this end, we repeated the co-immunoprecipitation of JMJ24-YFP with crosslinking 252
under mild conditions to preserve protein-protein interactions. The co-precipitated proteins 253
were analyzed by immunoblotting for the presence of H3 and H2B. We were able to 254
precipitate H3 but not H2B with JMJ24-YFP, indicating that JMJ24 binds H3, but not H2B 255
(Fig. 4C). In summary, these results suggest that full-length JMJ24 interacts with 256
nucleosomes in vivo via binding to H3. 257
258
Genetic interaction of JMJ24 with histone methyltransferases at AtMu1c 259
TEs are silenced through a number of silencing pathways involving RdDM and histone H3 K9 260
methylation. In order to begin to place JMJ24 within the existing silencing pathways, we 261
analyzed the interaction of JMJ24 with the histone H3K9 methyltransferases KYP, SUVH5 262
and SUVH6 (Jackson et al., 2002; Ebbs et al., 2005; Ebbs and Bender, 2006). To this end, 263
we crossed T-DNA insertion mutants of these genes with jmj24-2 and with 35S::JMJ24, 264
respectively. In kyp single mutants, we observed a loss of AtMu1c silencing using the kyp-7 265
and kyp-4/suvh4 alleles (Fig. 5). In kyp-7 jmj24-2 and kyp-4 jmj24-2, the silencing of AtMu1c 266
was partially restored. Conversely, in kyp-7 35S::JMJ24 and kyp-4 35S::JMJ24, AtMu1c 267
reactivation was stronger than in kyp single mutants or JMJ24 overexpressor lines. Thus, 268
JMJ24 still functions in a kyp mutant background. This is consistent with JMJ24 acting at 269
least in part independently of KYP. It was reported previously that SUVH5 and SUVH6 act 270
partially redundantly with KYP (Ebbs and Bender, 2006). In suvh5 suvh6 double mutants, 271
AtMu1c silencing was not affected (Fig. 5B), however, in the kyp-4 suvh5 suvh6 triple 272
mutant, AtMu1c transcript levels were massively induced, indicating that H3K9me2 is an 273
important component of AtMu1c silencing. Interestingly, modulation of JMJ24 activity by 274
mutation or overexpression in the kyp-4 suvh5 suvh6 background did not have an effect. 275
Surprisingly, the same was true for the suvh5 suvh6 double mutant background, although 276
AtMu1c levels in this background were overall low. These findings suggest that JMJ24 277
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
13
requires SUVH5 and SUVH6 for its action. Together, these results are consistent with the 278
idea that JMJ24 opposes H3K9me2 by antagonizing the H3K9 histone methyltransferases 279
SUVH5 and SUVH6 (and possibly KYP). 280
281
JMJ24 represses H3K9me2 and CHG methylation at AtMu1c 282
To further test this idea, we analyzed H3K9me2 levels at the AtMu1c locus by chromatin 283
immunoprecipitation. In jmj24-2, there was a slight increase in H3K9me2 that tested not 284
significant (Fig. 6A). Conversely, in the JMJ24 overexpressor, we observed a significant 285
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
14
reduction in H3K9me2 levels. In kyp-7, the overall levels were much reduced, but a similar 286
effect of JMJ24 activity was observed, with increased levels in jmj24-2 kyp-7 and reduced 287
levels in 35S::JMJ24 kyp-7 compared to kyp-7 that tested significant for the comparison 288
between jmj24-2 kyp-7 and 35S::JMJ24 kyp-7 (Fig. 6A). Thus, JMJ24 antagonizes H3K9me2 289
levels at AtMu1c. 290
As H3K9me2 acts in a positive feedback loop with CHG methylation, we next analyzed DNA 291
methylation levels at the TIR of AtMu1c in different mutant backgrounds by bisulfite 292
sequencing. We observed reduced overall methylation in kyp-7 (Fig. 6B, Total). In kyp-7 293
35S::JMJ24 CHG methylation was reduced compared to kyp-7 (Fig. 6B), consistent with the 294
observed reduction in H3K9me2 (Fig. 6A). Total methylation levels in jmj24-2 were slightly 295
increased (Fig. 6B). Thus, modulation of JMJ24 activity affected the level of DNA methylation 296
at AtMu1c, possibly through its role in antagonizing H3K9me2. 297
298
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
15
Genetic interaction with DNA methyltransferases 299
We next investigated the genetic interaction between jmj24-2 and genes that affect CHH and 300
CHG DNA methylation. To this end, we crossed jmj24-2 into the cmt3-11 and drm1-2 drm2-2 301
cmt3-11 backgrounds (Cao et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2006), which both caused a strong loss 302
of AtMu1c silencing, suggesting that AtMu1c silencing is mainly controlled by CMT3 (Fig. 7A 303
and B). Loss of jmj24-2 suppressed this release in silencing markedly, consistent with what 304
we observed in the wild-type background and suggesting that JMJ24 and CMT3 largely act in 305
parallel (Fig. 7A). However, jmj24-2 suppressed the effect of the drm1-2 drm2-2 cmt3-11 306
mutant much more strongly than it did with any other mutant tested (10-fold repression, Fig. 307
7B), indicating that upon loss of asymmetric DNA methylation JMJ24 activity becomes 308
critical. This may reflect an increased sensitivity to changes in H3K9me2 in this background. 309
Taken together, our results are consistent with a model where JMJ24 suppresses epigenetic 310
silencing at AtMu1c by antagonizing histone H3K9me2, possibly by binding to histones and 311
mono-ubiquitinating an as yet unknown target protein. 312
313
JMJ24 widely affects silencing of transposons and repetitive elements 314
We next asked whether JMJ24 affected the expression/silencing of other TEs apart from 315
AtMu1c. To this end, we performed transcriptome analysis using ATH1 microarrays 316
comparing seedlings of three genotypes with increasing doses of JMJ24 (jmj24-2, Col, 317
35S::JMJ24). To efficiently analyze the TEs contained on the microarray we used a refined 318
probeset annotation (Slotkin et al., 2009). To maximize the effects of modulated JMJ24 319
activity and minimize potential background effects, we compared transcript levels in the 320
jmj24-2 mutant with those in an overexpressor line that was created in the jmj24-2 mutant 321
background. Several categories of DNA transposons and one class of LTR retrotransposons 322
(Gypsy AtGP1) were significantly affected (Fig. 8A and Table 1). Among the affected DNA 323
transposons, there were both MuDR (ARNOLD, VANDAL) and non-MuDR elements 324
(CACTA). Interestingly, at the global scale most TEs showed a release of silencing in the 325
jmj24-2 mutant compared to the overexpressor line 35S::JMJ24. Thus, JMJ24 can have 326
opposite effects on different TEs. This may depend on the chromosomal environment of the 327
element, and on the type and level of silencing present at the locus. 328
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
16
To further characterize the effect of JMJ24 at the level of individual TEs, we selected six TEs 329
from the microarray analysis (VANDAL2, IS112A (Eisen et al., 1994; Slotkin et al., 2009)) 330
and from previous studies (Bäurle et al., 2007; Zheng et al., 2009; Deleris et al., 2010) for 331
expression analysis by qRT-PCR. The selected TEs fell into two classes (Fig. 8B and C). 332
The first class, containing IG/LINE, COPIA2 and MEA/ISR, displayed reduced transcript 333
levels in jmj24-2 and increased transcript levels in 35S::JMJ24, reminiscent of what we 334
observed for AtMu1c (Fig. 8B). Conversely, the second class, containing IS112A, a CACTA 335
TE and VANDAL2, displayed increased transcript levels in jmj24-2 and reduced transcript 336
levels in 35S::JMJ24 (Fig. 8C). These findings corroborate our observation that JMJ24 can 337
have apparently opposing outcomes both at the level of TE classes and at the single element 338
level. The transcriptome analysis suggests that globally the negative function of JMJ24 may 339
prevail as the affected TE categories indicate an increased expression in jmj24-2. The 340
different outcome may be caused by the context of the elements and the contribution of 341
individual silencing pathways to each locus. Notably, transcript levels of members of various 342
silencing pathways were not affected in jmj24-2 mutants. In summary, JMJ24 acts as an anti-343
silencing factor at some loci including AtMu1c, but as a silencing enhancer at others. 344
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
17
345
346
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
18
Discussion 347
Here, we reported the characterization of the JmjC- and RING-domain containing protein 348
JMJ24 from A. thaliana. We have investigated the activity of the functional domains and the 349
global role of JMJ24 in TE silencing during seedling development. The JmjC domain is 350
conserved from yeast to humans and belongs to the superfamiliy of Fe2+-dependent 351
dioxygenases (Hou and Yu, 2010). Using Fe2+ and α-ketoglutarate as cofactors and in the 352
presence of oxygen, the methyl group of a methyl lysine is converted to hydroxymethyl, 353
which is then released as formaldehyde. Both co-factors are absolutely essential for 354
demethylase activity (Klose et al., 2006). JMJ24 belongs to the KDM3/JHDM2 group, as 355
does the closely related H3K9me2/me1 demethylase IBM1, indicating a specificity for 356
H3K9me2/me1 (Inagaki et al., 2010). Five well characterized residues are required to bind 357
the two cofactors. In JMJ24, the two amino acid residues required for α-ketoglutarate binding 358
are conserved, but only one of three residues required for Fe2+-binding is present. 359
Accordingly, no Fe-binding was detected experimentally for JMJ24-JmjC. Thus, it is highly 360
unlikely that JMJ24 is an active demethylase. Despite this apparent loss of functionality, 361
JMJ24 is conserved during angiosperm evolution with clear orthologues in all dicotyledonous 362
and monocotyledonous species examined. Interestingly, the two essential amino acids, 363
which are required for Fe2+-binding and are substituted in JMJ24, are highly conserved 364
among JMJ24 orthologues across monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants, suggesting 365
that they are functionally important and under positive selection. This function may be to bind 366
histones; its exact nature remains to be investigated. To our knowledge, JMJ24 is the first 367
JmjC-domain protein from plants with an inactive JmjC domain that has been functionally 368
characterized. 369
Interestingly, the founding member of the JMJ family, Jarid2 also lacks histone demethylase 370
activity (Klose et al., 2006; Landeira and Fisher, 2011). Jarid2 plays important roles in 371
development and disease as a component of the PRC2 silencing complex. Jarid2 is required 372
to target and assemble PRC2 onto target genes and may do so through association with 373
non-coding RNA and methylation by PRC2 (Kaneko et al., 2014; Sanulli et al., 2015). Thus, 374
there is precedent for the notion that the JmjC domain can degenerate, yet be maintained in 375
functionally active proteins. An attractive hypothesis is that the JMJ24 JmjC domain has 376
been retained as a histone H3 reader domain that binds modified or unmodified H3 in order 377
to target H3 or associated proteins for ubiquitination. Our in vivo immunoprecipitation 378
experiments confirmed that histone H3 is associated with JMJ24. It is a likely explanation 379
that we recovered all four nucleosome-constituting histones in the more sensitive LC-MS/MS 380
analysis because the conditions of purification were mild enough to leave nucleosomes 381
intact. Our analyses do not support the notion that JMJ24 binds a particular H3 modification 382
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
19
with high specificity. The in vitro binding studies indicated a broad binding of modified N-383
terminal H3 peptides. However, it is probable that other parts of the protein, unknown binding 384
partners, combinatorial histone modifications or modifications of JMJ24 itself affect the 385
binding specificity in vivo. It is well established for other histone lysine demethylases such as 386
PHF8, KDM7A and KDM4 that they have dual specificity depending on the chromatin context 387
and the presence of other binding factors (Klose et al., 2006; Horton et al., 2010; Lin et al., 388
2010; Liu et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2010). 389
In contrast to the JmjC domain, the RING-domains of JMJ24 have E3 ubiquitin ligase activity, 390
as demonstrated in vitro using AtUBC10 as E2 enzyme. Interestingly, RING1 was much 391
more active than RING2. Moreover, we only detected mono-ubiquitination in our 392
experiments. So far, the target of JMJ24 E3 ligase activity remains elusive. One interesting 393
possibility is that histone H3 or another histone protein is the target of this activity. Poly-394
ubiquitination is generally regarded as a signal for proteasomal degradation. In contrast, 395
mono-ubiquitination is a stable protein modification. So far, H3 ubiquitination has only been 396
reported for centromeric H3 variants in yeast and mammals (Hewawasam et al., 2010; 397
Niikura et al., 2015). Mono-ubiquitination of H2A and H2B and their role in activating gene 398
expression and PRC2 silencing, respectively, are well established (Weake and Workman, 399
2008). However, as we did not observe association with H2B (and H2A) and neither 400
modification was associated with the regulation of TEs, they are unlikely target proteins. 401
Alternatively, the target of ubiquitination may be a protein that is associated with histone H3 402
and histone H3 may serve to (negatively) regulate E3 ligase activity. RNA-DEPENDENT 403
RNA POLYMERASE 2 (RDR2) was very recently reported to interact with JMJ24 (Deng et 404
al., 2015). RDR2 was not found in our immunoprecipitation experiments; however, one 405
possible scenario is that JMJ24 binds RDR2 transiently in order to ubiquitinate it. Future 406
studies are required to test these possibilities. There is precedent for the combination of 407
histone demethylation and E3 ligase activity. Very recently, the animal histone demethylase 408
LSD2 implicated in cancer cell growth has been found to have E3 ubiquitin ligase activity 409
towards the O-GlcNAc transferase (Yang et al., 2015). JMJ24 shares the RING domains with 410
numerous KDM3 clade members (Zhou and Ma, 2008; Aiese Cigliano et al., 2013). Here, we 411
demonstrated for the first time E3 ubiquitin ligase activity for the RING domain of a JMJ 412
protein. 413
As described above JMJ24 falls into the KDM3/JHDM2 clade of JmjC proteins, indicating 414
specificity for H3K9me2/me1. In plants, H3K9me2 is associated with heterochromatin and 415
silenced TEs. Although JMJ24 has lost demethylase activity, it may still recognize and 416
antagonize H3K9me2. This hypothesis is confirmed by the H3K9me2 ChIP and the double 417
mutant analyses with the H3K9 methyltransferases KYP, SUVH5, SUVH6. Loss of JMJ24 418
activity correlated with enhanced H3K9me2 at AtMu1c and overexpression of JMJ24 419
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
20
correlated with reduced H3K9me2. This was especially true in the kyp-7 background, where 420
H3K9me2 levels were reduced but not abolished (because of redundancy with SUVH5 and 421
SUVH6). When SUVH5 and SUVH6 were simultaneously deleted, JMJ24 overexpression did 422
not have an effect. We found during this study that H3K9me2 strongly silences AtMu1c in the 423
Col accession. The sensitivity of transcript analysis by qRT-PCR and accession-specific 424
differences provide a plausible explanation for why previous studies did not observe such a 425
strong reactivation in suvh mutants (Lippman et al., 2003; Ebbs et al., 2005). Our findings 426
together with the phylogenetic grouping of JMJ24 suggest that H3K9me2 may be the 427
epigenetic mark that is targeted by JMJ24. 428
In summary, we propose a model where JMJ24 recognizes histone H3 through the 429
inactivated JmjC domain and subsequently mono- or poly-ubiquitinates H3 or an associated 430
protein (e. g. a histone H3 methyltransferase or reader protein), thereby marking it for 431
degradation or inactivation (Fig. 9). Thus, JMJ24 antagonizes the silencing mark H3K9me2 432
independently of demethylation and promotes basal level transcription. JMJ24 represents an 433
interesting new actor of the RdDM pathway. JMJ24 may play a role in TE reactivation during 434
development or during the establishment of silencing of new TE insertions. 435
JMJ24 antagonizes RdDM-mediated epigenetic silencing of the DNA transposon AtMu1c and 436
other TEs, and thus formally acts as an anti-silencing factor at these loci. IBM1/JMJ25 also 437
acts as an anti-silencing and boundary factor in A. thaliana, acting to protect genic regions 438
from the invasion of nearby heterochromatic marks and silencing (Saze et al., 2008; Inagaki 439
et al., 2010; Rigal et al., 2012). Another anti-silencing factor is the JMJ-domain protein Epe1 440
from Schizosaccharomyces pombe, which is required for heterochromatin boundary 441
formation (Trewick et al., 2007; Tamaru, 2010). Neither of them targets TEs. So far, we can 442
only speculate why plants may require an anti-silencing factor directed towards TEs. One 443
possibility is that this ensures low levels of transcription of a TE, which may be required to 444
sustain silencing by RNA-mediated recruitment of the silencing machinery (Fultz et al., 445
2015). Alternatively, it may act as a pre-adaptation to extreme environmental conditions and 446
allow rapid adaptation to changing environmental conditions (McClintock, 1984; Biemont and 447
Vieira, 2006; Lisch, 2013). It is thought that extreme environmental conditions cause 448
reactivation and transposition of TE, which increases genetic variability in the population and 449
may yield individuals with increased stress tolerance. Low level transcription may facilitate 450
reactivation during such extreme conditions. 451
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
21
Notably, some TE loci found to be regulated by JMJ24 in our microarray analysis were 452
affected in the opposite direction as AtMu1c. A recent study investigating the transcriptome 453
of jmj24-1 pollen by tiling arrays found that among 200 misregulated TEs, 80 % were 454
downregulated and 20 % upregulated (Deng et al., 2015), thus confirming our observations 455
in seedlings. Notably, in pollen TEs are globally hyperactivated compared to seedlings 456
(Slotkin et al., 2009), facilitating their experimental detection. This global reactivation together 457
with the different mode of transcript detection (tiling array vs. microarray) may explain why 458
slightly differing observations were made in the two studies. It is possible that the apparent 459
outcome of JMJ24 activity at individual loci depends on the locus-specific interplay of various 460
silencing pathways, as well as the developmental stage. For example, it is conceivable that 461
at loci (formally) repressed by JMJ24, the reduced transcription upon loss of JMJ24 causes 462
the overall activity of the locus to fall below a certain threshold so that the locus is no longer 463
targeted by another silencing pathway, thereby causing a net increase of transcript levels in 464
jmj24-2. Consequently, increased activity of the TE locus upon JMJ24 overexpression may 465
reinforce the acticity of the other silencing pathway, resulting in a net decrease of expression. 466
JMJ24 was found to be associated with the AtSN1, IG/LINE and SDC loci (Deng et al., 2015) 467
and may be associated with additional TEs investigated in this study. Identifying the target(s) 468
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
22
of ubiquitination remains an important question for future studies investigating the function of 469
JMJ24 in the RdDM pathway. 470
471
Materials and Methods 472
Plant material and growth conditions 473
Plants were grown in long day conditions on soil in a greenhouse or on GM plates (1 % (w/v) 474
glucose) at 23 °C day/ 21 °C night cycles for 10-14 d before analysis. All analyses were 475
performed in the Col-0 background. The jmj24-2 (SALK_021260), kyp-7 (SALK_069326 476
(Mathieu et al., 2007)), cmt3-11 (N16392) and drm1-2 drm2-2 cmt3-11 (N16384 (Henderson 477
and Jacobsen, 2008)) mutants were obtained from the European Arabidopsis Stock Centre. 478
suvh4/ kyp-4 (SALK_044606), suvh5 suvh6 (SALK_074957, SAIL_864_E08) and kyp-4 479
suvh5 suvh6 were obtained from J. Bender, Brown University (Ebbs and Bender, 2006). 480
481
Construction of transgenic lines 482
JMJ24 amiRNA, 35S::JMJ24 and JMJ24::JMJ24-vYFP lines were generated by 483
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. The JMJ24 amiRNA construct was designed 484
according to (Ossowski et al., 2008). A PCR product containing the artificial JMJ24 miRNA 485
(oligonucleotides 297 – 300) (Supplemental Table S3) was subcloned into pGEM-T Easy 486
(Promega), sequenced and transferred to 35S::pBarM (ML595) using BamHI and XhoI. For 487
35S::JMJ24 and 35S::JMJ24-vYFP, the genomic sequence of JMJ24 encoding the full-length 488
protein was amplified with oligonucleotides 482 – 484, introducing BclI restriction sites. After 489
sequencing, the JMJ24 fragment was transferred via BclI into 35S::pBarM (ML595) and 490
35S::pBarM-vYFP (IB30), respectively. For JMJ24::JMJ24-vYFP, the genomic JMJ24 491
sequence was amplified in two fragments. The JMJ24 5’ region (containing promotor, 5’UTR 492
and the first half of the coding region) was amplified with oligonucleotides 417/418, 493
introducing SphI and PstI restriction sites. The JMJ24 3’ region (containing the second half of 494
the coding region and 3’UTR) was amplified with oligonucleotides 419/420, introducing KpnI 495
and PstI restriction sites. After sequencing, both fragments were assembled in pUC-ML939. 496
Venus YFP was amplified with oligonucleotides 477/ 478, introducing SalI restriction sites 497
and assembled with JMJ24::JMJ24 in pUC-ML939. The whole cassette was then transferred 498
via AscI into pBarMAP (ML516) (Adamski et al., 2009). 499
500
Gene expression analysis 501
RNA was extracted from 7-14 d old seedlings using a hot-phenol RNA extraction protocol 502
(Kabelitz et al., 2014). Total RNA was treated with TURBO DNAfree (Ambion), and 10 µg 503
were reverse transcribed with SuperScript III (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturers’ 504
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
23
instructions. cDNA was diluted 1:100 into qPCR reactions with GoTaq qPCR Master Mix 505
(Promega) and an Roche LightCycler 480 instrument was used for measurements. 506
Expression was normalized to TUBULIN6 using the comparative CT method. Primer 507
sequences are listed in Supplemental Table S3. For microarray analysis, RNA from 9 d-old 508
seedlings of three biological replicates per genotype was purified over an RNeasy Plant RNA 509
extraction column (Qiagen) and processed for hybridization of Affymetrix ATH1 GeneChips 510
(Atlas Biolabs, Berlin, Germany). Arrays were further processed using the R/Bioconductor 511
packages affy (Gautier et al., 2004) and limma (Ritchie et al., 2015) for rma normalization 512
and differential expression analysis. Significantly affected transposon categories based on 513
ATH1 probeset annotations by Slotkin et al. (Slotkin et al., 2009) were identified using a 514
Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. P-values were Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) corrected. Empirical 515
cumulative distribution function (ECDF) plots were done using the R package Lattice. 516
517
Recombinant protein expression, Ubiquitin ligase assay and Fe binding 518
analysis 519
The JMJ24 RING domains were amplified from cDNA with oligonucleotides 552/667 (RING1) 520
and 668/669 (RING2), respectively, subcloned into pGEM-T Easy, sequenced and 521
transferred to pGEX-4T-1 (Amersham Biosciences). The JMJ24-JmjC domain was amplified 522
from cDNA with oligonucleotides 1000/1001, subcloned into pGEM-T Easy, sequenced and 523
transferred to pGEX-4T-1. The JMJ18-JmjC domain was amplified from cDNA with 524
oligonucleotides 1185/1186, subcloned into pGEM-T Easy, sequenced and transferred into 525
pGEX-5X-3. All recombinant proteins were expressed in E. coli strain BL21 (DE3). BB and 526
the AtUBC10 E2 were previously described and were expressed as His6-fusion proteins via 527
the pQE system and purified with Ni-NTA affinity resins (Qiagen) (Disch et al., 2006). The 528
JMJ24 RING domains, JMJ24- and JMJ18-JmjC-domains were expressed as GST fusions 529
via pGEX-4T-1 (Amersham Biosciences) and purified with a Glutathione affinity resin 530
(Pierce). The in vitro ubiquitin ligase assay was performed as previously described (Stone et 531
al., 2005). Twenty µl reactions containing 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5; 10 mM MgCl2; 0.05 mM 532
ZnCl2; 1 mM ATP; 0.2 mM dithiothreitol; 10 mM phosphocreatine; 2 units of creatine kinase 533
(Sigma); 200 ng of yeast E1 (Sigma); 500 ng of purified E2 HIS6-AtUBC10; 500 ng of purified 534
GST-JMJ24-RING or GST or HIS6-BB, and 10 µg FLAG-ubiquitin (Sigma) were incubated at 535
30° C for 2 h. Reactions were stopped by adding 6 µl of SDS-PAGE sample buffer (125mM 536
Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 20% [v/v] glycerin, 4% [w/v] SDS, and 10% [v/v] β-mercaptoethanol) and 537
boiled for 5 min at 95°C. Reactions were analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by 538
immunoblotting using anti-FLAG (Sigma), anti-GST or anti-His6 (both Novagen) and 539
secondary IR800 (Novagen) antibodies, followed by detection with the LI-COR ODYSSEY 540
system. For Fe binding analysis, 10 µmol protein was wet-ashed with nitric acid at 100°C 541
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
24
overnight and measured by inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-542
OES) at 239.562 nm. The Fe concentration was normalized to the input protein concentration 543
to obtain the relative number of Fe molecules per protein molecule. 544
545
DNA methylation and ChIP analysis 546
Bisulfite sequencing and ChIP analysis were performed as described (Kabelitz et al., 2014). 547
For ChIP, chromatin was extracted from 7 d old seedlings, and sheared with a Bioruptor 548
(Diagenode). Chromatin immunoprecipitation was performed using anti-H3 (Abcam, ab1791) 549
or anti-H3K9me2 (Wako, 302-32369) antibodies. Precipitated DNA was quantified by qPCR 550
and normalized to Input and H3. 551
552
Histone peptide binding assay 553
The histone peptide binding assay was performed as described (Shi et al., 2006). In brief, 1 554
µg of biotinylated histone peptides (Millipore) were incubated with 10 µg of GST-fused 555
protein in binding buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 0.1 % NP-40, 1 mM PMSF 556
plus protease inhibitors) overnight at 4°C with rotation. After 1 h incubation with Streptavidin 557
Dynabeads (Invitrogen) and extensive washing with TBST, bound proteins were analyzed by 558
SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting with anti-GST antibodies (Novagen). 559
560
Pulldown and MS analysis 561
2 g of 7 d-old seedlings were collected and flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen. Protein 562
immunoprecipitation was performed using the μMACS GFP Isolation Kit (Miltenyi Biotec) and 563
a published protocol (Smaczniak et al., 2012). Immunoprecipitated proteins were digested 564
with trypsin (Trypsin Gold, Mass Spectrometry Grade; Promega), purified and desalted using 565
C18 columns (Teknokroma). The spectra acquired from the Easy-nLC coupled to a Q 566
Exactive Plus (Thermo Fisher Scientific) were analyzed using MaxQuant protein 567
quantification software (Cox and Mann, 2008). Immunoprecipitations from Col and 35S::YFP 568
were used as controls for unspecifically bound proteins. 569
For immunoblotting of JMJ24 pulldowns, 2 g of 7 d-old seedlings were crosslinked with 0.5 % 570
formaldehyde solution for 10 min, blocked with glycine and flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen. 571
Protein immunoprecipitation was performed as described above. Precipitated proteins were 572
analyzed by immunoblotting as described above and detected with antibodies against GFP 573
(Abcam, ab290), H3 (ab1791) and H2B (ab1790). Col-0 was used as a control to identify 574
non-specific binding. 575
576
Yeast-Two-Hybrid Analysis 577
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
25
Yeast-Two-Hybrid assays were performed with the DupLEX-A System (Origene) (Golemis et 578
al., 2008). Bait genes were cloned into pEG202 (lexA-DBD) and prey genes into pJG4-5 579
(B42-AD) vector. Yeast strain EGY48 (pSH18-34) was co-transformed by using the Frozen-580
EZ Yeast Transformation II Kit (Zymo Research). Three independent transformants per 581
combination were tested on appropriate dropout medium with Galactose, Raffinose, and X-582
Gal. 583
584
DAPI staining and confocal images 585
3 d old seedlings were fixed in PBST with 3 % glutaraldehyde for 6 h. DAPI staining was 586
done overnight in PBST with 5 % DMSO. After washing three times, pictures were taken 587
using a Zeiss LSM 710 confocal microscope. 588
589
Accession numbers 590
JMJ24 (At1g09060), AtMu1c (At5g27345), JMJ18 (At1g30810), KYP/SUVH4 (At5g13960), 591
SUVH5 (At2g35160), SUVH6 (At2g22740), DRM1 (At5g15380), DRM2 (At5g14620), CMT3 592
(At1g69770), IG/LINE (At5g27845), COPIA2 (At1g18930), MEA/ISR (At1g02580), IS112A 593
(At1g43590), CACTA TE (At4g03745), VANDAL2 (At2g12170). Microarray data files are 594
available from the GEO database (accession number GSEXXX). 595
596
597
Tables 598
Table 1: JMJ24 widely affects TE silencing. 599
TE categories with changed transcript level in 35S::JMJ24 compared to jmj24-2. Transcript 600
levels of jmj24-2 and 35S:JMJ24 were determined by ATH1 microarrays. TE annotation and 601
categorization were adopted from (Slotkin et al., 2009). p-values are Benjamini-Hochberg 602
(BH) corrected. n, number of probes in this category. Arrows indicate the direction of 603
transcript level difference in 35S::JMJ24 compared to jmj24-2. 604
TE Category n p (BH corrected) Retrotransposon.LTR.Gypsy.ATGP1I 10 0.0319 ↓ DNA-Transposon 575 0.0000 ↓ DNA-Transposon.MuDR 306 0.0052 ↓ DNA-Transposon.MuDR.nonTIR 44 0.0001 ↓ DNA-Transposon.MuDR.nonTIR. ARNOLD1 11 0.0271 ↓ DNA-Transposon.nonMuDR 269 0.0000 ↓ DNA-Transposon.nonMuDR.CACTA 85 0.0001 ↓ DNA-Transposon.nonMuDR.CACTA. ATENSPM1 29 0.0041 ↓ DNA-Transposon.nonMuDR.CACTA. ATENSPM1A 6 0.0361 ↓ 605
606
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
26
Supplemental Data 607
Supplemental Figure S1. JMJ24 gene structure and expression level in jmj24-2. 608
609
Supplemental Figure S2. JMJ24 affects AtMu1 silencing at the level of transcription. 610
611
Supplemental Figure S3. JMJ24 JmjC-domain alignment and recombinant protein 612
expression. 613
614
Supplemental Figure S4. The JMJ24–RING1 domain interacts with AtUBC10. 615
616
Supplemental Figure S5. Complementation of transgenic lines used in this study. 617
618 Supplemental Figure S6. Biological replicate for jmj24-2 kyp-7 double mutant 619 analysis. 620 621
Supplemental Figure S7. Control amplicons for the anti-H3K9me2 chromatin 622
immuno-precipitation experiment shown in Fig. 6A. 623
624
Supplemental Table S1. Quantification of Fe analysis by ICP-OES. 625
626
Supplemental Table S2. Details of AtMu1c TIR bisulfite sequencing (cf. Fig. 6B). 627
628
Supplemental Table S3. List of primers used in this study. 629
630
Supplemental Table S4. List of peptides identified in JMJ24 immunoprecipitation. 631
632
633
Acknowledgements 634
We thank J. Bender, Brown University, and the European Arabidopsis Stock Centre for 635
seeds. We are grateful to E. Benke, K. Henneberger, J. Kurtzke and J. Markowski for 636
technical assistance. We thank M. Lenhard, University of Potsdam, for materials and helpful 637
suggestions, and S. Leimkühler, University of Potsdam, for help with the ICP-OES analysis. 638
639
640
Figure legends 641
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
27
Fig. 1 JMJ24 negatively regulates AtMu1 silencing. 642
Relative JMJ24 (grey) and AtMu1c (black) transcript levels were determined by qRT-PCR. 643
Expression values were normalized to TUB6 and Col. jmj24, jmj24-2 mutant; JMJ24 amiR, 644
lines carrying an artificial miRNA against JMJ24; 35S::JMJ24, JMJ24 overexpression 645
construct. For each construct, three independent homozygous T3 lines were analyzed. Data 646
shown are averages over six biological replicates with error bars representing SEM. 647
648
Fig. 2 Putative JMJ24 orthologues are present across the angiosperms. 649
(A) Schematic overview of the JMJ24 protein domains and cofactor binding sites. Numbers 650
indicate aa positions of domain start and end. Amino acid residues required for Fe2+-binding 651
and α-ketoglutarate-binding are shown above the protein schematic. Corresponding residues 652
in the JMJ24 sequence are shown below. NLS, nuclear localization signal; RING, RING 653
finger domain; JmjC, JumonjiC domain. 654
(B) Phylogenetic tree with the KDM3 clade from A. thaliana (ARATH, JMJ24, JMJ25/IBM1, 655
JMJ26, JMJ27, JMJ29), Homo sapiens KDM3A, KDM3B and putative orthologues of JMJ24 656
from the basal angiosperm Amborella trichopoda (AMBTR), monocotyledonous species 657
Sorghum bicolor (SORBI), Oryza sativa ssp. japonica (ORYSJ), Brachipodium distachion 658
(BRADI), Hordeum vulgare (HORVD), Zea mays (ZEAMA) and the dicotyledonous species 659
A. lyrata (ARALL), Solanum lycopersicon (SOLLC), Glycine max (SOYBN), Vitis vinifera 660
(VITVI), Populus trichocarpa (POPTR), Physcomitrella patens (PHYPA) using full-length 661
protein sequences. Putative orthologues were identified using Delta Blast and Inparanoid. 662
The A. thaliana JMJ18 sequence was used as outgroup. The phylogenetic tree was prepared 663
using Phylogeny.fr and the default settings. Right panel, conservation of the residues 664
required for Fe2+ and α-ketoglutarate binding in the aligned protein sequences. Red, aa 665
conserved in canonical JmjC sequence; cyan, aa conserved in JMJ24-related proteins but 666
deviating from consensus sequence. 667
(C) Iron binding analysis of JMJ24-JmjC. The amount of protein–bound iron was measured 668
by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and normalized to 669
protein input. The analysis was performed in triplicate. GST served as a negative and 670
JMJ18-JmjC as a positive control (for protein inputs see Supplemental Fig. S3B). The Fe 671
concentration was normalized to the input protein concentration to obtain the number of Fe 672
molecules per protein molecule. 673
674
Fig. 3 JMJ24 is a nuclear protein with mono-ubiquitination activity. 675
(A) In vitro ubiquitin-ligase assay of JMJ24 RING domains. GST-tagged JMJ24-RING1 (lane 676
4), JMJ24-RING2 (lane 8) and His6-tagged BB (lane 13) undergo autoubiquitination as 677
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
28
evidenced by the shifts in electrophoretic mobility (arrowheads) in the presence of E1 and 678
E2. Immunoblots were processed with anti-FLAG antibodies (upper panel) to visualize 679
FLAG-ubiquitin, or anti-GST and anti-His6 (lower panel) antibodies, respectively. His6-BB 680
(Disch et al., 2006) served as a positive control and catalyzes the formation of high-681
molecular-weight ubiquitin chains. GST served as negative control. GST-tagged JMJ24-682
RING1 and RING2 catalyze the attachment of mono-ubiquitin (arrowheads). The intense 683
band at 25 kDa in lanes 4, 8, 10, 11 and 13 (arrow) likely represents an E2-ubiquitin adduct 684
formed independently of E3 activity. 685
(B) Confocal microscopy images of JMJ24 subcellular localization. JMJ24::JMJ24-vYFP was 686
stably transformed into jmj24-2 mutants and 3 d-old root tips were imaged. (a) DAPI-stained 687
nuclei (blue), (b) JMJ24-vYFP signal (yellow), (c) bright field signal and (d) merged image of 688
(a), (b) and (c). Size bar, 10 μm. 689
690
Fig. 4 JMJ24 interacts with histones. 691
(A) JMJ24-JmjC binds to N-terminal histone H3 peptides (aa 1-20) in vitro. GST-tagged 692
JMJ24-JmjC was immunoprecipitated with biotinylated histone peptides with different 693
modifications. GST served as a negative and GST-tagged AtING1 (Lee et al., 2009) as a 694
positive control for histone binding. no hist., control with no added histone peptides. 695
(B) In vivo JMJ24 protein interaction partners as isolated by immunoprecipitation and mass 696
spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Native JMJ24-vYFP protein complexes were immunoprecipitated 697
from transgenic 35S::JMJ24-vYFP plants and co-precipitated proteins were subsequently 698
identified by LC/MS-MS (see also Supplemental Table S4). Two biological experiments with 699
two technical replicates each were performed and the number of individual peptides and the 700
cumulative score is shown for each experiment. 701
(C) JMJ24 specifically binds Histone H3 in vivo. JMJ24-YFP was purified from crosslinked 702
nuclear protein extracts of transgenic 35S:JMJ24-YFP and non-transgenic Col-0 seedlings. 703
Co-purification of histone H2B and H3 was assessed by immunoblotting with specific 704
antibodies. 705
706
Fig. 5 Genetic interaction of JMJ24 with KYP, SUVH5 and SUVH6. 707
Relative AtMu1c transcript levels as determined by qRT-PCR in seedlings with modified 708
JMJ24 activity and (A) loss of KYP activity (kyp-7) or (B) loss of KYP (kyp-4), SUVH5 and 709
SUVH6 activities, respectively. Expression values of AtMu1c were normalized to TUB6 and 710
Col. (A) Results of one representative experiment are shown. Error bars indicate SEM of 711
three technical replicates. A second experiment is shown in Supplemental Fig. S6. (B) 712
Average of three biological replicates is shown. Error bars represent SEM. Statistical 713
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
29
analysis was performed using ANOVA with log2-transformed data, followed by Tukey test. 714
Different letters indicate significant differences. 715
716
Fig. 6 Effect of loss of JMJ24 on H3K9me2 and DNA methylation. 717
(A) Histone H3K9me2 levels relative to global H3 at the AtMu1c transposase region as 718
determined by chromatin immunoprecipitation in seedlings with modified JMJ24 and KYP 719
activities. Overexpression of JMJ24 reduces H3K9me2, while loss of H3K9me2 enhances it. 720
Data from three biological replicates were normalized to input and H3, and averaged. Error 721
bars represent SEM. *, p<0.05; **, p<0.005 (Student’s t-test). Data for control amplicons with 722
previously described (Mathieu et al., 2005; Kabelitz et al., 2014) high (CACTA) or low 723
(ACTIN) H3K9me2 accumulation are shown in Supplemental Fig. S6. 724
(B) DNA methylation analysis of the AtMu1c TIR by bisulfite sequencing in seedlings with 725
modified JMJ24 and KYP activities. Percentages of DNA methylation were calculated from 726
20 independent clones each (cf. Supplemental Table S2). 727
728
Fig. 7 Genetic interaction of JMJ24 with CMT3, DRM1 DRM2 CMT3. 729
Relative AtMu1c transcript levels in jmj24-2 double mutants with cmt3-11 (A), drm1 drm2 730
cmt3 (B) as determined by qRT-PCR. Expression values of AtMu1c were normalized to 731
TUB6 and Col. Averages of three biological replicates are shown. Error bars represent SEM. 732
733
Fig. 8 JMJ24 affects TE silencing positively and negatively. 734
(A) Empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) plots for DNA TEs, MuDR DNA TEs, 735
non-MuDR DNA TEs and CACTA DNA TEs (Slotkin et al., 2009). The distribution shows the 736
log2FC of 35S::JMJ24 against jmj24-2 based on ATH1 microarray data. A shift of the log2FC 737
distribution of the TE category specified in the header (magenta) compared to the log2FC 738
distribution of all TEs (blue) to the left indicates lower expression. 739
(B), (C) Relative transcript levels of several TEs behaving similar to AtMu1c (B) or opposite 740
(C) in jmj24-2 and 35S::JMJ24 as determined by qRT-PCR. Expression values were 741
normalized to TUB6 and Col. Error bars are SEM of n biological replicates. *, p<0.05, **, 742
p<0.005 (Student’s t-test). 743
744
Fig. 9 A Model for JMJ24 action during RdDM 745
JMJ24 encodes an inactive histone demethylase that associates with histone H3. At the 746
AtMu1c locus, JMJ24 antagonizes repressive H3K9me2 marks, which are deposited by KYP 747
and SUVH5/6 and promote DNA methylation. JMJ24 (genetically) antagonizes SUVH5/6 748
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
30
function and the positive effect of JMJ24 on AtMu1c expression depends on the presence of 749
SUVH5/6. An as yet unknown target protein is (mono-)ubiquitinated by JMJ24 and thus 750
inactivated. In the absence of JMJ24 this target protein promotes silencing of AtMu1c, likely 751
through the methylation of H3K9 or cytosine. Thus, the JMJ24 pathway acts to sustain basal 752
transcription of AtMu1c and other TE during development or the establishment of silencing at 753
novel TE insertions. 754
755
756
757
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Parsed CitationsAdamski NM, Anastasiou E, Eriksson S, O'Neill CM, Lenhard M (2009) Local maternal control of seed size by KLUH/CYP78A5-dependent growth signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 20115-20120
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Aiese Cigliano R, Sanseverino W, Cremona G, Ercolano MR, Conicella C, Consiglio FM (2013) Genome-wide analysis of histonemodifiers in tomato: gaining an insight into their developmental roles. BMC Genomics 14: 57
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Bäurle I, Smith L, Baulcombe DC, Dean C (2007) Widespread role for the flowering-time regulators FCA and FPA in RNA-mediatedchromatin silencing. Science 318: 109-112
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Bennetzen JL, Wang H (2014) The contributions of transposable elements to the structure, function, and evolution of plantgenomes. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65: 505-530
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Biemont C, Vieira C (2006) Genetics: junk DNA as an evolutionary force. Nature 443: 521-524Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Black JC, Van Rechem C, Whetstine JR (2012) Histone lysine methylation dynamics: establishment, regulation, and biologicalimpact. Mol Cell 48: 491-507
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cao X, Aufsatz W, Zilberman D, Mette MF, Huang MS, Matzke M, Jacobsen SE (2003) Role of the DRM and CMT3methyltransferases in RNA-directed DNA methylation. Curr Biol 13: 2212-2217
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cao X, Jacobsen SE (2002) Locus-specific control of asymmetric and CpNpG methylation by the DRM and CMT3 methyltransferasegenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99 Suppl 4: 16491-16498
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Castel SE, Martienssen RA (2013) RNA interference in the nucleus: roles for small RNAs in transcription, epigenetics and beyond.Nat Rev Genet 14: 100-112
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Chen X, Hu Y, Zhou DX (2011) Epigenetic gene regulation by plant Jumonji group of histone demethylase. Biochim Biophys Acta1809: 421-426
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cox J, Mann M (2008) MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies andproteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol 26: 1367-1372
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Crevillen P, Yang H, Cui X, Greeff C, Trick M, Qiu Q, Cao X, Dean C (2014) Epigenetic reprogramming that preventstransgenerational inheritance of the vernalized state. Nature 515: 587-590
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Cui X, Jin P, Gu L, Lu Z, Xue Y, Wei L, Qi J, Song X, Luo M, An G, Cao X (2013) Control of transposon activity by a histone H3K4demethylase in rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 1953-1958
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Deleris A, Greenberg MV, Ausin I, Law RW, Moissiard G, Schubert D, Jacobsen SE (2010) Involvement of a Jumonji-C domain- www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
containing histone demethylase in DRM2-mediated maintenance of DNA methylation. EMBO Rep 11: 950-955Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Deng S, Xu J, Liu J, Kim SH, Shi S, Chua NH (2015) JMJ24 binds to RDR2 and is required for the basal level transcription ofsilenced loci in Arabidopsis. Plant J 83: 770-782
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Disch S, Anastasiou E, Sharma VK, Laux T, Fletcher JC, Lenhard M (2006) The E3 ubiquitin ligase BIG BROTHER controlsarabidopsis organ size in a dosage-dependent manner. Curr Biol 16: 272-279
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Du J, Zhong X, Bernatavichute YV, Stroud H, Feng S, Caro E, Vashisht AA, Terragni J, Chin HG, Tu A, Hetzel J, Wohlschlegel JA,Pradhan S, Patel DJ, Jacobsen SE (2012) Dual binding of chromomethylase domains to H3K9me2-containing nucleosomes directsDNA methylation in plants. Cell 151: 167-180
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ebbs ML, Bartee L, Bender J (2005) H3 lysine 9 methylation is maintained on a transcribed inverted repeat by combined action ofSUVH6 and SUVH4 methyltransferases. Mol Cell Biol 25: 10507-10515
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ebbs ML, Bender J (2006) Locus-specific control of DNA methylation by the Arabidopsis SUVH5 histone methyltransferase. PlantCell 18: 1166-1176
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Eisen JA, Benito MI, Walbot V (1994) Sequence similarity of putative transposases links the maize Mutator autonomous elementand a group of bacterial insertion sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 22: 2634-2636
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Fan D, Dai Y, Wang X, Wang Z, He H, Yang H, Cao Y, Deng XW, Ma L (2012) IBM1, a JmjC domain-containing histone demethylase, isinvolved in the regulation of RNA-directed DNA methylation through the epigenetic control of RDR2 and DCL3 expression inArabidopsis. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 8905-8916
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Fedoroff NV (2012) Presidential address. Transposable elements, epigenetics, and genome evolution. Science 338: 758-767Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Fultz D, Choudury SG, Slotkin RK (2015) Silencing of active transposable elements in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 27: 67-76Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Gan ES, Xu Y, Wong JY, Goh JG, Sun B, Wee WY, Huang J, Ito T (2014) Jumonji demethylases moderate precocious flowering atelevated temperature via regulation of FLC in Arabidopsis. Nat Commun 5: 5098
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Gautier L, Cope L, Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA (2004) affy--analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 20:307-315
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Golemis EA, Serebriiskii I, Finley RL, Jr., Kolonin MG, Gyuris J, Brent R (2008) Interaction trap/two-hybrid system to identifyinteracting proteins. Curr Protoc Mol Biol Chapter 20: Unit 20 21
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Greenberg MV, Deleris A, Hale CJ, Liu A, Feng S, Jacobsen SE (2013) Interplay between active chromatin marks and RNA-directedDNA methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet 9: e1003946
Pubmed: Author and Title www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
CrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Henderson IR, Jacobsen SE (2008) Tandem repeats upstream of the Arabidopsis endogene SDC recruit non-CG DNA methylationand initiate siRNA spreading. Genes Dev 22: 1597-1606
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hewawasam G, Shivaraju M, Mattingly M, Venkatesh S, Martin-Brown S, Florens L, Workman JL, Gerton JL (2010) Psh1 is an E3ubiquitin ligase that targets the centromeric histone variant Cse4. Mol Cell 40: 444-454
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hong EH, Jeong YM, Ryu JY, Amasino RM, Noh B, Noh YS (2009) Temporal and spatial expression patterns of nine Arabidopsisgenes encoding Jumonji C-domain proteins. Mol Cells 27: 481-490
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Horton JR, Upadhyay AK, Qi HH, Zhang X, Shi Y, Cheng X (2010) Enzymatic and structural insights for substrate specificity of afamily of jumonji histone lysine demethylases. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 38-43
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Hou H, Yu H (2010) Structural insights into histone lysine demethylation. Curr Opin Struct Biol 20: 739-748Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Inagaki S, Miura-Kamio A, Nakamura Y, Lu F, Cui X, Cao X, Kimura H, Saze H, Kakutani T (2010) Autocatalytic differentiation ofepigenetic modifications within the Arabidopsis genome. EMBO J 29: 3496-3506
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Jackson JP, Lindroth AM, Cao X, Jacobsen SE (2002) Control of CpNpG DNA methylation by the KRYPTONITE histone H3methyltransferase. Nature 416: 556-560
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kabelitz T, Kappel C, Henneberger K, Benke E, Nöh C, Bäurle I (2014) eQTL Mapping of Transposon Silencing Reveals aPosition-Dependent Stable Escape from Epigenetic Silencing and Transposition of AtMu1 in the Arabidopsis Lineage. Plant Cell26: 3261-3271
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kaneko S, Bonasio R, Saldana-Meyer R, Yoshida T, Son J, Nishino K, Umezawa A, Reinberg D (2014) Interactions between JARID2and noncoding RNAs regulate PRC2 recruitment to chromatin. Mol Cell 53: 290-300
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Klose RJ, Kallin EM, Zhang Y (2006) JmjC-domain-containing proteins and histone demethylation. Nat Rev Genet 7: 715-727Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Klose RJ, Yamane K, Bae Y, Zhang D, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Wong J, Zhang Y (2006) The transcriptional repressorJHDM3A demethylates trimethyl histone H3 lysine 9 and lysine 36. Nature 442: 312-316
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Kraft E, Stone SL, Ma L, Su N, Gao Y, Lau OS, Deng XW, Callis J (2005) Genome analysis and functional characterization of the E2and RING-type E3 ligase ubiquitination enzymes of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 139: 1597-1611
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Landeira D, Fisher AG (2011) Inactive yet indispensable: the tale of Jarid2. Trends Cell Biol 21: 74-80Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Law JA, Jacobsen SE (2010) Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat RevGenet 11: 204-220 www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Le Masson I, Jauvion V, Bouteiller N, Rivard M, Elmayan T, Vaucheret H (2012) Mutations in the Arabidopsis H3K4me2/3demethylase JMJ14 suppress posttranscriptional gene silencing by decreasing transgene transcription. Plant Cell 24: 3603-3612
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lee WY, Lee D, Chung WI, Kwon CS (2009) Arabidopsis ING and Alfin1-like protein families localize to the nucleus and bind toH3K4me3/2 via plant homeodomain fingers. Plant J 58: 511-524
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Levin HL, Moran JV (2011) Dynamic interactions between transposable elements and their hosts. Nature Reviews Genetics 12:615-627
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lin H, Wang Y, Tian F, Pu P, Yu Y, Mao H, Yang Y, Wang P, Hu L, Lin Y, Liu Y, Xu Y, Chen CD (2010) Coordinated regulation ofactive and repressive histone methylations by a dual-specificity histone demethylase ceKDM7A from Caenorhabditis elegans. CellRes 20: 899-907
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lippman Z, May B, Yordan C, Singer T, Martienssen R (2003) Distinct mechanisms determine transposon inheritance andmethylation via small interfering RNA and histone modification. PLoS Biol 1: E67
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lisch D (2012) Regulation of transposable elements in maize. Curr Opin Plant Biol 15: 511-516Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lisch D (2013) How important are transposons for plant evolution? Nat Rev Genet 14: 49-61Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Liu C, Lu F, Cui X, Cao X (2010) Histone methylation in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61: 395-420Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Liu W, Tanasa B, Tyurina OV, Zhou TY, Gassmann R, Liu WT, Ohgi KA, Benner C, Garcia-Bassets I, Aggarwal AK, Desai A,Dorrestein PC, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG (2010) PHF8 mediates histone H4 lysine 20 demethylation events involved in cell cycleprogression. Nature 466: 508-512
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lorick KL, Jensen JP, Fang S, Ong AM, Hatakeyama S, Weissman AM (1999) RING fingers mediate ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme(E2)-dependent ubiquitination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 11364-11369
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Lu F, Li G, Cui X, Liu C, Wang XJ, Cao X (2008) Comparative analysis of JmjC domain-containing proteins reveals the potentialhistone demethylases in Arabidopsis and rice. J Integr Plant Biol 50: 886-896
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Mathieu O, Probst AV, Paszkowski J (2005) Distinct regulation of histone H3 methylation at lysines 27 and 9 by CpG methylation inArabidopsis. EMBO J 24: 2783-2791
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Mathieu O, Reinders J, Caikovski M, Smathajitt C, Paszkowski J (2007) Transgenerational stability of the Arabidopsis epigenome iscoordinated by CG methylation. Cell 130: 851-862
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Matzke MA, Mosher RA (2014) RNA-directed DNA methylation: an epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity. Nat Rev Genet 15:394-408
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
McClintock B (1984) The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science 226: 792-801Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Mosammaparast N, Shi Y (2010) Reversal of histone methylation: biochemical and molecular mechanisms of histone demethylases.Annu Rev Biochem 79: 155-179
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Niikura Y, Kitagawa R, Ogi H, Abdulle R, Pagala V, Kitagawa K (2015) CENP-A K124 Ubiquitylation Is Required for CENP-ADeposition at the Centromere. Dev Cell 32: 589-603
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Noh B, Lee SH, Kim HJ, Yi G, Shin EA, Lee M, Jung KJ, Doyle MR, Amasino RM, Noh YS (2004) Divergent roles of a pair ofhomologous jumonji/zinc-finger-class transcription factor proteins in the regulation of Arabidopsis flowering time. Plant Cell 16:2601-2613
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ossowski S, Schwab R, Weigel D (2008) Gene silencing in plants using artificial microRNAs and other small RNAs. Plant J 53: 674-690
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Qian S, Wang Y, Ma H, Zhang L (2015) Expansion and Functional Divergence of Jumonji C-Containing Histone Demethylases:Significance of Duplications in Ancestral Angiosperms and Vertebrates. Plant Physiol 168: 1321-1337
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Rigal M, Kevei Z, Pelissier T, Mathieu O (2012) DNA methylation in an intron of the IBM1 histone demethylase gene stabilizeschromatin modification patterns. EMBO J 31: 2981-2993
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, Smyth GK (2015) limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res 43: e47
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Sanulli S, Justin N, Teissandier A, Ancelin K, Portoso M, Caron M, Michaud A, Lombard B, da Rocha ST, Offer J, Loew D, ServantN, Wassef M, Burlina F, Gamblin SJ, Heard E, Margueron R (2015) Jarid2 Methylation via the PRC2 Complex Regulates H3K27me3Deposition during Cell Differentiation. Mol Cell 57: 769-783
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Saze H, Mittelsten Scheid O, Paszkowski J (2003) Maintenance of CpG methylation is essential for epigenetic inheritance duringplant gametogenesis. Nat Genet 34: 65-69
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Saze H, Shiraishi A, Miura A, Kakutani T (2008) Control of genic DNA methylation by a jmjC domain-containing protein inArabidopsis thaliana. Science 319: 462-465
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Searle IR, Pontes O, Melnyk CW, Smith LM, Baulcombe DC (2010) JMJ14, a JmjC domain protein, is required for RNA silencing andcell-to-cell movement of an RNA silencing signal in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev 24: 986-991
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shi X, Hong T, Walter KL, Ewalt M, Michishita E, Hung T, Carney D, Pena P, Lan F, Kaadige MR, Lacoste N, Cayrou C, Davrazou F, www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from
Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Saha A, Cairns BR, Ayer DE, Kutateladze TG, Shi Y, Cote J, Chua KF, Gozani O (2006) ING2 PHD domain links histone H3 lysine 4methylation to active gene repression. Nature 442: 96-99
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Shu H, Nakamura M, Siretskiy A, Borghi L, Moraes I, Wildhaber T, Gruissem W, Hennig L (2014) Arabidopsis replacement histonevariant H3.3 occupies promoters of regulated genes. Genome Biol 15: R62
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Singer T, Yordan C, Martienssen RA (2001) Robertson's Mutator transposons in A. thaliana are regulated by the chromatin-remodeling gene Decrease in DNA Methylation (DDM1). Genes Dev 15: 591-602
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Slotkin RK, Vaughn M, Borges F, Tanurdzic M, Becker JD, Feijo JA, Martienssen RA (2009) Epigenetic reprogramming and smallRNA silencing of transposable elements in pollen. Cell 136: 461-472
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Smaczniak C, Immink RG, Muino JM, Blanvillain R, Busscher M, Busscher-Lange J, Dinh QD, Liu S, Westphal AH, Boeren S, ParcyF, Xu L, Carles CC, Angenent GC, Kaufmann K (2012) Characterization of MADS-domain transcription factor complexes inArabidopsis flower development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 1560-1565
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Stone SL, Hauksdottir H, Troy A, Herschleb J, Kraft E, Callis J (2005) Functional analysis of the RING-type ubiquitin ligase family ofArabidopsis. Plant Physiol 137: 13-30
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Stroud H, Do T, Du J, Zhong X, Feng S, Johnson L, Patel DJ, Jacobsen SE (2014) Non-CG methylation patterns shape theepigenetic landscape in Arabidopsis. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 64-72
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Stroud H, Greenberg MV, Feng S, Bernatavichute YV, Jacobsen SE (2013) Comprehensive analysis of silencing mutants revealscomplex regulation of the Arabidopsis methylome. Cell 152: 352-364
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Stroud H, Otero S, Desvoyes B, Ramirez-Parra E, Jacobsen SE, Gutierrez C (2012) Genome-wide analysis of histone H3.1 and H3.3variants in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 5370-5375
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Struhl K, Segal E (2013) Determinants of nucleosome positioning. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20: 267-273Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Tamaru H (2010) Confining euchromatin/heterochromatin territory: jumonji crosses the line. Genes Dev 24: 1465-1478Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Tenaillon MI, Hollister JD, Gaut BS (2010) A triptych of the evolution of plant transposable elements. Trends Plant Sci 15: 471-478Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Trewick SC, Minc E, Antonelli R, Urano T, Allshire RC (2007) The JmjC domain protein Epe1 prevents unregulated assembly anddisassembly of heterochromatin. EMBO J 26: 4670-4682
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Weake VM, Workman JL (2008) Histone ubiquitination: triggering gene activity. Mol Cell 29: 653-663Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.
Yang H, Han Z, Cao Y, Fan D, Li H, Mo H, Feng Y, Liu L, Wang Z, Yue Y, Cui S, Chen S, Chai J, Ma L (2012) A companion cell-dominant and developmentally regulated H3K4 demethylase controls flowering time in Arabidopsis via the repression of FLCexpression. PLoS Genet 8: e1002664
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Yang Y, Hu L, Wang P, Hou H, Lin Y, Liu Y, Li Z, Gong R, Feng X, Zhou L, Zhang W, Dong Y, Yang H, Lin H, Wang Y, Chen CD, Xu Y(2010) Structural insights into a dual-specificity histone demethylase ceKDM7A from Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell Res 20: 886-898
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Yang Y, Yin X, Yang H, Xu Y (2015) Histone Demethylase LSD2 Acts as an E3 Ubiquitin Ligase and Inhibits Cancer Cell Growththrough Promoting Proteasomal Degradation of OGT. Mol Cell 58: 47-59
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zemach A, Kim MY, Hsieh PH, Coleman-Derr D, Eshed-Williams L, Thao K, Harmer SL, Zilberman D (2013) The Arabidopsisnucleosome remodeler DDM1 allows DNA methyltransferases to access H1-containing heterochromatin. Cell 153: 193-205
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zentner GE, Henikoff S (2013) Regulation of nucleosome dynamics by histone modifications. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20: 259-266Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhang X, Yazaki J, Sundaresan A, Cokus S, Chan SW, Chen H, Henderson IR, Shinn P, Pellegrini M, Jacobsen SE, Ecker JR (2006)Genome-wide high-resolution mapping and functional analysis of DNA methylation in arabidopsis. Cell 126: 1189-1201
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zheng B, Wang Z, Li S, Yu B, Liu JY, Chen X (2009) Intergenic transcription by RNA polymerase II coordinates Pol IV and Pol V insiRNA-directed transcriptional gene silencing in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev 23: 2850-2860
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
Zhou X, Ma H (2008) Evolutionary history of histone demethylase families: distinct evolutionary patterns suggest functionaldivergence. BMC Evol Biol 8: 294
Pubmed: Author and TitleCrossRef: Author and TitleGoogle Scholar: Author Only Title Only Author and Title
www.plantphysiol.orgon April 13, 2020 - Published by Downloaded from Copyright © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.