Single-cell nucleosome mapping reveals the molecular basis of gene expression heterogeneity

Significance Nucleosomes limit access to DNA, which antagonizes gene expression and prevents recruitment of transcription factors that cannot bind DNA wrapped around the histone octamer. Numerous studies using large cell populations determined that active genes promoters tend to be nucleosome-depleted. We developed a method to examine nucleosome positioning in single cells and revealed significant heterogeneity of nucleosome configurations within a population. In an inactive gene loaded with nucleosomes, a small subpopulation of nucleosome-depleted cells exists that were engaged in transcription. Single-cell mapping revealed that even in apparently nucleosome-free regions, some cells were occupied by nucleosomes. These data reveal an underlying complexity of nucleosome positioning and its role in regulating gene expression. Nucleosomes, the basic unit of chromatin, have a critical role in the control of gene expression. Nucleosome positions have generally been determined by examining bulk populations of cells and then correlated with overall gene expression. Here, we describe a technique to determine nucleosome positioning in single cells by virtue of the ability of the nucleosome to protect DNA from GpC methylation. In the acid phosphatase inducible PHO5 gene, we find that there is significant cell-to-cell variation in nucleosome positions and shifts in nucleosome positioning correlate with changes in gene expression. However, nucleosome positioning is not absolute, and even with major shifts in gene expression, some cells fail to change nucleosome configuration. Mutations of the PHO5 promoter that introduce a poly(dA:dT) tract-stimulated gene expression under nonpermissive conditions led to shifts of positioned nucleosomes similar to induction of PHO5. By contrast, mutations that altered AA/TT/AT periodicity reduced gene expression upon PHO5 induction and stabilized nucleosomes in most cells, suggesting that enhanced nucleosome affinity for DNA antagonizes chromatin remodelers. Finally, we determined nucleosome positioning in two regions described as “fuzzy” or nucleosome-free when examined in a bulk assay. These regions consisted of distinct nucleosomes with a larger footprint for potential location and an increase population of cells lacking a nucleosome altogether. These data indicate an underlying complexity of nucleosome positioning that may contribute to the flexibility and heterogeneity of gene expression.

[1]  Liqun Xi,et al.  Chemical map of Schizosaccharomyces pombe reveals species-specific features in nucleosome positioning , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  A. Tanay,et al.  Single cell Hi-C reveals cell-to-cell variability in chromosome structure , 2013, Nature.

[3]  Melissa S. Jurica,et al.  Linking Stochastic Fluctuations in Chromatin Structure and Gene Expression , 2013, PLoS biology.

[4]  Eran Segal,et al.  Two DNA-encoded strategies for increasing expression with opposing effects on promoter dynamics and transcriptional noise , 2013, Genome research.

[5]  K. Struhl,et al.  Determinants of nucleosome positioning , 2013, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[6]  Karolin Luger,et al.  New insights into nucleosome and chromatin structure: an ordered state or a disordered affair? , 2012, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[7]  Kristin R Brogaard,et al.  A base pair resolution map of nucleosome positions in yeast , 2012, Nature.

[8]  Vishwanath R Iyer,et al.  Nucleosome positioning: bringing order to the eukaryotic genome. , 2012, Trends in cell biology.

[9]  J. Carroll,et al.  Pioneer transcription factors: establishing competence for gene expression. , 2011, Genes & development.

[10]  Ralf Blossey,et al.  The dynamics of the nucleosome: thermal effects, external forces and ATP , 2011, The FEBS journal.

[11]  Kevin J. Verstrepen,et al.  Nucleosome Positioning in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2011, Microbiology and Molecular Reviews.

[12]  Martin Vingron,et al.  The Effect of Micrococcal Nuclease Digestion on Nucleosome Positioning Data , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  Nayun Kim,et al.  Role for topoisomerase 1 in transcription-associated mutagenesis in yeast , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Shawfeng Dong,et al.  Quantitative analysis of the transcription control mechanism , 2010, Molecular systems biology.

[15]  Yang Liu,et al.  Weakly Positioned Nucleosomes Enhance the Transcriptional Competency of Chromatin , 2010, PloS one.

[16]  Lei Xia,et al.  Predicting nucleosome positioning using a duration Hidden Markov Model , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  C. Hertel,et al.  In Vitro Reconstitution of PHO5 Promoter Chromatin Remodeling Points to a Role for Activator-Nucleosome Competition In Vivo , 2010, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[18]  Xin Wang,et al.  A RSC/Nucleosome Complex Determines Chromatin Architecture and Facilitates Activator Binding , 2010, Cell.

[19]  A. Hartemink,et al.  An ensemble model of competitive multi-factor binding of the genome. , 2009, Genome research.

[20]  Cizhong Jiang,et al.  A compiled and systematic reference map of nucleosome positions across the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome , 2009, Genome Biology.

[21]  B. Cairns The logic of chromatin architecture and remodelling at promoters , 2009, Nature.

[22]  Jeffrey G. Linger,et al.  FACT and the Proteasome Promote Promoter Chromatin Disassembly and Transcriptional Initiation* , 2009, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[23]  Irene K. Moore,et al.  The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome , 2009, Nature.

[24]  E. Segal,et al.  Poly(da:dt) Tracts: Major Determinants of Nucleosome Organization This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Protein-nucleic Acid Interactions Edited , 2022 .

[25]  A. Raj,et al.  Single-molecule approaches to stochastic gene expression. , 2009, Annual review of biophysics.

[26]  Yaniv Lubling,et al.  Distinct Modes of Regulation by Chromatin Encoded through Nucleosome Positioning Signals , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[27]  E. O’Shea,et al.  A quantitative model of transcription factor–activated gene expression , 2008, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[28]  Bryan J Venters,et al.  A barrier nucleosome model for statistical positioning of nucleosomes throughout the yeast genome. , 2008, Genome research.

[29]  Roger D. Kornberg,et al.  Nucleosome Retention and the Stochastic Nature of Promoter Chromatin Remodeling for Transcription , 2008, Cell.

[30]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  A high-resolution atlas of nucleosome occupancy in yeast , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[31]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Living with noisy genes: how cells function reliably with inherent variability in gene expression. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[32]  Irene K. Moore,et al.  A genomic code for nucleosome positioning , 2006, Nature.

[33]  Scott A. Hoose,et al.  Active PHO5 chromatin encompasses variable numbers of nucleosomes at individual promoters , 2006, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[34]  Peter A. Jones,et al.  Footprinting of mammalian promoters: use of a CpG DNA methyltransferase revealing nucleosome positions at a single molecule level , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Genome-Scale Identification of Nucleosome Positions in S. cerevisiae , 2005, Science.

[36]  Kevin Struhl,et al.  Intrinsic histone-DNA interactions and low nucleosome density are important for preferential accessibility of promoter regions in yeast. , 2005, Molecular cell.

[37]  T. Elston,et al.  Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[38]  Michael Knop,et al.  A versatile toolbox for PCR‐based tagging of yeast genes: new fluorescent proteins, more markers and promoter substitution cassettes , 2004, Yeast.

[39]  J. Raser,et al.  Control of Stochasticity in Eukaryotic Gene Expression , 2004, Science.

[40]  H. Reinke,et al.  Anatomy of a hypersensitive site. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[41]  M. Okuwaki,et al.  Maintenance DNA Methylation of Nucleosome Core Particles* , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[42]  Craig D. Kaplan,et al.  Transcription Elongation Factors Repress Transcription Initiation from Cryptic Sites , 2003, Science.

[43]  J Seth Strattan,et al.  Nucleosomes unfold completely at a transcriptionally active promoter. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[44]  H. Reinke,et al.  Histones are first hyperacetylated and then lose contact with the activated PHO5 promoter. , 2003, Molecular cell.

[45]  T. Richmond,et al.  The structure of DNA in the nucleosome core , 2003, Nature.

[46]  Mads Kærn,et al.  Noise in eukaryotic gene expression , 2003, Nature.

[47]  G. Crabtree,et al.  Cell signaling can direct either binary or graded transcriptional responses , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[48]  B. Suter,et al.  Poly(dA.dT) sequences exist as rigid DNA structures in nucleosome-free yeast promoters in vivo. , 2000, Nucleic acids research.

[49]  J. Widom,et al.  Sequence motifs and free energies of selected natural and non-natural nucleosome positioning DNA sequences. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  T. Richmond,et al.  Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 Å resolution , 1997, Nature.

[51]  J. Widom,et al.  A model for the cooperative binding of eukaryotic regulatory proteins to nucleosomal target sites. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  J. Widom,et al.  Mechanism of protein access to specific DNA sequences in chromatin: a dynamic equilibrium model for gene regulation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  J. Mellor,et al.  Chromatin structure snap-shots: rapid nuclease digestion of chromatin in yeast. , 1995, Nucleic acids research.

[54]  V. Iyer,et al.  Poly(dA:dT), a ubiquitous promoter element that stimulates transcription via its intrinsic DNA structure. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[55]  Jerry L. Workman,et al.  Nucleosome displacement in transcription , 1993, Cell.

[56]  L. Stryer,et al.  Statistical distributions of nucleosomes: nonrandom locations by a stochastic mechanism. , 1988, Nucleic acids research.

[57]  A. Klug,et al.  The structure of an oligo(dA)·oligo(dT) tract and its biological implications , 1987, Nature.

[58]  H. Drew,et al.  Sequence periodicities in chicken nucleosome core DNA. , 1986, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  A. Hinnen,et al.  Removal of positioned nucleosomes from the yeast PHO5 promoter upon PHO5 induction releases additional upstream activating DNA elements. , 1986, The EMBO journal.

[60]  W Hörz,et al.  Sequence specific cleavage of DNA by micrococcal nuclease. , 1981, Nucleic acids research.

[61]  R A Laskey,et al.  High sequence specificity of micrococcal nuclease. , 1981, Nucleic acids research.

[62]  J. Workman,et al.  Alteration of nucleosome structure as a mechanism of transcriptional regulation. , 1998, Annual review of biochemistry.

[63]  E. Segal,et al.  Nature Genetics Advance Online Publication Manipulating Nucleosome Disfavoring Sequences Allows Fine-tune Regulation of Gene Expression in Yeast , 2022 .