User:Opencircle/Sandbox
Epigenetic Control of Cellular Differentiation
[edit]Since each cell, regardless of cell type, possesses the same genome, determination of cell type must occur at the level of gene expression. While the regulation of gene expression can occur through cis- and trans-regulatory elements including a gene’s promoter and enhancers, the problem arises to how this expression pattern is maintained over numerous generations of cell division. As it turns out, epigenetic processes play a crucial role in regulating the decision to adopt a stem, progenitor, or mature cell fate. This section will focus primarily on mammalian stem cells.
Importance of Epigenetic Control
[edit]The first question that can be asked is the extent and complexity of the role of epigenetic processes in the determination of cell fate. A clear answer to this question can be seen in the 2011 paper by Lister R, et al. [1] on aberrant epigenomic programming in human induced pluripotent stem cells. As induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are thought to mimic embryonic stem cells in their pluripotent properties, few epigenetic differences should exist between them. To test this prediction, the authors conducted whole-genome profiling of DNA methylation patterns in several human embryonic stem cell (ESC), iPSC, and progenitor cell lines.
Female adipose cells, lung fibroblasts, and foreskin fibroblasts were reprogrammed into induced pluripotent state with the OCT4, SOX2, KLF4, and MYC genes. Patterns of DNA methylation in ESCs, iPSCs, somatic cells were compared. Lister R, et al. observed significant resemblance in methylation levels between embryonic and induced pluripotent cells. Around 80% of CG dinucleotides in ESCs and iPSCs were methylated, the same was true of only 60% of CG dinucleotides in somatic cells. In addition, somatic cells possessed minimal levels of cytosine methylation in non-CG dinucleotides, while induced pluripotent cells possessed similar levels of methylation as embryonic stem cells, between 0.5 and 1.5%. Thus, consistent with their respective transcriptional activities,[1] DNA methylation patterns, at least on the genomic level, are similar between ESCs and iPSCs.
However, upon examining methylation patterns more closely, the authors discovered 1175 regions of differential CG dinucleotide methylation between at least one ES or iPS cell line. By comparing these regions of differential methylation with regions of cytosine methylation in the original somatic cells, 44-49% of differentially methylated regions reflected methylation patterns of the respective progenitor somatic cells, while 51-56% of these regions were dissimilar to both the progenitor and embryonic cell lines. In vitro-induced differentiation of iPSC lines saw transmission of 88% and 46% of hyper and hypo-methylated differentially methylated regions, respectively.
Two conclusions are readily apparent from this study. First, epigenetic processes are heavily involved in cell fate determination, as seen from the similar levels of cytosine methylation between induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cells, consistent with their respective patterns of transcription. Second, the mechanisms of de-differentiation (and by extension, differentiation) are very complex and cannot be easily duplicated, as seen by the significant number of differentially methylated regions between ES and iPS cell lines. Now that these two points have been established, we can examine some of the epigenetic mechanisms that are thought to regulate cellular differentiation.
Mechanisms of Epigenetic Regulation
[edit]Three transcription factors, OCT4, SOX2, and NANOG – the first two of which are used in iPSC reprogramming – are highly expressed in undifferentiated embryonic stem cells and are necessary for the maintenance of their pluripotency.[2] It is thought that they achieve this through alterations in chromatin structure, such as histone modification and DNA methylation, to restrict or permit the transcription of target genes.
In the realm of gene silencing, Polycomb repressive complex 2, one of two classes of the Polycomb group (PcG) family of proteins, catalyzes the di- and tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me2/me3).[2][3] By binding to the H3K27me2/3-tagged nucleosome, PRC1 (also a complex of PcG family proteins) catalyzes the mono-ubiquitinylation of histone H2A at lysine 119 ((H2AK119Ub1), blocking RNA polymerase II activity and resulting in transcriptional suppression.[2] PcG knockout ES cells do not differentiate efficiently into the three germ layers, and deletion of the PRC1 and PRC2 genes leads to increased expression of lineage-affiliated genes and unscheduled differentiation.[2] Presumably, PcG complexes are responsible for transcriptionally repressing differentiation and development-promoting genes.
Alternately, upon receiving differentiation signals, PcG proteins are recruited to promoters of pluripotency transcription factors. PcG-deficient ES cells can begin differentiation but are unable to maintain the differentiated phenotype.[2] Simultaneously, differentiation and development-promoting genes are activated by Trithorax group (TrxG) chromatin regulators and lose their repression.[2][3] TrxG proteins are recruited at regions of high transcriptional activity, where they catalyze the trimethylation of histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4me3) and promote gene activation through histone acetylation.[3] PcG and TrxG complexes engage in direct competition and are thought to be functionally antagonistic, creating at differentiation and development-promoting loci what is termed a “bivalent domain” and rendering these genes sensitive to rapid induction or repression.[4]
Regulation of gene expression is further achieved through DNA methylation, in which the DNA methyltransferase-mediated methylation of cytosine residues in CpG dinucleotides maintains heritable repression by controlling DNA accessibility.[4] The majority of CpG sites in embryonic stem cells are unmethylated and appear to be associated with H3K4me3-carrying nucleosomes.[2] Upon differentiation, a small number of genes, including OCT4 and NANOG,[4] are methylated and their promoters repressed to prevent their further expression. Consistently, DNA methylation-deficient embryonic stem cells rapidly enter apoptopsis upon in vitro differentiation.[2]
Role of Signaling in Epigenetic Control
[edit]A final question to ask concerns the role of cell signaling in influencing the epigenetic processes governing differentiation. Such a role should exist, as it would be reasonable to think that extrinsic signaling can lead to epigenetic remodeling, just as it can lead to changes in gene expression through the activation or repression of different transcription factors. Interestingly, little direct data is available concerning the specific signals that influence the epigenome, and the majority of current knowledge consist of speculations on plausible candidate regulators of epigenetic remodeling.[5] We will first discuss several major candidates thought to be involved in the induction and maintenance of both embryonic stem cells and their differentiated progeny, and then turn to one example of specific signaling pathways in which more direct evidence exists for its role in epigenetic change.
The first major candidate is Wnt signaling pathway. The Wnt pathway is involved in all stages of differentiation, and the ligand Wnt3a can substitute for the overexpression of c-Myc in the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells.[5] On the other hand, disruption of ß-catenin, a component of the Wnt signaling pathway, leads to decreased proliferation of neural progenitors.
Growth factors comprise the second major set of candidates of epigenetic regulators of cellular differentiation. These morphogens are crucial for development, and include bone morphogenetic proteins, transforming growth factors (TGFs), and fibroblast growth factors (FGFs). TGFs and FGFs have been shown to sustain expression of OCT4, SOX2, and NANOG by downstream signaling to Smad proteins.[5] Depletion of growth factors promotes the differentiation of ESCs, while genes with bivalent chromatin can become either more restrictive or permissive in their transcription.[5]
Several other signaling pathways are also considered to be primary candidates. Cytokine leukemia inhibitory factors are associated with the maintenance of mouse ESCs in an undifferentiated state. This is achieved through its activation of the Jak-STAT3 pathway, which has been shown to be necessary and sufficient towards maintaining mouse ESC pluripotency.[6] Retinoic acid can induce differentiation of human and mouse ESCs[5], and Notch signaling is involved in the proliferation and self-renewal of stem cells. Finally, Sonic hedgehog, in addition to its role as a morphogen, promotes embryonic stem cell differentiation and the self-renewal of somatic stem cells.[5]
The problem, of course, is that the candidacy of these signaling pathways was inferred primarily on the basis of their role in development and cellular differentiation. While epigenetic regulation is necessary for driving cellular differentiation, they are certainly not sufficient for this process. Direct modulation of gene expression through modification of transcription factors plays a key role that must be distinguished from heritable epigenetic changes that can persist even in the absence of the original environmental signals. Only a few examples of signaling pathways leading to epigenetic changes that alter cell fate currently exist, and we will focus on one of them.
Expression of Shh (Sonic hedgehog) upregulates the production of Bmi1, a component of the PcG complex that recognizes H3K27me3. This occurs in a Gli-dependent manner, as Gli1 and Gli2 are downstream effectors of the Hedgehog signaling pathway. In culture, Bmi1 mediates the Hedgehog pathway’s ability to promote human mammary stem cell self-renewal.[7] In both humans and mice, researchers showed Bmi1 to be highly expressed in proliferating immature cerebellar granule cell precursors. When Bmi1 was knocked out in mice, impaired cerebellar development resulted, leading to significant reductions in postnatal brain mass along with abnormalities in motor control and behavior.[8] A separate study showed a significant decrease in neural stem cell proliferation along with increased astrocyte proliferation in Bmi null mice.[9]
In summary, the role of signaling in the epigenetic control of cell fate in mammals is largely unknown, but distinct examples exist that indicate the likely existence of further such mechanisms.
- ^ a b Lister R; et al. (2011). "Hotspots of aberrant epigenomic reprogramming in human induced pluripotent stem cells". Nature. 471 (7336): 68–73. doi:10.1038/nature09798. PMID 21289626.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g h Christophersen NS, Helin K (2010). "Epigenetic control of embryonic stem cell fate". J Exp Med. 207 (11): 2287–95. doi:10.1084/jem.20101438. PMID 20975044.
- ^ a b c Guenther MG, Young RA (2010). "Transcription. Repressive Transcription". Science. 329 (5988): 150–1. doi:10.1126/science.1193995. PMID 20616255.
- ^ a b c Meissner A (2010). "Epigenetic modifications in pluripotent and differentiated cells". Nat Biotechnol. 28 (10): 1079–88. doi:10.1038/nbt.1684. PMID 20944600.
- ^ a b c d e f Mohammad HP, Baylin SB (2010). "Linking cell signaling and the epigenetic machinery". Nat Biotechnol. 28 (10): 1033–8. doi:10.1038/nbt1010-1033. PMID 20944593.
- ^ Niwa H, Burdon T, Chambers I, Smith A (1998). "Self-renewal of pluripotent embryonic stem cells is mediated via activation of STAT3". Genes Dev. 12 (13): 2048–60. doi:10.1101/gad.12.13.2048. PMID 9649508.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Liu S; et al. (2006). "Hedgehog Signaling and Bmi-1 Regulate Self-renewal of Normal and Malignant Human Mammary Stem Cells". Cancer Res. 66 (12): 6063–71. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0054. PMID 16778178.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Leung C; et al. (2004). "Bmi1 is essential for cerebellar development and is overexpressed in human medulloblastomas". Nature. 428 (6980): 337–41. doi:10.1038/nature02385. PMID 15029199.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Zencak D; et al. (2005). "Bmi1 loss produces an increase in astroglial cells and a decrease in neural stem cell population and proliferation". J Neurosci. 25 (24): 5774–83. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3452-04.2005. PMID 15958744.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help)