PHF13 is a molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator of H3K4me2/3

  1. Ho-Ryun Chung
  2. Chao Xu
  3. Alisa Fuchs
  4. Andreas Mund
  5. Martin Lange
  6. Hannah Staege
  7. Tobias Schubert
  8. Chuanbing Bian
  9. Ilona Dunkel
  10. Anton Eberharter
  11. Catherine Regnard
  12. Henrike Klinker
  13. David Meierhofer
  14. Luca Cozzuto
  15. Andreas Winterpacht
  16. Luciano Di Croce
  17. Jinrong Min
  18. Hans Will
  19. Sarah Kinkley  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Germany
  2. Structural Genomics Consortium, Canada
  3. Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Germany
  4. Bayer Pharma AG, Germany
  5. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
  6. Centre for Genomic Regulation, Spain
  7. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany

Abstract

PHF13 is a chromatin affiliated protein with a functional role in differentiation, cell division, DNA damage response and higher chromatin order. To gain insight into PHF13's ability to modulate these processes, we elucidate the mechanisms targeting PHF13 to chromatin, its genome wide localization and its molecular chromatin context. Size exclusion chromatography, mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography and ChIP sequencing demonstrate that PHF13 binds chromatin in a multivalent fashion via direct interactions with H3K4me2/3 and DNA, and indirectly via interactions with PRC2 and RNA PolII. Furthermore, PHF13 depletion disrupted the interactions between PRC2, RNA PolII S5P, H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 and resulted in the up and down regulation of genes functionally enriched in transcriptional regulation, DNA binding, cell cycle, differentiation and chromatin organization. Together our findings argue that PHF13 is an H3K4me2/3 molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator, affording it the ability to impact different chromatin processes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ho-Ryun Chung

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Chao Xu

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alisa Fuchs

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andreas Mund

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Martin Lange

    TRG-ONCI, Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hannah Staege

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tobias Schubert

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Chuanbing Bian

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ilona Dunkel

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anton Eberharter

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Catherine Regnard

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Henrike Klinker

    Adolf-Butenandt-Institute and Center for Integrated Protein Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. David Meierhofer

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Luca Cozzuto

    Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Andreas Winterpacht

    Human Genetics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Luciano Di Croce

    Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jinrong Min

    Structural Genomics Consortium, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Hans Will

    Heinrich-Pette-Institute - Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology, Hamburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Sarah Kinkley

    Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    kinkley@molgen.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jessica K Tyler, Weill Cornell Medicine, United States

Version history

  1. Received: August 4, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 25, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 26, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 27, 2016 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record published: June 21, 2016 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2016, Ho-Ryun et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,463
    views
  • 669
    downloads
  • 23
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ho-Ryun Chung
  2. Chao Xu
  3. Alisa Fuchs
  4. Andreas Mund
  5. Martin Lange
  6. Hannah Staege
  7. Tobias Schubert
  8. Chuanbing Bian
  9. Ilona Dunkel
  10. Anton Eberharter
  11. Catherine Regnard
  12. Henrike Klinker
  13. David Meierhofer
  14. Luca Cozzuto
  15. Andreas Winterpacht
  16. Luciano Di Croce
  17. Jinrong Min
  18. Hans Will
  19. Sarah Kinkley
(2016)
PHF13 is a molecular reader and transcriptional co-regulator of H3K4me2/3
eLife 5:e10607.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10607

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10607

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.