An experimentally validated network of nine haematopoietic transcription factors reveals mechanisms of cell state stability

  1. Judith Schütte
  2. Huange Wang
  3. Stella Antoniou
  4. Andrew Jarratt
  5. Nicola K Wilson
  6. Joey Riepsaame
  7. Fernando J Calero-Nieto
  8. Victoria Moignard
  9. Silvia Basilico
  10. Sarah J Kinston
  11. Rebecca L Hannah
  12. Mun Chiang Chan
  13. Sylvia T Nürnberg
  14. Willem H Ouwehand
  15. Nicola Bonzanni
  16. Marella FTR de Bruijn
  17. Berthold Göttgens  Is a corresponding author
  1. University Hospital Essen, Germany
  2. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  4. Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Australia
  5. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  6. VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract

Transcription factor (TF) networks determine cell type identity by establishing and maintaining lineage-specific expression profiles, yet reconstruction of mammalian regulatory network models has been hampered by a lack of comprehensive functional validation of regulatory interactions. Here, we report comprehensive ChIP-Seq, transgenic and reporter gene experimental data that have allowed us to construct an experimentally validated regulatory network model for haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPCs). Model simulation coupled with subsequent experimental validation using single cell expression profiling revealed potential mechanisms for cell state stabilisation, and also how a leukemogenic TF fusion protein perturbs key HSPC regulators. The approach presented here should help to improve our understanding of both normal physiological and disease processes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Judith Schütte

    Department of Haematology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Huange Wang

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Stella Antoniou

    MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andrew Jarratt

    Division of Molecular Medicine, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nicola K Wilson

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Joey Riepsaame

    MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Fernando J Calero-Nieto

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Victoria Moignard

    Wellcome Trust - Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Silvia Basilico

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sarah J Kinston

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Rebecca L Hannah

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Mun Chiang Chan

    MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sylvia T Nürnberg

    Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Willem H Ouwehand

    Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Nicola Bonzanni

    IBIVU Centre for Integrative Bioinformatics, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Marella FTR de Bruijn

    MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Berthold Göttgens

    Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    bg200@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Amy J Wagers, Harvard University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mice were housed in microisolator cages and provided continuously with sterile food, water, and bedding. All mice were kept in specified pathogen-free conditions, and all procedures were performed according to the United Kingdom Home Office regulations under project licence 70/8406

Version history

  1. Received: September 9, 2015
  2. Accepted: February 12, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 22, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 10, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Schütte 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

  • 3,659
    views
  • 860
    downloads
  • 60
    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. Judith Schütte
  2. Huange Wang
  3. Stella Antoniou
  4. Andrew Jarratt
  5. Nicola K Wilson
  6. Joey Riepsaame
  7. Fernando J Calero-Nieto
  8. Victoria Moignard
  9. Silvia Basilico
  10. Sarah J Kinston
  11. Rebecca L Hannah
  12. Mun Chiang Chan
  13. Sylvia T Nürnberg
  14. Willem H Ouwehand
  15. Nicola Bonzanni
  16. Marella FTR de Bruijn
  17. Berthold Göttgens
(2016)
An experimentally validated network of nine haematopoietic transcription factors reveals mechanisms of cell state stability
eLife 5:e11469.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11469

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11469

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Skander Kazdaghli, Iordanis Kerenidis ... Philip Teare
    Research Article

    Imputing data is a critical issue for machine learning practitioners, including in the life sciences domain, where missing clinical data is a typical situation and the reliability of the imputation is of great importance. Currently, there is no canonical approach for imputation of clinical data and widely used algorithms introduce variance in the downstream classification. Here we propose novel imputation methods based on determinantal point processes (DPP) that enhance popular techniques such as the multivariate imputation by chained equations and MissForest. Their advantages are twofold: improving the quality of the imputed data demonstrated by increased accuracy of the downstream classification and providing deterministic and reliable imputations that remove the variance from the classification results. We experimentally demonstrate the advantages of our methods by performing extensive imputations on synthetic and real clinical data. We also perform quantum hardware experiments by applying the quantum circuits for DPP sampling since such quantum algorithms provide a computational advantage with respect to classical ones. We demonstrate competitive results with up to 10 qubits for small-scale imputation tasks on a state-of-the-art IBM quantum processor. Our classical and quantum methods improve the effectiveness and robustness of clinical data prediction modeling by providing better and more reliable data imputations. These improvements can add significant value in settings demanding high precision, such as in pharmaceutical drug trials where our approach can provide higher confidence in the predictions made.