Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why Submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Life Science Alliance
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research
  • My alerts
Life Science Alliance

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why Submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Follow lsa Template on Twitter
Research Article
Transparent Process
Open Access

Sufficiency analysis of estrogen responsive enhancers using synthetic activators

View ORCID ProfileMatthew Ginley-Hidinger, Julia B Carleton, Adriana C Rodriguez, Kristofer C Berrett, View ORCID ProfileJason Gertz  Correspondence email
Matthew Ginley-Hidinger
1Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew Ginley-Hidinger
Julia B Carleton
1Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
3Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adriana C Rodriguez
1Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
3Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristofer C Berrett
1Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
3Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason Gertz
1Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
3Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jason Gertz
  • For correspondence: jay.gertz@hci.utah.edu
Published 30 September 2019. DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900497
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. Targeting multiple ERBSs with synthetic activators can activate gene expression.

    (A) Cartoon depicting the targeting of multiple ERBSs in combination to study combinatorial effects on gene expression. (B) Relative locations of ERBSs (blue), ERBS-adjacent regions (red), and genes (green) tested in this study. (C–F) Targeting all 12 ERBSs in combination with dCas9-vp16(10x) (red) or dCas9-p300(core) (green) activated gene expression at MMP17 (C), CISH (D), FHL2 (E), and HES2 (F) to levels that are comparable with an 8-h E2 treatment (light gray). Targeting all ERBSs had significantly higher activation than targeting ERBS-adjacent regions, which is not significantly different than controls that target the IL1RN promoter. Error bars represent SEM. P-values are calculated with respect to control using a one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons (*P-value < 0.05, **P-value < 0.01, ***P-value < 0.001).

  • Figure S1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S1. dCas9-activator constructs can activate gene expression (related to Fig 1).

    (A) A schematic shows dCas9-p300(core) and dCas9-VP16(10x) constructs used in this study. (B) IL1RN activation is induced by targeting either dCas9-p300(core) or dCas9-VP16(10x) to the IL1RN promoter. Error bars represent SEM. (C) Activation from simultaneously targeting all three ERBSs near target genes induces activation to a level correlated with an 8-h estrogen induction.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. Targeting dCas9-activator constructs is specific and induces H3K27ac.

    (A, B) The relative HA ChIP-seq signal, an epitope tag on dCas9, is shown for all targeted ERBSs (A) and adjacent regions (B) and compared with non-targeted controls. Points indicate individual replicates and error bars represent SEM. (C) The fold change induction of H3K27ac ChIP-seq signal across all targeted loci shows no significant difference between dCas9-p300(core) and VP16(10x). (D) H3K27ac was induced at all adjacent regions by dCas9-VP16(10x) and at three of six adjacent regions by dCas9-p300(core). Points indicate individual replicates and error bars represent SEM. (E, F) Browser tracks of H3K27ac induced by targeting ERBSs with dCas9-p300(core), dCas9-VP16(10x), or an 8-h E2 treatment are shown at MMP17 (E) and CISH (F). Numbers on the right of the tracks indicate the track height in non-normalized reads per million.

  • Figure S2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S2. Targeting dCas9-VP16(10x) to ERBSs and adjacent regions is specific and induces H3K27ac at the intended loci (related to Fig 2).

    (A, B) HA ChIP-seq browser tracks show specific targeting of ERBSs (lane 1) and adjacent regions (lane 2) compared with a control with the IL1RN promoter targeted (lane 3) for the CISH locus (A) and MMP17 locus (B). (C) ChIP-seq browser tracks show targeting of dCas9 constructs to the IL1RN promoter (HA—lanes 1 and 2), H3K27ac induced by dCas9-p300(core) (lanes 3 and 4) or dCas9-VP16(10x) (lanes 3 and 5), and RNAPII induced by dCas9-vp16(10x) (lanes 6 and 7). (D, E) H3K27ac ChIP-seq browser tracks for sites targeted by dCas9-p300(core) and dCas9-VP16(10x) show similar histone acetylation as an 8-h estrogen treatment for FHL2 (D) and HES2 (E). (F) Targeting dCas9-p300(core) or dCas9-VP16(10x) to regions adjacent to ERBSs induces H3K27ac. (G) H3K27ac levels before normalization (shown as reads per million) for ERBSs before and after targeting by dCas9-p300(core) (blue/green) or dCas9-VP16(10x) (gray). (H) Limited fold changes in RNAPII levels were observed when targeting individual ERBSs with dCas9-VP16(10x) or dCas9-p300(core).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3. Activation of gene expression by targeting CRISPRa to combinations of enhancers.

    (A–D) (left) The combination of ERBSs targeted by dCas9-VP16(10x) or bound by ER upon E2 treatment are shown in a schematic. (A–D) (right) The relative fold change in expression as measured by qRT-PCR, when compared with control cells with guides targeting the IL1RN promoter, was determined for each combination of ERBSs. Each data point is shown as a blue dot; error bars represent SEM. Pairwise log2 ratios and significance levels are given in Table S1 (Pairwise t test P-values comparing to control: *** < 0.001, ** < 0.01, * < 0.05).

  • Figure S3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S3. Activation from individual ERBSs is specific as well as independent of targeting efficiency and acetylation induced by dCas9-VP16(10x) (related to Figs 2, 3, and 5).

    (A, B) dCas9-VP16(10x) was targeted to ERBSs in clonal cell lines in which individual ERBSs have been deleted. When targeting the deleted site at ERBSs surrounding MMP17 (A) and CISH (B), we do not see activation, confirming specificity of activation. P-values are calculated using a holm adjusted ttest (***P-value < 0.001, **P-value < 0.01, *P-value < 0.05). (C–E) Correlation plots showing relationship between activation by dCas9-p300(core) (teal, C–E) or dCas9-VP16(10x) (red, C–E) and fold change ChIP-seq signal of HA (dCas9) (C) H3K27ac (D) and RNAPII (E). r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4. Thermodynamic modeling reveals little cooperativity between synthetic activator-bound ERBSs.

    (A) Schematic showing the set of modeled parameters. (B–E) Parameters were fit to gene expression data for MMP17, CISH, FHL2, and HES2 (from Fig 3). Plots show the distribution of fitted parameters. Parameter sets were selected if the modeled data correlated with gene expression data within 0.1 of an optimal correlation. Vertical bars represent the mean.

  • Figure S4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S4. Thermodynamic modeling of dCas9-p300(core) shows independence between sites (related to Figs 3 and 4).

    (A–C) Relative fold change expression levels from targeting combinations of ERBSs with dCas9-p300(core) as measured by qRT-PCR for MMP17 (A) CISH (B) and HES2 (C). (D) Correlation between activation by dCas9-VP16(10x) and dCas9-p300(core) at individual ERBSs. (E–G) Parameters of a thermodynamic model were fit to relative expression data from combinatorial activation of ERBSs with dCas9-p300. (E) Interactions between sites at MMP17 remain mostly neutral. (F, G) CISH (F) and HES2 (G) interaction parameters appear bimodal.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5. Sufficiency-necessity comparison shows similar results at individual sites, but differences in cooperation between sites.

    (A) Scatter plot shows relative expression, as measured by z-score, for both activation and interference at individual ERBSs. Z-scores were negated for interference so that a higher score is associated with greater necessity. (B, C) Scatter plots show the parameters of thermodynamic models derived from CRISPRa and Enhancer-i for MMP17 (B) and CISH (C). Parameters are shown as mean ± 95% confidence intervals. (D) Clustered correlation matrix showing Pearson correlations between potential predictors and both dCas9-VP16(10x) activation and dCas9-p300(core) activation. (E) Analysis of relative importance of predictors for activation using the Lindeman, Merenda, and Gold method (see the Materials and Methods section). Importance is normalized to sum to one.

  • Figure S5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S5. Thermodynamic modeling of Enhancer-I shows cooperativity between sites and correlation of predictors with gene activation (related to Figs 4 and 5).

    (A–D) Parameters were fit to relative expression data from combinatorial inhibition of ERBSs with SID(4x)-dCas9-KRAB (Carleton et al, 2017). We see favorable (more negative) interactions between ERBSs 1 and 2 (parameter ⍵1,2) for MMP17 (A), CISH (B), and FHL2 (C). Vertical bars represent the mean. (D) Comparison of modeled parameters from activation to inhibition showing mean fitted parameters in the two studies. We see that the cooperativity of FHL2-1 and FHL2-2 is specific to inhibition, whereas the remaining parameters are relatively similar. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the mean. (E–H) Correlation plots showing relationship between synthetic activation dCas9-p300(core) (teal) or dCas9-VP16(10x) (red) and possible genomic predictors of activation (x-axis).

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Table S1 Pairwise log2 ratio relative expression due to targeting dCas9-VP16(10x) to combinations of ERBSs (related to Fig 3).

  • Table S2 TF binding at ERBSs. 1 = bound, 0 = not bound.

  • Table S3 TF binding at adjacent regions. 1 = bound, 0 = not bound.

  • Table S4 Plasmid construction primers.

  • Table S5 gRNA sequences.

  • Table S6 qRT-PCR Primers.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Life Science Alliance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sufficiency analysis of estrogen responsive enhancers using synthetic activators
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Life Science Alliance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Life Science Alliance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sufficiency analysis of enhancers using synthetic activators
Matthew Ginley-Hidinger, Julia B Carleton, Adriana C Rodriguez, Kristofer C Berrett, Jason Gertz
Life Science Alliance Sep 2019, 2 (5) e201900497; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900497

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Sufficiency analysis of enhancers using synthetic activators
Matthew Ginley-Hidinger, Julia B Carleton, Adriana C Rodriguez, Kristofer C Berrett, Jason Gertz
Life Science Alliance Sep 2019, 2 (5) e201900497; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.201900497
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
Issue Cover

In this Issue

Volume 2, No. 5
October 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Masthead (PDF)
Advertisement

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Data Availability
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Systems & Computational Biology
  • Synthetic Biology
  • Genomics & Functional Genomics

EMBO Press LogoRockefeller University Press LogoCold Spring Harbor Logo

Content

  • Home
  • Newest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Guidelines
  • License, copyright, Fee

Other Services

  • Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • Editors & Staff
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Feedback
  • Licensing and Reuse
  • Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2575-1077
© 2021 Life Science Alliance LLC

Life Science Alliance is registered as a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office and in the European Union Intellectual Property Office.