SUVH1, a Su(var)3–9 family member, promotes the expression of genes targeted by DNA methylation

Transposable elements are found throughout the genomes of all organisms. Repressive marks such as DNA methylation and histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9) methylation silence these elements and maintain genome integrity. However, how silencing mechanisms are themselves regulated to avoid the silencing of genes remains unclear. Here, an anti-silencing factor was identified using a forward genetic screen on a reporter line that harbors a LUCIFERASE (LUC) gene driven by a promoter that undergoes DNA methylation. SUVH1, a Su(var)3–9 homolog, was identified as a factor promoting the expression of the LUC gene. Treatment with a cytosine methylation inhibitor completely suppressed the LUC expression defects of suvh1, indicating that SUVH1 is dispensable for LUC expression in the absence of DNA methylation. SUVH1 also promotes the expression of several endogenous genes with promoter DNA methylation. However, the suvh1 mutation did not alter DNA methylation levels at the LUC transgene or on a genome-wide scale; thus, SUVH1 functions downstream of DNA methylation. Histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4) trimethylation was reduced in suvh1; in contrast, H3K9 methylation levels remained unchanged. This work has uncovered a novel, anti-silencing function for a member of the Su(var)3–9 family that has previously been associated with silencing through H3K9 methylation.

Chromatin structure, histone modifications and DNA methylation regulate gene expression and influence transposon activity. The model plant Arabidopsis has been used to uncover the molecular framework of DNA methylation, which is critical for the regulation of transposon activity and the maintenance of genome integrity. The RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway is responsible for establishing DNA methylation at CG, CHG and CHH contexts (H = A, C, T) and maintaining asymmetric CHH methylation (1,2). METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 (MET1), the plant homolog of mammalian DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1), maintains CG methylation (3,4). The maintenance of CHG methylation requires the plant-specific methyltransferase CHROMOMETHYLASE 3 (CMT3) (3,4). DNA methylation can also be actively erased through demethylation. Four DNA glycosylases involved in DNA demethylation are known (5,6): DME, which functions primarily in the seed (7), and three DME homologs (ROS1, DML2 and DML3) with broader domains of activity in the plant (8–10).

Histone modifications also influence gene expression. Histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) is a well-recognized active mark and is deposited by the SET domain proteins ATX1, ATX2, ATXR3, and ATXR7 in Arabidopsis (11–15). Histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation (H3K9me2) is a repressive mark deposited by homologs of Drosophila Su(var)3–9 in various eukaryotes (16). In Arabidopsis, there are ten Su(var)3–9 homologs, which can be divided into four subgroups: SUVH1, SUVH2, SUVH4 and SUVH5 (17). SUVH4, SUVH5 and SUVH6 belonging to the SUVH4 and SUVH5 subgroups are active H3K9me2 methyltransferases (18,19). SUVH2 and SUVH9 in the SUVH2 subgroup are players in RdDM; they are required for the occupancy of NRPE1, the largest subunit of RNA Polymerase V (Pol V) and a major player in RdDM, at regions with DNA methylation (20,21). No functions have been reported for any of the SUVH1 subgroup proteins, which include SUVH1, SUVH3, SUVH7, SUVH8 and SUVH10 (17).

Although DNA methylation and H3K9me2 largely occur in heterochromatic regions, they are also found in euchromatic regions where genes are located. In fact, when such epigenetic modifications are close to genes, the expression of the nearby genes could be repressed (22–24). This raises the question of how genes with nearby transposable elements can overcome the effects of epigenetic silencing to be expressed. With the goal of identifying negative regulators of gene silencing, a forward genetic screen was performed using a reporter line named YJ11–3F (hereafter referred to as YJ), which harbors a luciferase gene (LUC) driven by a double 35S promoter (d35S), which harbors DNA methylation. A mutation causing decreased luciferase activity was mapped to the SUVH1 locus. Treatment of the YJ and YJ suvh1–1 lines with the cytosine methylation inhibitor 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytidine suppressed the effect of the suvh1–1 mutation, indicating that SUVH1 functions in the DNA methylation pathway. In fact, SUVH1 function was found to be dispensable in the nrpe1 mutant background that is defective in CHH methylation. However, analysis of DNA methylation at the LUC locus as well as at the genome-wide level did not reveal any changes in DNA methylation in suvh1–1; thus, SUVH1 likely functions downstream of DNA methylation. The suvh1–1 mutation led to decreased H3K4me3 levels at SUVH1-targeted loci, but did not affect H3K9me2 levels. The present findings suggest that SUVH1 counteracts the repressive effects of CHH DNA methylation to promote gene expression and reveal an unexpected function of a Su(var)3–9 family member, a function that is opposite to the well-known repressive roles of this family in gene expression.

All tissues used in the present study were from 8- to 10-day-old seedlings, and all Arabidopsis strains were in the Columbia ecotype. The reporter lines LUCH (25) and YJ are in the rdr6–11 mutant background (26). The transgene in LUCH was genotyped as follows. The primer pair tailcR and 9-7-2 gtF was used to amplify the genomic fragment without LUCH insertion and the primer pair tailcR and R1 was used to amplify the LUCH insertion. The YJ transgene was genotyped as follows. The primer pair YJ11–3F_For and YJ11–3F_Rev was used to amplify the genomic fragment without the YJ insertion and the primer pair YJ11–3F_Rev and R1 was used to amplify the YJ insertion.

The suvh1–1 allele was isolated in the YJ background through a genetic mutagenesis screen. This allele was genotyped by PCR amplification using the primer pair SUVH1-NlaIVF and SUVH1-NlaIVR followed by restriction digestion with NlaIV (NEB, R0126S). Only the PCR fragment amplified from wild type can be digested with this enzyme. The suvh1–2 allele (SAIL_11_D02) carrying a T-DNA insertion in the promoter of SUVH1 was ordered from ABRC. This allele was genotyped as follows. The primer pair SUVH1sailLP and SUVH1sailRP was used to amplify the genomic fragment without the T-DNA insertion and the primer pair SUVH1sailRP and Sail-LB1 was used to amplify the T-DNA insertion.

ros1–5, ago4–6 and drd1–12 were isolated in the LUCH background (25) and subsequently introduced into YJ and YJ suvh1–1 through crosses. nrpe1–1 (drd3-1) was described previously (27) and was crossed into YJ and YJ suvh1–1.

LUCH suvh1–1 was obtained through the cross of YJ suvh1–1 to LUCH. Genotyping was carried out as described above to identify plants that are homozygous for the LUCH transgene and suvh1–1 but lack the YJ transgene. YJ suvh1–2 was obtained through a cross between YJ and suvh1–2 followed by genotyping.

All genotyping primer sequences are provided in Supplemental Table S6.

The fold change is equal to 2ΔΔCt. The primers used in the study are listed in Supplemental Table S6.

For luciferase live imaging, 8- to 10-day-old seedlings growing on plates with half-strength Murashige and Skoog (MS) media supplemented with 0.8% agar and 1% sucrose were sprayed with 1 mM luciferin (Promega) in 0.01% Triton X-100. After 5 min incubation in the dark, the plants were placed in a Stanford Photonics Onyx Luminescence Dark Box equipped with a Roper Pixis 1024B camera controlled by the WinView32 software and then imaged with a 1 min exposure time. For 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytodine (Sigma, A3656) treatment, plants were grown in half-strength MS media with 7 μg/ml 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytodine for 2 weeks.

A 1 ml volume of seeds (∼10 000 seeds) was pre-washed with 0.1% Tween 20 for 15 min then treated with 0.2% EMS for 12 h, followed by three washes with 10 ml water for 1 h with gentle agitation. The seeds were planted in soil to obtain M1 plants, which gave M2 seeds. Mutants with reduced LUC activity, based on LUC live imaging, were isolated in the M2 generation. The mutants were backcrossed to the parental line (YJ) two times prior to further analysis.

To identify the mutation responsible for low LUC expression, the mutant was crossed to YJ in the Ler background to generate a mapping population. In the F2 generation, 407 plants showing the low luciferase phenotype were used to narrow the interval that the mutation lies in (see Supplementary Figure S2). The mutation was first positioned close to the marker F7A7 that is located at the top arm of chromosome 5. The mutation was further placed in a 1.5 Mb region between markers F7A7 and MJJ3. A series of five more markers (T32M21, MUK11, MUG13a, MUG13b, K18I23) narrowed down the mutation to a 44 kb region encompassing 11 genes. Sequencing of At5g04940 (SUVH1) revealed a G-to-A mutation resulting in a G-to-E amino acid substitution in the SET domain. Sequences of the mapping primers are provided in Supplemental Table S6.

To generate the SUVH1p:SUVH1–3XFLAG transgene, the SUVH1 genomic region including 1.5 kb of the promoter and the coding region lacking the stop codon was amplified from YJ genomic DNA using the primer pair SUVH1smaI and SUVH1claI (Supplemental Table S6) and cloned into the pJL-Blue entry vector (28). The genomic fragment was then introduced into a binary vector containing a pEG301 (29) backbone and a C-terminal 3XFLAG tag using Gateway® LR Clonase® Enzyme mix (Invitrogen, Cat. 11791-019).

Genomic DNA was extracted using the CTAB method (30), and ribonuclease A (Sigma, R4875-100MG) was used to eliminate RNAs. One hundred nanogram DNA was treated with 2 units of McrBC (New England Biolabs, M0272S) at 37°C for 30 min, and a mix without McrBC was performed in parallel as the control. The mixtures were incubated at 65°C for 20 min to inactivate the McrBC. qPCR was performed using iQ™ SYBR® (Bio-Rad, 170-8880) to quantify the remaining DNA, with the ratio between the McrBC mix and the mix without McrBC as an indicator of the methylation level. The relative DNA levels were equal to the 2ΔCt and ΔCt was equal to the Ct of undigested samples minus the Ct of digested samples.

To generate MethylC-seq libraries, genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, 69104) and quantified using a Qubit fluorometer. One microgram of genomic DNA was sonicated into fragments 100 to 300 bp in length using a Diagenode Bioruptor for four cycles with the following parameters: intensity = high, on = 30 s, off = 30 s and time = 15 min. The sonicated DNA fragments were purified using the PureLink PCR Purification Kit (Invitrogen, K3100–01). End repair was performed at room temperature for 45 min using the End-It™ DNA End-Repair Kit (Epicenter, ER0720), with the replacement of dNTP with a mixture of dATP, dGTP and dTTP. Following the incubation, the Agencourt AMPure XP-PCR Purification system (Beckman Coulter, A63881) was used for DNA purification. 3′-end adenylation was performed at 37°C for 30 min using dATP and Klenow Fragment (3′"5′ exo-) (New England Biolabs, M0212), followed by purification using the Agencourt AMPure XP-PCR Purification system. The purified DNA was ligated with methylated adapters from the TruSeq DNA Sample Preparation Kit (Illumina, FC-121-2001) at 16°C overnight using T4 DNA ligase (New England Biolabs, M0202). The ligation products were purified with AMPure XP beads twice. Less than 400 ng ligated product was used for bisulfite conversion using the MethylCode Kit (Invitrogen, MECOV-50) according to the manufacturer's guidelines, except for the addition of 12 μg carrier RNA (Qiagen, 1068337) to the conversion product before column purification. The final conversion product was amplified using Pfu Cx Turbo (Agilent, 600414) under the following PCR conditions: 2 min at 95°C; 9 cycles of 15 s at 98°C, 30 s at 60°C and 4 min at 72°C; and 10 min at 72°C. The PCR product was purified using AMPure XP beads prior to a 101-cycle sequencing run (single end) on an Illumina HiSeq 2000. The methylome data were deposited into the NCBI database under the accession number GSE64600.

The raw reads that passed the Illumina quality control steps were retained, and duplicated reads were removed prior to mapping. The reads were mapped to the TAIR10 genome using BS Seeker (31), and in-house R and Perl scripts were employed to convert the BS Seeker-aligned reads to every cytosine. DMRs (differentially methylated regions) were calculated according to previously described methodology (3). The Arabidopsis genome was divided into 100 bp windows, and the methylation level at each window was calculated separately. The methylation level was defined as the number of methylated cytosines sequenced divided by the total number of cytosines sequenced. To avoid skew caused by few cytosines and low coverage, only windows with at least four cytosines covered by at least four reads each were counted. Windows with an absolute methylation difference greater than 0.4 (CG), 0.2 (CHG) and 0.1 (CHH) and an adjusted P-value (FDR) < 0.01 (Fisher's exact test) were considered DMRs. Only DMRs identified from both replicates of YJ and YJ suvh1–1 were considered suvh1 DMRs.

ChIP was performed as previously described (32) using H3K4me3 (abcam, ab8580), H3K4me2 (abcam, ab7766), H3K4me1 (abcam, ab8895) and H3K9me2 (abcam, ab1220) antibodies. qPCR was performed using iQ™ SYBR® (Bio-Rad, 170-8880) to quantify the DNA. The %input was equal to the 2ΔCt times 100 and divided by the dilution of the input. ΔCt was equal to the Ct of input samples minus the Ct of samples with antibodies.

Ten-day-old seedlings from YJ and YJ suvh1–1 were collected for RNA extraction using Trizol (Invitrogen, 15596–018), and the extracted RNA was treated with DNase I (Roche, 04716728001). Two micrograms of the DNase I-treated RNA and the TruSeq RNA Sample Preparation Kit v2 (Illumina, FC-122-1002) were used for library construction. The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 and the data were deposited into the NCBI database under the accession number GSE64600.

The raw reads that passed the Illumina quality control steps were collapsed into a set of non-redundant reads. These non-redundant reads were mapped to the TAIR10 Arabidopsis genome using TopHat v2.0.4 with default settings (33). For the quantification of a given gene or window, reads whose 5′ ends were within the gene or window were counted. The fold change was calculated using the RPKM-normalized read values, and the p-value was calculated based on the Poisson distribution (34).

The SUVH protein sequences from Arabidopsis thaliana were downloaded from TAIR (35). The SUVH protein sequences from Amborella trichopoda were obtained from the Amborella Genome Database (36) and the sequences from Oryza sativa, Selaginella moellendorffii, and Physcomitrella patens were obtained from the Phytozome website (37). The phylogenetic analysis of SUVH protein sequences was carried out using MEGA 6 with the alignment parameter of Muscle and the tree building parameter of Maximum Likelihood (38).

To identify new factors in DNA methylation and transcriptional gene silencing, particularly negative factors, two reporter lines with a LUC gene driven by the dual cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (d35S) were employed in our lab in forward genetic screens. To avoid the posttranscriptional silencing of the transgenes, both transgenes were introduced into the rdr6–11 background (26). In one reporter line, named LUCH, a single copy of T-DNA was inserted into the 3′ UTR of AT3G07350 (25). In LUCH, high levels of DNA methylation and small RNAs are present at the d35S promoter and LUC expression is strongly de-repressed by decreased DNA methylation in RdDM mutants such as ago4, drd1, nrpe1 and drm2, and further repressed by increased DNA methylation in a ros1 mutant (25).

The other line is YJ, which has not been described before. YJ also harbors a LUC transgene driven by a d35S promoter. Genetic segregation analysis showed that the T-DNA in YJ was inserted into a single genomic locus. Through TAIL-PCR, we found that the T-DNA in YJ was inserted into the 3′ UTR of AT1G02740. To determine the copy number of the LUC transgene in YJ, qPCR was carried out to measure the relative LUC DNA levels in YJ and LUCH. As shown in Supplementary Figure S1A, the DNA levels of LUC were similar in YJ and LUCH. Based on the fact that LUCH is a single copy T-DNA insertion (25), we conclude that YJ is also likely a single copy T-DNA insertion. The DNA methylation level at the LUC transgene in YJ was analyzed using a qPCR-based assay. DNA was digested or not by the restriction enzyme McrBC that cleaves methylated DNA, and real-time PCR was performed. Less PCR amplification is expected at hypermethylated regions following McrBC treatment. This analysis showed that DNA methylation was present at the d35S promoter but not at the LUC coding region in YJ (Supplementary Figure S1B).

Despite the presence of DNA methylation at the d35S promoter in YJ, LUC expression levels were much higher in YJ than in LUCH (Supplementary Figure S1C). When YJ and LUCH were grown on media containing the cytosine methylation inhibitor 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytidine, LUC expression was increased by five- and 28-fold, respectively (Supplementary Figures S1D and S1E), suggesting that the LUC transgene in both reporter lines is under repression by DNA methylation.

The YJ line was treated with ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) for a forward genetic screen that aimed to identify negative factors in DNA methylation or transcriptional gene silencing. A mutant exhibiting reduced luciferase luminescence was isolated, and RT-qPCR confirmed the reduced expression of the transgene (Figure 1A, YJ versus YJ suvh1–1). Traditional map-based cloning (Supplementary Figure S2) revealed a G-to-A mutation that caused a G-to-E substitution in the SET domain of SUVH1 (Figure 1B) and this mutation was named suvh1–1. In addition, we ordered a suvh1 mutant with a T-DNA insertion in the promoter of SUVH1 and named it suvh1–2. The expression of SUVH1 was greatly reduced in suvh1–2 as determined by RT-qPCR (Supplementary Figure S1F). The suvh1–2 allele was introduced into the YJ line through crosses to generate YJ suvh1–2. As in YJ suvh1–1, both luciferase luminescence and LUC transcript levels were reduced in YJ suvh1–2 as compared to YJ (Figure 1A). A wild-type SUVH1 genomic fragment introduced into YJ suvh1–1 completely rescued the reduced LUC expression in 19 out of 20 T1 transgenic lines (Figure 1A, data not shown). All these results confirmed that loss or reduction of function in SUVH1 led to a decrease in LUC expression in YJ. The equal expression of SUVH1 in YJ and YJ suvh1–1 (Supplementary Figure S1F) indicated that the suvh1–1 mutation affects SUVH1 function at the protein level. The introduction of the suvh1–1 mutation into LUCH also led to decreased luciferase luminescence and reduced LUC transcript levels (Figure 1C); thus, the suvh1–1 mutation decreased LUC expression in both the YJ and LUCH backgrounds. These studies show that SUVH1 is required for the expression of two transgenes. This was unexpected as three other SUVH genes, SUVH4, SUVH5, and SUVH6 belonging to another subgroup of Arabidopsis Su(var)3–9 homologs, are required for transcriptional gene silencing (18,19,39–41).

Characterization of suvh1 mutants. (A) The suvh1–1 mutation led to decreased expression of the luciferase gene (LUC) in the YJ background. (Left panel) LUC luminescence of 8-day-old YJ, YJ suvh1–1, YJ suvh1–2 and YJ SUVH1 seedlings grown on MS media. (Right panel) RT-qPCR revealed decreased LUC transcript levels in the suvh1 mutants in the YJ background. ‘YJ SUVH1’ indicates the YJ SUVH1p:SUVH1–3XFLAG suvh1–1 line. In YJ SUVH1, the phenotype of the YJ suvh1–1 mutant was rescued by the transgene containing a wild-type SUVH1 genomic region and a 3XFLAG tag at the C-terminus of SUVH1. (B) A diagram of the SUVH1 protein and the substitution caused by the suvh1–1 mutation. The SUVH1 protein contains an SRA domain, a Pre-SET domain and a SET domain. The G-to-E substitution caused by suvh1–1 occurs in the SET domain. (C) The suvh1–1 mutation led to decreased LUC expression in the LUCH background. (Left panel) LUC luminescence of 8-day-old LUCH and LUCH suvh1–1 seedlings grown on half-strength MS media. (Right panel) RT-qPCR showed decreased LUC expression in the suvh1–1 mutant in the LUCH background. (D–E) The effects of suvh1–1 on LUC expression were suppressed by 5-Aza-2′-deoxycidine treatment in both the YJ (D) and LUCH (E) backgrounds. (Left panels) LUC luminescence of seedlings grown on half-strength MS media containing 7 μg/ml 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytidine for 14 days for YJ and YJ suvh1–1 (D) and LUCH and LUCH suvh1–1 (E). (Right panels) RT-qPCR showed rescued LUC transcript levels in the treated seedlings. Error bars in (A–E) represent standard deviation from three biological replicates.

To determine whether SUVH1 regulates LUC expression through the DNA methylation pathway, LUC expression levels were analyzed in YJ suvh1–1, LUCH suvh1–1 and control plants (YJ and LUCH, respectively) treated with the cytosine methylation inhibitor 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytidine (5-Aza-dC). Luminescence imaging and RT-qPCR revealed that the decreases in LUC expression observed with suvh1–1 were completely eliminated in both the YJ and LUCH backgrounds following the chemical treatment (Figure 1D and E). Therefore, eliminating the DNA methylation of the LUC reporter genes completely suppressed the suvh1–1 molecular phenotype, suggesting that SUVH1 functions through the DNA methylation pathway.

The next question addressed was whether the suvh1–1 mutation leads to increased DNA methylation. First, the DNA methylation level at the LUC transgene was analyzed using McrBC-qPCR. Surprisingly, despite the drastic decrease in LUC expression in both YJ suvh1–1 and LUCH suvh1–1 (Figure 1A and C), no differences were observed for the methylation levels at the d35S promoter when comparing YJ to YJ suvh1–1 or LUCH to LUCH suvh1–1 (Figure 2A and B). For the LUC coding region, methylation was nearly absent in YJ and low in LUCH, and increased DNA methylation was not observed in the suvh1–1 background (Figure 2A and B). To further assess whether SUVH1 influences DNA methylation levels, MethylC-seq was performed to interrogate the status of DNA methylation on the genomic scale. Two biological replicates were performed for YJ and YJ suvh1–1; the bisulfite conversion efficiency and coverage are listed in Supplemental Tables S1 and S2. No methylation level differences were observed at either the highly methylated d35S promoter or the unmethylated LUC coding region when comparing YJ and YJ suvh1–1 (Figure 2C and D). These results confirmed that the decreased LUC expression observed in the suvh1–1 mutant was not attributable to increased DNA methylation, indicating that SUVH1 functions downstream of DNA methylation.

The suvh1–1 mutation does not affect DNA methylation. (A and B) McrBC-qPCR analysis of DNA methylation levels at the d35S promoter and the LUC coding region in YJ (A) and LUCH (B). qPCR was performed using genomic DNA treated with or without McrBC. The relative levels of amplified DNA for UBQ5, LUC and d35S in samples treated with McrBC compared to untreated samples were shown. Error bars were from three technical replicates. Two biological replicates were performed and gave similar results. (C and D) The levels of CG, CHG and CHH DNA methylation at the d35S promoter (C) and LUC coding region (D) in YJ and YJ suvh1–1 as determined through MethylC sequencing. Results from two biological replicates (rep) are shown. (E) Total genomic CG, CHG and CHH DNA methylation in YJ and YJ suvh1–1 as determined through MethylC-seq. Results from two biological replicates (rep) are shown.

We next examined whether SUVH1 influences DNA methylation at endogenous loci. No significant changes in the levels of DNA methylation on the genome-wide scale were found when comparing YJ and YJ suvh1–1 (Figure 2E). To determine whether SUVH1 influences DNA methylation at a subset of genomic loci, differentially methylated regions (DMRs) between YJ and YJ suvh1–1 were identified. There were 144, 4 and 314 CG, CHG and CHH DMRs, respectively, with reduced DNA methylation, and 274, 80 and 276 CG, CHG and CHH DMRs, respectively, with increased DNA methylation in YJ suvh1–1 as compared to YJ. In light of the total number of regions analyzed (1196682 regions, of which 252111, 136201 and 142622 are CG, CHG and CHH methylated regions, respectively), the possibility that the identified DMRs reflected random noise was considered. Specifically, the DMRs obtained in the present study were compared to the DMRs previously reported (3) to identify overlapping DMRs. In the published study, a suvh1 mutant with a T-DNA insertion (SALK_003675) in an exon of SUVH1 was used. The analysis eliminated most of the DMRs identified in the present study, leaving only 12, 1 and 10 hypo CG, CHG and CHH DMRs, respectively, and 10, 16 and 66 hyper CG, CHG and CHH DMRs, respectively, common in the two suvh1 mutants. Moreover, correlation analysis of the methylation levels in YJ and YJ suvh1–1 was performed. As shown in Supplementary Figure S3, there was a tight linear correlation between YJ and YJ suvh1–1 when levels of methylated CG, CHG and CHH were examined. Taken together, the McrBC-qPCR and methylome profiling data indicate that SUVH1 does not affect DNA methylation levels either at the LUC transgene or on a genome-wide scale. Thus, the effect of SUVH1 on LUC expression probably reflects its activity downstream of DNA methylation.

Because SUVH1 encodes a member of the H3K9me2 methyltransferase family, the effect of the suvh1–1 mutation on H3K9me2 levels was analyzed by chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays. In YJ, H3K9me2 modifications were detected at the d35S promoter but not at the LUC coding region (Figure 3A). The suvh1–1 mutation did not result in any changes in H3K9me2 levels at the d35S promoter or the LUC coding region (Figure 3A). These findings indicate that SUVH1, unlike its homologs SUVH4, 5 and 6, is not a factor in the H3K9me2 pathway. The active histone methylation mark (H3K4me3) was also analyzed at the LUC transgene. As shown in Figure 3B, no differences were observed in the d35S promoter region, but there was a consistent decrease in the LUC coding region in suvh1–1. In Arabidopsis, there are four genes with known roles in the deposition of H3K4me3, including ATX1 (42), ATX2 (14), ATXR3 (13) and ATXR7 (15). To determine whether the decreased H3K4me3 levels in YJ suvh1–1 were a result of decreased expression of these genes, the expression of the four genes was determined in YJ and YJ suvh1–1. As shown in Figure 3C, the suvh1–1 mutation did not affect the expression of these four genes.

Analysis of histone methylation marks and expression of known H3K4 methyltransferase genes in suvh1–1. (A and B) ChIP-qPCR was performed to measure H3K9me2 (A) and H3K4me3 (B) levels in YJ and YJ suvh1–1. The UBQ5 gene was included as a control. No changes in H3K9me2 levels were observed at the transgene in the two genotypes. Reduced H3K4me3 levels were observed in YJ suvh1–1 at the LUC coding region but not at the d35S promoter. * Significant difference with a P-value

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Stroud H. Greenberg M.V. Feng S. Bernatavichute Y.V. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Chan S.W. Henderson I.R. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Morales-Ruiz T. Ortega-Galisteo A.P. Ponferrada-Marin M.I. Martinez-Macias M.I. Ariza R.R. Roldan-Arjona T.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Penterman J. Zilberman D. Huh J.H. Ballinger T. Henikoff S. Fischer R.L.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Choi Y.H. Gehring M. Johnson L. Hannon M. Harada J.J. Goldberg R.B. Jacobsen S.E. Fischer R.L.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Gong Z. Morales-Ruiz T. Ariza R.R. Roldan-Arjona T. David L. Zhu J.K.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Lister R. O'Malley R.C. Tonti-Filippini J. Gregory B.D. Berry C.C. Millar A.H. Ecker J.R.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Ortega-Galisteo A.P. Morales-Ruiz T. Ariza R.R. Roldan-Arjona T.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Alvarez-Venegas R. Avramova Z.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Berr A. McCallum E.J. Menard R. Meyer D. Fuchs J. Dong A. Shen W.H.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Guo L. Yu Y.C. Law J.A. Zhang X.Y.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Saleh A. Alvarez-Venegas R. Yilmaz M. Le O. Hou G. Sadder M. Al-Abdallat A. Xia Y. Lu G. Ladunga I. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Tamada Y. Yun J.Y. Woo S.C. Amasino R.M.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Rea S. Eisenhaber F. O'Carroll D. Strahl B.D. Sun Z.W. Schmid M. Opravil S. Mechtler K. Ponting C.P. Allis C.D. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Naumann K. Fischer A. Hofmann I. Krauss V. Phalke S. Irmler K. Hause G. Aurich A.C. Dorn R. Jenuwein T. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Ebbs M.L. Bender J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Jackson J.P. Lindroth A.M. Cao X. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Johnson L.M. Du J. Hale C.J. Bischof S. Feng S. Chodavarapu R.K. Zhong X. Marson G. Pellegrini M. Segal D.J. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Liu Z.W. Shao C.R. Zhang C.J. Zhou J.X. Zhang S.W. Li L. Chen S. Huang H.W. Cai T. He X.J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Henderson I.R. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Liu J. He Y. Amasino R. Chen X.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Soppe W.J. Jacobsen S.E. Alonso-Blanco C. Jackson J.P. Kakutani T. Koornneef M. Peeters A.J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Won S.Y. Li S. Zheng B. Zhao Y. Li D. Zhao X. Yi H. Gao L. Dinh T.T. Chen X.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Peragine A. Yoshikawa M. Wu G. Albrecht H.L. Poethig R.S.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Kanno T. Huettel B. Mette M.F. Aufsatz W. Jaligot E. Daxinger L. Kreil D.P. Matzke M. Matzke A.J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Yant L. Mathieu J. Dinh T.T. Ott F. Lanz C. Wollmann H. Chen X. Schmid M.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Earley K.W. Haag J.R. Pontes O. Opper K. Juehne T. Song K. Pikaard C.S.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Rogers S.O. Bendich A.J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Chen P.Y. Cokus S.J. Pellegrini M.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Gendrel A.V. Lippman Z. Martienssen R. Colot V.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Kim D. Pertea G. Trapnell C. Pimentel H. Kelley R. Salzberg S.L.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Marioni J.C. Mason C.E. Mane S.M. Stephens M. Gilad Y.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Lamesch P. Berardini T.Z. Li D. Swarbreck D. Wilks C. Sasidharan R. Muller R. Dreher K. Alexander D.L. Garcia-Hernandez M. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

WorldCat

Goodstein D.M. Shu S. Howson R. Neupane R. Hayes R.D. Fazo J. Mitros T. Dirks W. Hellsten U. Putnam N. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Tamura K. Stecher G. Peterson D. Filipski A. Kumar S.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Ebbs M.L. Bartee L. Bender J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Malagnac F. Bartee L. Bender J.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Stroud H. Do T. Du J. Zhong X. Feng S. Johnson L. Patel D.J. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Alvarez-Venegas R. Pien S. Sadder M. Witmer X. Grossniklaus U. Avramova Z.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Wierzbicki A.T. Ream T.S. Haag J.R. Pikaard C.S.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Wierzbicki A.T. Haag J.R. Pikaard C.S.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Agius F. Kapoor A. Zhu J.K.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Feng S. Cokus S.J. Zhang X. Chen P.Y. Bostick M. Goll M.G. Hetzel J. Jain J. Strauss S.H. Halpern M.E. et al. 

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Rajakumara E. Law J.A. Simanshu D.K. Voigt P. Johnson L.M. Reinberg D. Patel D.J. Jacobsen S.E.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Fournier A. Sasai N. Nakao M. Defossez P.A.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Jones P.L. Jan Veenstra G.C. Wade P.A. Vermaak D. Kass S.U. Landsberger N. Strouboulis J. Wolffe A.P.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Nan X. Ng H.-H. Johnson C.A. Laherty C.D. Turner B.M. Eisenman R.N. Bird A.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Fuks F. Hurd P.J. Wolf D. Nan X. Bird A.P. Kouzarides T.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Zhang Y. Ng H.-H. Erdjument-Bromage H. Tempst P. Bird A. Reinberg D.

Google Scholar

WorldCat

Zemach A. McDaniel I.E. Silva P. Zilberman D.

Google Scholar

WorldCat