Maternal H3K27me3-dependent autosomal and X chromosome imprinting
AbstractGenomic imprinting and X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) are classic epigenetic phenomena that involve transcriptional silencing of one parental allele. Germline-derived differential DNA methylation is the best-studied epigenetic mark that initiates imprinting, but evidence indicates that other mechanisms exist. Recent studies have revealed that maternal trimethylation of H3 on lysine 27 (H3K27me3) mediates autosomal maternal allele-specific gene silencing and has an important role in imprinted XCI through repression of maternal Xist. Furthermore, loss of H3K27me3-mediated imprinting contributes to the developmental defects observed in cloned embryos. This novel maternal H3K27me3-mediated non-canonical imprinting mechanism further emphasizes the important role of parental chromatin in development and could provide the basis for improving the efficiency of embryo cloning.
References1.Bartolomei, M. S. & Ferguson-Smith, A. C. Mammalian genomic imprinting. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3, a002592 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
2.Lee, J. T. & Bartolomei, M. S. X-inactivation, imprinting, and long noncoding RNAs in health and disease. Cell 152, 1308–1323 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.Monk, D., Mackay, D. J. G., Eggermann, T., Maher, E. R. & Riccio, A. Genomic imprinting disorders: lessons on how genome, epigenome and environment interact. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 235–248 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.McGrath, J. & Solter, D. Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 37, 179–183 (1984).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.Surani, M. A., Barton, S. C. & Norris, M. L. Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature 308, 548–550 (1984).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.Bartolomei, M. S., Zemel, S. & Tilghman, S. M. Parental imprinting of the mouse H19 gene. Nature 351, 153–155 (1991).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.Barlow, D. P., Stoger, R., Herrmann, B. G., Saito, K. & Schweifer, N. The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the Tme locus. Nature 349, 84–87 (1991).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.Ferguson-Smith, A. C., Cattanach, B. M., Barton, S. C., Beechey, C. V. & Surani, M. A. Embryological and molecular investigations of parental imprinting on mouse chromosome 7. Nature 351, 667–670 (1991).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.DeChiara, T. M., Robertson, E. J. & Efstratiadis, A. Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growth factor II gene. Cell 64, 849–859 (1991).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.Li, E., Beard, C. & Jaenisch, R. Role for DNA methylation in genomic imprinting. Nature 366, 362–365 (1993).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.Barlow, D. P. & Bartolomei, M. S. Genomic imprinting in mammals. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a018382 (2014).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
12.Sanli, I. & Feil, R. Chromatin mechanisms in the developmental control of imprinted gene expression. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 67, 139–147 (2015).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.John, R. M. & Lefebvre, L. Developmental regulation of somatic imprints. Differentiation 81, 270–280 (2011).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.Okae, H. et al. Re-investigation and RNA sequencing-based identification of genes with placenta-specific imprinted expression. Hum. Mol. Genet. 21, 548–558 (2012).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.Okae, H. et al. RNA sequencing-based identification of aberrant imprinting in cloned mice. Hum. Mol. Genet. 23, 992–1001 (2014).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.Borensztein, M. et al. Xist-dependent imprinted X inactivation and the early developmental consequences of its failure. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 24, 226–233 (2017).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
17.Chiba, H. et al. De novo DNA methylation independent establishment of maternal imprint on X chromosome in mouse oocytes. Genesis 46, 768–74 (2008). Together with reference 14, this study demonstrates the presence of germline DNA methylation-independent autosomal and X-chromosomal imprinting.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.Eckersley-Maslin, M. A., Alda-Catalinas, C. & Reik, W. Dynamics of the epigenetic landscape during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 436–450 (2018).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.Inoue, A., Jiang, L., Lu, F. & Zhang, Y. Genomic imprinting of Xist by maternal H3K27me3. Genes Dev. 31, 1927–1932 (2017). This study demonstrates that maternal Xist is repressed by oocyte H3K27me3, thus causing imprinted XCI.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
20.Inoue, A., Jiang, L., Lu, F., Suzuki, T. & Zhang, Y. Maternal H3K27me3 controls DNA methylation-independent imprinting. Nature 547, 419–424 (2017). This study demonstrates that maternal H3K27me3 can serve as a primary imprinting mark.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.Bonthuis, P. J. et al. Noncanonical genomic imprinting effects in offspring. Cell Rep. 12, 979–991 (2015).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.Ferguson-Smith, A. C. Genomic imprinting: the emergence of an epigenetic paradigm. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 565–575 (2011).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.Tucci, V., Isles, A. R., Kelsey, G., Ferguson-Smith, A. C. & Erice Imprinting Group. Genomic imprinting and physiological processes in mammals. Cell 176, 952–965 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.Bourc’his, D., Xu, G. L., Lin, C. S., Bollman, B. & Bestor, T. H. Dnmt3L and the establishment of maternal genomic imprints. Science 294, 2536–2539 (2001).PubMed
Google Scholar
25.Kaneda, M. et al. Essential role for de novo DNA methyltransferase Dnmt3a in paternal and maternal imprinting. Nature 429, 900–903 (2004).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
26.Barau, J. et al. The DNA methyltransferase DNMT3C protects male germ cells from transposon activity. Science 354, 909–912 (2016).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
27.Jain, D. et al. rahu is a mutant allele of Dnmt3c, encoding a DNA methyltransferase homolog required for meiosis and transposon repression in the mouse male germline. PLOS Genet. 13, e1006964 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
28.Watanabe, T. et al. Role for piRNAs and noncoding RNA in de novo DNA methylation of the imprinted mouse Rasgrf1 locus. Science 332, 848–852 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
29.Chotalia, M. et al. Transcription is required for establishment of germline methylation marks at imprinted genes. Genes Dev. 23, 105–117 (2009). This study demonstrates that transcription through a maternally methylated DMR is required for de novo DNA methylation during oogenesis.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
30.Stewart, K. R. et al. Dynamic changes in histone modifications precede de novo DNA methylation in oocytes. Genes Dev. 29, 2449–2462 (2015).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
31.Veselovska, L. et al. Deep sequencing and de novo assembly of the mouse oocyte transcriptome define the contribution of transcription to the DNA methylation landscape. Genome Biol. 16, 209 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
32.Smith, E. Y., Futtner, C. R., Chamberlain, S. J., Johnstone, K. A. & Resnick, J. L. Transcription is required to establish maternal imprinting at the Prader–Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome locus. PLOS Genet. 7, e1002422 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
33.Xu, Q. et al. SETD2 regulates the maternal epigenome, genomic imprinting and embryonic development. Nat. Genet. 51, 844–856 (2019). This study demonstrates the critical role of histone methyltransferase SETD2 in regulating the oocyte epigenome, including the establishment of maternal imprints.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.Ciccone, D. N. et al. KDM1B is a histone H3K4 demethylase required to establish maternal genomic imprints. Nature 461, 415–418 (2009).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.Chen, Z. & Zhang, Y. Role of mammalian DNA methyltransferases in development. Annu. Rev. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-103019-102815 (2019).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.Smith, Z. D. et al. A unique regulatory phase of DNA methylation in the early mammalian embryo. Nature 484, 339–344 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
37.Li, X. et al. A maternal-zygotic effect gene, Zfp57, maintains both maternal and paternal imprints. Developmental Cell 15, 547–557 (2008).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
38.Takahashi, N. et al. ZNF445 is a primary regulator of genomic imprinting. Genes Dev. 33, 49–54 (2019). Together with reference 37, this study demonstrates that the KRAB-containing zinc finger proteins ZFP57 and ZFP445 maintain allelic DNA methylation specifically at ICRs during the global wave of DNA demethylation in early embryos.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
39.Quenneville, S. et al. In embryonic stem cells, ZFP57/KAP1 recognize a methylated hexanucleotide to affect chromatin and DNA methylation of imprinting control regions. Mol. Cell 44, 361–372 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
40.Messerschmidt, D. M. et al. Trim28 is required for epigenetic stability during mouse oocyte to embryo transition. Science 335, 1499–1502 (2012).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.Lee, C. C. et al. The role of N-α-acetyltransferase 10 protein in DNA methylation and genomic imprinting. Mol. Cell 68, 89–103.e7 (2017).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
42.Proudhon, C. et al. Protection against de novo methylation is instrumental in maintaining parent-of-origin methylation inherited from the gametes. Mol. Cell 47, 909–920 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
43.Hanna, C. W. & Kelsey, G. The specification of imprints in mammals. Heredity 113, 176–183 (2014).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
44.Wu, X. & Zhang, Y. TET-mediated active DNA demethylation: mechanism, function and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 517–534 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
45.Yamaguchi, S. et al. Tet1 controls meiosis by regulating meiotic gene expression. Nature 492, 443–447 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
46.Yamaguchi, S., Shen, L., Liu, Y., Sendler, D. & Zhang, Y. Role of Tet1 in erasure of genomic imprinting. Nature 504, 460–464 (2013).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
47.SanMiguel, J. M., Abramowitz, L. K. & Bartolomei, M. S. Imprinted gene dysregulation in a Tet1 null mouse model is stochastic and variable in the germline and offspring. Development 145, dev160622 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
48.Dawlaty, M. M. et al. Combined deficiency of Tet1 and Tet2 causes epigenetic abnormalities but is compatible with postnatal development. Developmental Cell 24, 310–323 (2013).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
49.Bartolomei, M. S., Webber, A. L., Brunkow, M. E. & Tilghman, S. M. Epigenetic mechanisms underlying the imprinting of the mouse H19 gene. Genes Dev. 7, 1663–1673 (1993).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
50.Ferguson-Smith, A. C., Sasaki, H., Cattanach, B. M. & Surani, M. A. Parental-origin-specific epigenetic modification of the mouse H19 gene. Nature 362, 751–755 (1993).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
51.Thorvaldsen, J. L., Duran, K. L. & Bartolomei, M. S. Deletion of the H19 differentially methylated domain results in loss of imprinted expression of H19 and Igf2. Genes Dev. 12, 3693–3702 (1998).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
52.Bell, A. C. & Felsenfeld, G. Methylation of a CTCF-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. Nature 405, 482–485 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
53.Hark, A. T. et al. CTCF mediates methylation-sensitive enhancer-blocking activity at the H19/Igf2 locus. Nature 405, 486–489 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
54.Engel, N., Thorvaldsen, J. L. & Bartolomei, M. S. CTCF binding sites promote transcription initiation and prevent DNA methylation on the maternal allele at the imprinted H19/Igf2 locus. Hum. Mol. Genet. 15, 2945–2954 (2006).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
55.Lleres, D. et al. CTCF modulates allele-specific sub-TAD organization and imprinted gene activity at the mouse Dlk1-Dio3 and Igf2-H19 domains. Genome Biol. 20, 272 (2019). This study investigates how allele-specific TAD formation is involved in imprinted gene activity.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
56.Lee, M. P. et al. Loss of imprinting of a paternally expressed transcript, with antisense orientation to KVLQT1, occurs frequently in Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome and is independent of insulin-like growth factor II imprinting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5203–5208 (1999).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
57.Smilinich, N. J. et al. A maternally methylated CpG island in KvLQT1 is associated with an antisense paternal transcript and loss of imprinting in Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8064–8069 (1999).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
58.Terranova, R. et al. Polycomb group proteins Ezh2 and Rnf2 direct genomic contraction and imprinted repression in early mouse embryos. Developmental Cell 15, 668–679 (2008).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
59.Pandey, R. R. et al. Kcnq1ot1 antisense noncoding RNA mediates lineage-specific transcriptional silencing through chromatin-level regulation. Mol. Cell 32, 232–246 (2008).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
60.Wagschal, A. et al. G9a histone methyltransferase contributes to imprinting in the mouse placenta. Mol. Cell. Biol. 28, 1104–1113 (2008).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
61.Umlauf, D. et al. Imprinting along the Kcnq1 domain on mouse chromosome 7 involves repressive histone methylation and recruitment of Polycomb group complexes. Nat. Genet. 36, 1296–1300 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
62.Lewis, A. et al. Imprinting on distal chromosome 7 in the placenta involves repressive histone methylation independent of DNA methylation. Nat. Genet. 36, 1291–1295 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
63.Fitzpatrick, G. V., Soloway, P. D. & Higgins, M. J. Regional loss of imprinting and growth deficiency in mice with a targeted deletion of KvDMR1. Nat. Genet. 32, 426–431 (2002).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
64.Mancini-Dinardo, D., Steele, S. J., Levorse, J. M., Ingram, R. S. & Tilghman, S. M. Elongation of the Kcnq1ot1 transcript is required for genomic imprinting of neighboring genes. Genes Dev. 20, 1268–1282 (2006).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
65.Schertzer, M. D. et al. lncRNA-induced spread of polycomb controlled by genome architecture, RNA abundance, and CpG island DNA. Mol. Cell 75, 523–537.e10 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
66.Lu, F. et al. Establishing chromatin regulatory landscape during mouse preimplantation development. Cell 165, 1375–1388 (2016). This study describes a low-input DNase I sequencing method and demonstrates that ICRs exhibit allelic chromatin accessibility bias before onset of allelic expression in mouse early embryos.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
67.Zheng, H. et al. Resetting epigenetic memory by reprogramming of histone modifications in mammals. Mol. Cell 63, 1066–1079 (2016).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
68.Mager, J., Montgomery, N. D., de Villena, F. P. & Magnuson, T. Genome imprinting regulated by the mouse polycomb group protein Eed. Nat. Genet. 33, 502–507 (2003).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
69.Liu, X. et al. Distinct features of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 chromatin domains in pre-implantation embryos. Nature 537, 558–562 (2016). Together with reference 67, this study profiles H3K27me3 in mouse development and reveals non-canonical H3K27me3 domains that are unique for oocyte and early embryos.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
70.Chen, Z., Yin, Q., Inoue, A., Zhang, C. & Zhang, Y. Allelic H3K27me3 to allelic DNA methylation switch maintains noncanonical imprinting in extraembryonic cells. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay7246 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
71.Hanna, C. W. et al. Endogenous retroviral insertions drive non-canonical imprinting in extra-embryonic tissues. Genome Biol. 20, 225 (2019). Together with reference 70, this study demonstrates that maintenance of non-canonical imprinting in extra-embryonic cells involves a switch from allelic H3K27me3 to allelic DNA methylation.PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
72.Inoue, A., Chen, Z., Yin, Q. & Zhang, Y. Maternal Eed knockout causes loss of H3K27me3 imprinting and random X inactivation in the extraembryonic cells. Genes Dev. 32, 1525–1536 (2018).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
73.Posfai, E. et al. Polycomb function during oogenesis is required for mouse embryonic development. Genes Dev. 26, 920–932 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
74.Prokopuk, L. et al. Loss of maternal EED results in postnatal overgrowth. Clin. Epigenetics 10, 95 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
75.Du, Z. et al. Polycomb group proteins regulate chromatin architecture in mouse oocytes and early embryos. Mol. Cell 77, 825–839 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
76.He, J., Kallin, E. M., Tsukada, Y. & Zhang, Y. The H3K36 demethylase Jhdm1b/Kdm2b regulates cell proliferation and senescence through p15(Ink4b). Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 1169–1175 (2008).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
77.He, J., Nguyen, A. T. & Zhang, Y. KDM2b/JHDM1b, an H3K36me2-specific demethylase, is required for initiation and maintenance of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 117, 3869–3880 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
78.Wu, X., Johansen, J. V. & Helin, K. Fbxl10/Kdm2b recruits polycomb repressive complex 1 to CpG islands and regulates H2A ubiquitylation. Mol. Cell 49, 1134–1146 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
79.Farcas, A. M. et al. KDM2B links the polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1) to recognition of CpG islands. eLife 1, e00205 (2012).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
80.He, J. et al. Kdm2b maintains murine embryonic stem cell status by recruiting PRC1 complex to CpG islands of developmental genes. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 373–384 (2013).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
81.Boulard, M., Edwards, J. R. & Bestor, T. H. FBXL10 protects Polycomb-bound genes from hypermethylation. Nat. Genet. 47, 479–485 (2015).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
82.Tada, T. et al. Imprint switching for non-random X-chromosome inactivation during mouse oocyte growth. Development 127, 3101–3105 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
83.Nesterova, T. B., Barton, S. C., Surani, M. A. & Brockdorff, N. Loss of Xist imprinting in diploid parthenogenetic preimplantation embryos. Dev. Biol. 235, 343–350 (2001).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
84.Huynh, K. D. & Lee, J. T. Inheritance of a pre-inactivated paternal X chromosome in early mouse embryos. Nature 426, 857–862 (2003).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
85.Okamoto, I. et al. Evidence for de novo imprinted X-chromosome inactivation independent of meiotic inactivation in mice. Nature 438, 369–373 (2005).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
86.Harris, C. et al. Conversion of random X-inactivation to imprinted X-inactivation by maternal PRC2. eLife 8, e44258 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
87.Fukuda, A. et al. The role of maternal-specific H3K9me3 modification in establishing imprinted X-chromosome inactivation and embryogenesis in mice. Nat. Commun. 5, 5464 (2014).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
88.Wang, C. et al. Reprogramming of H3K9me3-dependent heterochromatin during mammalian embryo development. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 620–631 (2018).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
89.Mak, W. et al. Reactivation of the paternal X chromosome in early mouse embryos. Science 303, 666–669 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
90.Okamoto, I., Otte, A. P., Allis, C. D., Reinberg, D. & Heard, E. Epigenetic dynamics of imprinted X inactivation during early mouse development. Science 303, 644–649 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
91.Borensztein, M. et al. Contribution of epigenetic landscapes and transcription factors to X-chromosome reactivation in the inner cell mass. Nat. Commun. 8, 1297 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
92.Payer, B. et al. Tsix RNA and the germline factor, PRDM14, link X reactivation and stem cell reprogramming. Mol. Cell 52, 805–818 (2013).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
93.Navarro, P. et al. Molecular coupling of Tsix regulation and pluripotency. Nature 468, 457–460 (2010).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
94.Navarro, P. et al. Molecular coupling of Xist regulation and pluripotency. Science 321, 1693–1695 (2008).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
95.Yamaji, M. et al. PRDM14 ensures naive pluripotency through dual regulation of signaling and epigenetic pathways in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 12, 368–382 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
96.Williams, L. H., Kalantry, S., Starmer, J. & Magnuson, T. Transcription precedes loss of Xist coating and depletion of H3K27me3 during X-chromosome reprogramming in the mouse inner cell mass. Development 138, 2049–2057 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
97.Lee, J. T., Davidow, L. S. & Warshawsky, D. Tsix, a gene antisense to Xist at the X-inactivation centre. Nat. Genet. 21, 400–404 (1999).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
98.Lee, J. T. Disruption of imprinted X inactivation by parent-of-origin effects at Tsix. Cell 103, 17–27 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
99.Sado, T., Wang, Z., Sasaki, H. & Li, E. Regulation of imprinted X-chromosome inactivation in mice by Tsix. Development 128, 1275–1286 (2001).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
100.Debrand, E., Chureau, C., Arnaud, D., Avner, P. & Heard, E. Functional analysis of the DXPas34 locus, a 3′ regulator of Xist expression. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 8513–8525 (1999).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
101.Ohhata, T., Senner, C. E., Hemberger, M. & Wutz, A. Lineage-specific function of the noncoding Tsix RNA for Xist repression and Xi reactivation in mice. Genes Dev. 25, 1702–1715 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
102.Sado, T. et al. X inactivation in the mouse embryo deficient for Dnmt1: distinct effect of hypomethylation on imprinted and random X inactivation. Dev. Biol. 225, 294–303 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
103.Sado, T., Okano, M., Li, E. & Sasaki, H. De novo DNA methylation is dispensable for the initiation and propagation of X chromosome inactivation. Development 131, 975–982 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
104.Okamoto, I., Tan, S. & Takagi, N. X-chromosome inactivation in XX androgenetic mouse embryos surviving implantation. Development 127, 4137–4145 (2000).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
105.Andergassen, D. et al. Mapping the mouse allelome reveals tissue-specific regulation of allelic expression. eLife 6, e25125 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
106.Peters, J. The role of genomic imprinting in biology and disease: an expanding view. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 517–530 (2014).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
107.Greenberg, M. V. et al. Transient transcription in the early embryo sets an epigenetic state that programs postnatal growth. Nat. Genet. 49, 110–118 (2017). This study demonstrates the important biological functions of a transient germline DMR.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
108.Duffie, R. et al. The Gpr1/Zdbf2 locus provides new paradigms for transient and dynamic genomic imprinting in mammals. Genes Dev. 28, 463–478 (2014).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
109.Matoba, S. et al. Paternal knockout of Slc38a4/SNAT4 causes placental hypoplasia associated with intrauterine growth restriction in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21047–21053 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
110.Miri, K. et al. The imprinted polycomb group gene Sfmbt2 is required for trophoblast maintenance and placenta development. Development 140, 4480–4489 (2013).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
111.Sachs, M. et al. Essential role of Gab1 for signaling by the c-Met receptor in vivo. J. Cell Biol. 150, 1375–1384 (2000).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
112.Klymenko, T. et al. A Polycomb group protein complex with sequence-specific DNA-binding and selective methyl-lysine-binding activities. Genes Dev. 20, 1110–1122 (2006).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
113.Inoue, K. et al. The rodent-specific microRNA cluster within the Sfmbt2 gene is imprinted and essential for placental development. Cell Rep. 19, 949–956 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
114.Itoh, M. et al. Role of Gab1 in heart, placenta, and skin development and growth factor- and cytokine-induced extracellular signal-regulated kinase mitogen-activated protein kinase activation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 3695–3704 (2000).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
115.Matoba, S. et al. Loss of H3K27me3 imprinting in somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos disrupts post-implantation development. Cell Stem Cell 23, 343–354.e5 (2018). This study demonstrates that loss of non-canonical imprinting contributes to placenta defects observed in cloned embryos.CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
116.Matoba, S. & Zhang, Y. Somatic cell nuclear transfer reprogramming: mechanisms and applications. Cell Stem Cell 23, 471–485 (2018).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
117.Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J. & Campbell, K. H. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385, 810–813 (1997).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
118.Inoue, K. et al. Faithful expression of imprinted genes in cloned mice. Science 295, 297 (2002).CAS
Google Scholar
119.Rhon-Calderon, E. A., Vrooman, L. A., Riesche, L. & Bartolomei, M. S. The effects of assisted reproductive technologies on genomic imprinting in the placenta. Placenta 84, 37–43 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
120.de Waal, E. et al. In vitro culture increases the frequency of stochastic epigenetic errors at imprinted genes in placental tissues from mouse concepti produced through assisted reproductive technologies. Biol. Reprod. 90, 22 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
121.Hirose, M. et al. Aberrant imprinting in mouse trophoblast stem cells established from somatic cell nuclear transfer-derived embryos. Epigenetics 13, 693–703 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
122.Inoue, K. et al. Impeding Xist expression from the active X chromosome improves mouse somatic cell nuclear transfer. Science 330, 496–499 (2010). This study demonstrates that aberrant imprinted XCI is a major barrier in SCNT and that impeding Xist expression can greatly improve cloning efficiency.CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
123.Matoba, S. et al. RNAi-mediated knockdown of Xist can rescue the impaired postimplantation development of cloned mouse embryos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20621–20626 (2011).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
124.Monk, D. et al. Limited evolutionary conservation of imprinting in the human placenta. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6623–6628 (2006).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
125.Frost, J. M. & Moore, G. E. The importance of imprinting in the human placenta. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001015 (2010).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
126.Xia, W. et al. Resetting histone modifications during human parental-to-zygotic transition. Science 365, 353–360 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
127.Zhang, W. et al. Maternal-biased H3K27me3 correlates with paternal-specific gene expression in the human morula. Genes Dev. 33, 382–387 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
128.Leng, L. et al. Single-cell transcriptome analysis of uniparental embryos reveals parent-of-origin effects on human preimplantation development. Cell Stem Cell 25, 697–712.e6 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
129.van den Berg, I. M. et al. X chromosome inactivation is initiated in human preimplantation embryos. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 84, 771–779 (2009).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
130.Okamoto, I. et al. Eutherian mammals use diverse strategies to initiate X-chromosome inactivation during development. Nature 472, 370–374 (2011).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
131.Petropoulos, S. et al. Single-cell RNA-Seq reveals lineage and X chromosome dynamics in human preimplantation embryos. Cell 167, 285 (2016).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
132.Moreira de Mello, J. C., Fernandes, G. R., Vibranovski, M. D. & Pereira, L. V. Early X chromosome inactivation during human preimplantation development revealed by single-cell RNA-sequencing. Sci. Rep. 7, 10794 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
133.Patrat, C., Ouimette, J. F. & Rougeulle, C. X chromosome inactivation in human development. Development 147, dev183095 (2020).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
134.Batista, R. A. & Kohler, C. Genomic imprinting in plants—revisiting existing models. Genes Dev. 34, 24–36 (2020).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
135.Klosinska, M., Picard, C. L. & Gehring, M. Conserved imprinting associated with unique epigenetic signatures in the Arabidopsis genus. Nat. Plants 2, 16145 (2016).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
136.Moreno-Romero, J., Del Toro-De Leon, G., Yadav, V. K., Santos-Gonzalez, J. & Kohler, C. Epigenetic signatures associated with imprinted paternally expressed genes in the Arabidopsis endosperm. Genome Biol. 20, 41 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
137.Schuettengruber, B., Bourbon, H. M., Di Croce, L. & Cavalli, G. Genome regulation by polycomb and trithorax: 70 years and counting. Cell 171, 34–57 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
138.Calabrese, J. M., Starmer, J., Schertzer, M. D., Yee, D. & Magnuson, T. A survey of imprinted gene expression in mouse trophoblast stem cells. G3 5, 751–759 (2015).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
139.Engreitz, J. M. et al. Local regulation of gene expression by lncRNA promoters, transcription and splicing. Nature 539, 452–455 (2016).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
140.Bogutz, A. B. et al. Evolution of imprinting via lineage-specific insertion of retroviral promoters. Nat. Commun. 10, 5674 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
141.Horii, T. et al. Successful generation of epigenetic disease model mice by targeted demethylation of the epigenome. Genome Biol. 21, 77 (2020).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
142.Wei, Y. et al. DNA methylation analysis and editing in single mammalian oocytes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9883–9892 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
143.Zenk, F. et al. Germ line-inherited H3K27me3 restricts enhancer function during maternal-to-zygotic transition. Science 357, 212–216 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
144.Rainger, J. et al. Loss of the BMP antagonist, SMOC-1, causes ophthalmo-acromelic (Waardenburg Anophthalmia) syndrome in humans and mice. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002114 (2011).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
145.McCarrey, J. R. et al. X-chromosome inactivation during spermatogenesis is regulated by an Xist/Tsix-independent mechanism in the mouse. Genesis 34, 257–266 (2002).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
146.Lyon, M. F. Gene action in the X-chromosome of the mouse (Mus musculus L.). Nature 190, 372–373 (1961).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
147.Takagi, N. & Sasaki, M. Preferential inactivation of the paternally derived X chromosome in the extraembryonic membranes of the mouse. Nature 256, 640–642 (1975).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
148.Brown, C. J. et al. A gene from the region of the human X inactivation centre is expressed exclusively from the inactive X chromosome. Nature 349, 38–44 (1991).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
149.Penny, G. D., Kay, G. F., Sheardown, S. A., Rastan, S. & Brockdorff, N. Requirement for Xist in X chromosome inactivation. Nature 379, 131–137 (1996).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
150.Dossin, F. et al. SPEN integrates transcriptional and epigenetic control of X-inactivation. Nature 578, 455–460 (2020).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
151.Almeida, M. et al. PCGF3/5-PRC1 initiates Polycomb recruitment in X chromosome inactivation. Science 356, 1081–1084 (2017).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
152.Pintacuda, G. et al. hnRNPK recruits PCGF3/5-PRC1 to the Xist RNA B-repeat to establish Polycomb-mediated chromosomal silencing. Mol. Cell 68, 955–969.e10 (2017).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
153.Colognori, D., Sunwoo, H., Kriz, A. J., Wang, C. Y. & Lee, J. T. Xist deletional analysis reveals an interdependency between Xist RNA and polycomb complexes for spreading along the inactive X. Mol. Cell 74, 101–117.e10 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
154.Zylicz, J. J. et al. The implication of early chromatin changes in X chromosome inactivation. Cell 176, 182–197.e23 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
155.Galupa, R. & Heard, E. X-chromosome inactivation: a crossroads between chromosome architecture and gene regulation. Annu. Rev. Genet. 52, 535–566 (2018).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
156.Jegu, T., Aeby, E. & Lee, J. T. The X chromosome in space. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 377–389 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
157.Gao, Z. et al. PCGF homologs, CBX proteins, and RYBP define functionally distinct PRC1 family complexes. Mol. Cell 45, 344–356 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
158.de Napoles, M. et al. Polycomb group proteins Ring1A/B link ubiquitylation of histone H2A to heritable gene silencing and X inactivation. Developmental Cell 7, 663–676 (2004).PubMed
Google Scholar
159.Wang, H. et al. Role of histone H2A ubiquitination in Polycomb silencing. Nature 431, 873–878 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
160.Wang, L. et al. Hierarchical recruitment of Polycomb group silencing complexes. Mol. Cell 14, 637–646 (2004).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
161.Cao, R. et al. Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb-group silencing. Science 298, 1039–1043 (2002).CAS
Google Scholar
162.Tavares, L. et al. RYBP–PRC1 complexes mediate H2A ubiquitylation at Polycomb target sites independently of PRC2 and H3K27me3. Cell 148, 664–678 (2012).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
163.Morey, L., Aloia, L., Cozzuto, L., Benitah, S. A. & Di Croce, L. RYBP and Cbx7 define specific biological functions of Polycomb complexes in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Rep. 3, 60–69 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
164.Czermin, B. et al. Drosophila enhancer of Zeste/ESC complexes have a histone H3 methyltransferase activity that marks chromosomal polycomb sites. Cell 111, 185–196 (2002).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
165.Kuzmichev, A., Nishioka, K., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P. & Reinberg, D. Histone methyltransferase activity associated with a human multiprotein complex containing the Enhancer of Zeste protein. Genes Dev. 16, 2893–2905 (2002).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
166.Muller, J. et al. Histone methyltransferase activity of a Drosophila Polycomb group repressor complex. Cell 111, 197–208 (2002).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
167.Li, H. et al. Polycomb-like proteins link the PRC2 complex to CpG islands. Nature 549, 287–291 (2017).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
168.Cooper, S. et al. Jarid2 binds mono-ubiquitylated H2A lysine 119 to mediate crosstalk between Polycomb complexes PRC1 and PRC2. Nat. Commun. 7, 13661 (2016).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
169.Fursova, N. A. et al. Synergy between variant PRC1 complexes defines Polycomb-mediated gene repression. Mol. Cell 74, 1020–1036.e8 (2019).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
170.O’Carroll, D. et al. The polycomb-group gene Ezh2 is required for early mouse development. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 4330–4336 (2001).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
171.Akasaka, T. et al. Mice doubly deficient for the polycomb group genes Mel18 and Bmi1 reveal synergy and requirement for maintenance but not initiation of Hox gene expression. Development 128, 1587–1597 (2001).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
172.Moussa, H. F. et al. Canonical PRC1 controls sequence-independent propagation of Polycomb-mediated gene silencing. Nat. Commun. 10, 1931 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
173.Blackledge, N. P., Rose, N. R. & Klose, R. J. Targeting Polycomb systems to regulate gene expression: modifications to a complex story. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 643–649 (2015).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
174.Kuroda, M. I., Kang, H., De, S. & Kassis, J. A. Dynamic competition of polycomb and trithorax in transcriptional programming. Annu. Rev. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-120219-103641 (2020).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsThe authors thank A. Liefeld for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and NIH (R01HD092465). Y.Z. is an Investigator from the HHMI.Author informationAffiliationsHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USAZhiyuan Chen & Yi ZhangProgram in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USAZhiyuan Chen & Yi ZhangDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USAZhiyuan Chen & Yi ZhangDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAYi ZhangHarvard Stem Cell Institute, Boston, MA, USAYi ZhangAuthorsZhiyuan ChenYou can also search for this author in Yi ZhangYou can also search for this author in ContributionsThe authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Yi Zhang.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional informationPeer review informationNature Reviews Genetics thanks G, Kelsey, W. Xie and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.Publisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.GlossaryPronuclear transfer
A technique that involves moving one or both pronuclei (which are formed from the sperm and oocyte genomes shortly after fertilization) from a fertilized one-cell embryo to a different recipient embryo.
DNA methylation
An epigenetic modification in which a methyl group is added to the fifth carbon of a cytosine in a DNA molecule. DNA methylation at gene promoters is generally associated with transcriptional silencing.
Somatic DMRs
Also known as secondary differentially methylated regions (DMRs), somatic DMRs are regions of the genome containing allele-specific DNA methylation that is established after fertilization.
Primordial germ cells
Precursors of the gametes that are specified from the somatic lineage during gastrulation.
4C-seq
A sequencing-based method that allows unbiased detection of all genomic regions that interact with a genomic region of interest.
Topologically associated domain
(TAD). A major form of chromatin organization that represents genomic regions with high frequencies of self-interacting events.
CpG islands
Genomic regions with a high density of CpG dinucleotides. In mammalian genomes, CpG islands usually extend from 200 bp to a few kilobase pairs.
DNase I hypersensitivity sites
(DHSs). Chromatin regions that are less condensed and more sensitive to DNase I enzyme-mediated cleavage than other regions.
Protamines
Basic proteins that replace histones in mature sperm cells and are involved in sperm DNA condensation.
Epiblast
One of the two lineages that are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst. The epiblast contributes to all three primary germ layers. The primitive endoderm, the other lineage derived from the ICM, contributes to the yolk sac.
Parthenogenetic activation
A procedure that mimics sperm stimuli to trigger egg activation to initiate embryo development without the contribution of the paternal genome.
Meiotic sex chromosome inactivation
The process of silencing X and Y chromosomes during the meiotic phase of spermatogenesis.
CHG methylation
DNA methylation typically occurs in a CpG context. In CHG methylation, H correspond to A, T or C, but not G.
About this article
Read More