4.6 Article

Discrete roles for histone acetylation in human T helper 1 cell-specific gene expression

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 279, Issue 39, Pages 40640-40646

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M407576200

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To better understand the control of T helper (T-H) 1-expressed genes, we compared and contrasted acetylation and expression for three key genes, IFNG, TBET, and IL18RAP and found them to be distinctly regulated. The TBET and the IFNG genes, but not the IL18RAP gene, showed preferential acetylation of histones H3 and H4 during T(H)1 differentiation. Analysis of acetylation of specific histone residues revealed that H3(Lys-9), H4(Lys-8), and H4(Lys-12) were preferentially modified in T(H)1 cells, suggesting a possible contribution of acetylation of these residues for induction of these genes. On the other hand, the acetylation of IL18RAP gene occurred both in T(H)1 and T(H)2 cells with the similar kinetics and on the same residues, demonstrating that selective histone acetylation was not universally the case for all T(H)1-expressed genes. Histone H3 acetylation of IFNG and TBET genes occurred with different kinetics, however, and was distinctively regulated by cytokines. Interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-18 enhanced the histone acetylation of the IFNG gene. By contrast, histone acetylation of the TBET gene was markedly suppressed by IL-4, whereas IL-12 and IL-18 had only modest effects suggesting that histone acetylation during T(H)1 differentiation is a process that is regulated by various factors at multiple levels. By treating Th2 cells with a histone deacetylase inhibitor, we restored histone acetylation of the IFNG and TBET genes, but it did not fully restore their expression in T(H)2 cells, again suggesting that histone acetylation explains one but not all the aspects of T(H)1-specific gene expression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available