4.8 Article

Regional centromeres in the yeast Candida lusitaniae lack pericentromeric heterochromatin

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1508749112

关键词

centromere; heterochromatin; Candida; CSE4; Sir2

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [MCB-1121569]
  2. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1306862] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Point centromeres are specified by a short consensus sequence that seeds kinetochore formation, whereas regional centromeres lack a conserved sequence and instead are epigenetically inherited. Regional centromeres are generally flanked by heterochromatin that ensures high levels of cohesin and promotes faithful chromosome segregation. However, it is not known whether regional centromeres require pericentromeric heterochromatin. In the yeast Candida lusitaniae, we identified a distinct type of regional centromere that lacks pericentromeric heterochromatin. Centromere locations were determined by ChIP-sequencing of two key centromere proteins, Cse4 and Mif2, and are consistent with bioinformatic predictions. The centromeric DNA sequence was unique for each chromosome and spanned 4-4.5 kbp, consistent with regional epigenetically inherited centromeres. However, unlike other regional centromeres, there was no evidence of pericentromeric heterochromatin in C. lusitaniae. In particular, flanking genes were expressed at a similar level to the rest of the genome, and a URA3 reporter inserted adjacent to a centromere was not repressed. In addition, regions flanking the centromeric core were not associated with hypoacetylated histones or a sirtuin deacetylase that generates heterochromatin in other yeast. Interestingly, the centromeric chromatin had a distinct pattern of histone modifications, being enriched for methylated H3K79 and H3R2 but lacking methylation of H3K4, which is found at other regional centromeres. Thus, not all regional centromeres require flanking heterochromatin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据