4.8 Article

RBBP4 is an epigenetic barrier for the induced transition of pluripotent stem cells into totipotent 2C-like cells

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 11, 页码 5414-5431

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkad219

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular totipotency is established through activation of transposable elements (TEs) critical for embryonic totipotency. The histone chaperone RBBP4, but not RBBP7, plays an indispensable role in maintaining the identity of mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). RBBP4 binds to endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and regulates heterochromatin formation through the recruitment of G9a, KAP1, and CHD4, thereby preventing the activation of TEs and cell fate transition from pluripotency to totipotency.
Cellular totipotency is critical for whole-organism generation, yet how totipotency is established remains poorly illustrated. Abundant transposable elements (TEs) are activated in totipotent cells, which is critical for embryonic totipotency. Here, we show that the histone chaperone RBBP4, but not its homolog RBBP7, is indispensable for maintaining the identity of mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). Auxin-induced degradation of RBBP4, but not RBBP7, reprograms mESCs to the totipotent 2C-like cells. Also, loss of RBBP4 enhances transition from mESCs to trophoblast cells. Mechanistically, RBBP4 binds to the endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) and functions as an upstream regulator by recruiting G9a to deposit H3K9me2 on ERVL elements, and recruiting KAP1 to deposit H3K9me3 on ERV1/ERVK elements, respectively. Moreover, RBBP4 facilitates the maintenance of nucleosome occupancy at the ERVK and ERVL sites within heterochromatin regions through the chromatin remodeler CHD4. RBBP4 depletion leads to the loss of the heterochromatin marks and activation of TEs and 2C genes. Together, our findings illustrate that RBBP4 is required for heterochromatin assembly and is a critical barrier for inducing cell fate transition from pluripotency to totipotency.

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