4.7 Article

Using ChIP-chip technology to reveal common principles of transcriptional repression in normal and cancer cells

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 521-532

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.074609.107

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA45250] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [R01 HG003129, HG003129] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK067889, R01 DK067889, R56 DK067889] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared 12 different cell populations, including embryonic stem cells before and during differentiation into embryoid bodies as well as various types of normal and tumor cells to determine if pluripotent versus differentiated cell types use different mechanisms to establish their transcriptome. We first identified genes that were not expressed in the 12 different cell populations and then determined which of them were regulated by histone methylation, DNA methylation, at the step of productive elongation, or by the inability to establish a preinitiation complex. For these experiments, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation using antibodies to H3me3K27, H3me3K9, 5-methyl-cytosine, and POLR2A. We found that (1) the percentage of low expressed genes bound by POLR2A, H3me3K27, H3me3K9, or 5-methyl-cytosine is similar in all 12 cell types, regardless of differentiation or neoplastic state; (2) a gene is generally repressed by only one mechanism; and (3) distinct classes of genes are repressed by certain mechanisms. We further characterized two transitioning cell populations, 3T3 cells progressing from G0/G1 into S phase and mES cells differentiating into embryoid bodies. We found that the transient regulation through the cell cycle was achieved predominantly by changes in the recruitment of the general transcriptional machinery or by post-POLR2A recruitment mechanisms. In contrast, changes in chromatin silencing were critical for the permanent changes in gene expression in cells undergoing differentiation.

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

4.7
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