Reciprocal transcription factor networks govern tissue-resident ILC3 subset function and identity

Author(s):  
Rémi Fiancette ◽  
Conor M. Finlay ◽  
Claire Willis ◽  
Sarah L. Bevington ◽  
Jake Soley ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. e0178256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Becker ◽  
Philip L. Walker ◽  
Nadège C. Pulgar-Vidal ◽  
Mark F. Belmonte

Epigenomes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Thalheim ◽  
Lydia Hopp ◽  
Hans Binder ◽  
Gabriela Aust ◽  
Joerg Galle

It is generally accepted that epigenetic modifications, such as DNA and histone methylations, affect transcription and that a gene’s transcription feeds back on its epigenetic profile. Depending on the epigenetic modification, positive and negative feedback loops have been described. Here, we study whether such interrelation are mandatory and how transcription factor networks affect it. We apply self-organizing map machine learning to a published data set on the specification and differentiation of murine intestinal stem cells in order to provide an integrative view of gene transcription and DNA, as well as histone methylation during this process. We show that, although gain/loss of H3K4me3 at a gene promoter is generally considered to be associated with its increased/decreased transcriptional activity, such an interrelation is not mandatory, i.e., changes of the modification level do not necessarily affect transcription. Similar considerations hold for H3K27me3. In addition, even strong changes in the transcription of a gene do not necessarily affect its H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 modification profile. We provide a mechanistic explanation of these phenomena that is based on a model of epigenetic regulation of transcription. Thereby, the analyzed data suggest a broad variance in gene specific regulation of histone methylation and support the assumption of an independent regulation of transcription by histone methylation and transcription factor networks. The results provide insights into basic principles of the specification of tissue stem cells and highlight open questions about a mechanistic modeling of this process.


Cell ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan I. Fuxman Bass ◽  
Nidhi Sahni ◽  
Shaleen Shrestha ◽  
Aurian Garcia-Gonzalez ◽  
Akihiro Mori ◽  
...  

Genetics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 214 (2) ◽  
pp. 529-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baohua Li ◽  
Michelle Tang ◽  
Céline Caseys ◽  
Ayla Nelson ◽  
Marium Zhou ◽  
...  

Plants integrate internal and external signals to finely coordinate growth and defense for maximal fitness within a complex environment. A common model suggests that growth and defense show a trade-offs relationship driven by energy costs. However, recent studies suggest that the coordination of growth and defense likely involves more conditional and intricate connections than implied by the trade-off model. To explore how a transcription factor (TF) network may coordinate growth and defense, we used a high-throughput phenotyping approach to measure growth and flowering in a set of single and pairwise mutants previously linked to the aliphatic glucosinolate (GLS) defense pathway. Supporting a link between growth and defense, 17 of the 20 tested defense-associated TFs significantly influenced plant growth and/or flowering time. The TFs’ effects were conditional upon the environment and age of the plant, and more critically varied across the growth and defense phenotypes for a given genotype. In support of the coordination model of growth and defense, the TF mutant’s effects on short-chain aliphatic GLS and growth did not display a simple correlation. We propose that large TF networks integrate internal and external signals and separately modulate growth and the accumulation of the defensive aliphatic GLS.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document