Search

Abstract Background Neighboring gene pairs in the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae have a tendency to be expressed at the same time. The distribution of histone modifications along chromatin fibers is suggested to be an important mechanism responsible for such coexpression. However, the extent of the contribution of histone modifications to the coexpression of neighboring genes is unclear. Results We investigated the similarity of histone modification between neighboring genes using autocorrelation analysis and composite profiles. Our analysis showed that neighboring genes had similar levels or changes of histone modifications, especially those transcribed in the same direction. The similarities, however, were restricted to 1 or 2 neighboring genes. Moreover, the expression of a gene was significantly correlated with histone modification of its neighboring gene(s), but this was limited to only 1 or 2 neighbors. Using a hidden Markov model (HMM), we found more than 2000 chromatin domains with similar acetylation changes as the cultures changed and a considerable number of these domains covered 2-4 genes. Gene pairs within domains exhibited a higher level of coexpression than random pairs and shared similar functions. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that similar histone modifications occur within only a small local chromatin region in yeast. The modifications generally have an effect on coexpression with only 1 or 2 neighboring genes. Some blocking mechanism(s) might strictly restrain the distribution of histone modifications in yeast.

Abstract Background Recently, a number of high-resolution genome-wide maps of nucleosome locations in S. cerevisiae have been derived experimentally. However, nucleosome positions are determined in vivo by the combined effects of numerous factors. Consequently, nucleosomes are not simple static units, which may explain the discrepancies in reported nucleosome positions as measured by different experiments. In order to more accurately depict the genome-wide nucleosome distribution, we integrated multiple nucleosomal positioning datasets using a multi-angle analysis strategy. Results To evaluate the contribution of chromatin structure to transcription, we used the vast amount of available nucleosome analyzed data. Analysis of this data allowed for the comprehensive identification of the connections between promoter nucleosome positioning patterns and various transcription-dependent properties. Further, we characterised the function of nucleosome destabilisation in the context of transcription regulation. Our results indicate that genes with similar nucleosome occupancy patterns share general transcription attributes. We identified the local regulatory correlation (LRC) regions for two distinct types of nucleosomes and we assessed their regulatory properties. We also estimated the nucleosome reproducibility and measurement accuracy for high-confidence transcripts. We found that by maintaining a distance of ~13 bp between the upstream border of the +1 nucleosome and the transcription start sites (TSSs), the stable +1 nucleosome may form a barrier against the accessibility of the TSS and shape an optimum chromatin conformation for gene regulation. An in-depth analysis of nucleosome positioning in normally growing and heat shock cells suggested that the extent and patterns of nucleosome sliding are associated with gene activation. Conclusions Our results, which combine different types of data, suggest that cross-platform information, including discrepancy and consistency, reflects the mechanisms of nucleosome packaging in vivo more faithfully than individual studies. Furthermore, nucleosomes can be divided into two classes according to their stable and dynamic characteristics. We found that two different nucleosome-positioning characteristics may significantly impact transcription programs. Besides, some positioned-nucleosomes are involved in the transition from stable state to dynamic state in response to abrupt environmental changes.

Abstract Background The nucleosome is the fundamental unit of eukaryotic genomes. Experimental evidence suggests that the genomic DNA sequence and a variety of protein factors contribute to nucleosome positioning in vivo. However, how nucleosome positioning is determined locally is still largely unknown. Results We found that transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) with particular nucleosomal contexts show a preference to reside on specific chromosomes. We identified four typical gene classes associated with distinct regulatory modes of nucleosome positioning, and further showed that they are distinguished by transcriptional regulation patterns. The first mode involves the cooperativity between chromatin remodeling and stable transcription factor (TF)-DNA binding that is linked to high intrinsic DNA binding affinities, evicting nucleosomes from favorable DNA sequences. The second is the DNA-encoded low nucleosome occupancy that is associated with high gene activity. The third is through chromatin remodeling and histone acetylation, sliding nucleosomes along DNA. This mode is linked to more cryptic sites for TF binding. The last consists of the nucleosome-enriched organization driven by other factors that overrides nucleosome sequence preferences. In addition, we showed that high polymerase II (Pol II) occupancy is associated with high nucleosome occupancy around the transcription start site (TSS). Conclusions We identified four different regulatory modes of nucleosome positioning and gave insights into mechanisms that specify promoter nucleosome location. We suggest two distinct modes of recruitment of Pol II, which are selectively employed by different genes.

Abstract Background ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling and the covalent modification of histones play central roles in determining chromatin structure and function. Although several specific interactions between these two activities have been elaborated, the global landscape remains to be elucidated. Results In this paper, we have developed a computational method to generate the first genome-wide landscape of interactions between ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling and the covalent modification of histones in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Our method succeeds in identifying known interactions and uncovers many previously unknown interactions between these two activities. Analysis of the genome-wide picture revealed that transcription-related modifications tend to interact with more chromatin remodelers. Our results also demonstrate that most chromatin remodeling-modification interactions act via interactions of remodelers with both histone-modifying enzymes and histone residues. We also found that the co-occurrence of both modification and remodeling has significantly different influences on multiple gene features (e.g. nucleosome occupancy) compared with the presence of either one. Conclusion We gave the first genome-wide picture of ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling-histone modification interactions. We also revealed how these two activities work together to regulate chromatin structure and function. Our results suggest that distinct strategies for regulating chromatin activity are selectively employed by genes with different properties.

Abstract Background The nucleosome is the fundamental unit of eukaryotic genomes. Its positioning plays a central role in diverse cellular processes that rely on access to genomic DNA. Experimental evidence suggests that the genomic DNA sequence is one important determinant of nucleosome positioning. Yet it is less clear whether the role of the underlying DNA sequence in nucleosome positioning varies across different promoters. Whether different determinants of nucleosome positioning have characteristic influences on nucleosome modulation also remains to be elucidated. Results We identified two typical promoter classes in yeast associated with high or low dependence of nucleosome positioning on the underlying DNA sequence, respectively. Importantly, the two classes have low or high intrinsic sequence preferences for nucleosomes, respectively. The two classes are further distinguished by multiple promoter features, including nucleosome occupancy, nucleosome fuzziness, H2A.Z occupancy, changes in nucleosome positions before and after transcriptional perturbation, and gene activity. Both classes have significantly high turnover rates of histone H3, but employ distinct modes of nucleosome modulation: The first class is characterized by hyperacetylation, whereas the second class is highly regulated by ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling. Conclusion Our results, coupled with the known features of nucleosome modulation, suggest that the two distinct modes of nucleosome modulation selectively employed by different genes are linked with the intrinsic sequence preferences for nucleosomes. The difference in modes of nucleosome modulation can account for the difference in the contribution of DNA sequence to nucleosome positioning between both promoter classes.