For a tiny embryo to grow into an entire fruit fly, mouse or human, the correct genes in each cell must turn on and off in precisely the right sequence. This intricate molecular dance produces the many parts of the whole creature, from muscles and skin to nerves and blood.
So what are the underlying principles of how those genes are controlled and regulated?
At the most basic level, scientists know, genes are turned on when an enzyme called RNA polymerase binds to the DNA at the beginning of a gene. The RNA polymerase copies the DNA of the gene into a complementary strand of messenger RNA, which then instructs the cell to make the protein coded for by the gene.
But several years ago, Julia Zeitlinger, Ph.D., now an assistant investigator at the Stowers Institute, made a surprising discovery. The RNA polymerase doesn't just attach to DNA and start copying. Instead, it binds and then pauses, waiting for another signal before it goes to work. In many cases, therefore, the key regulatory step isn't getting the polymerase to the gene, it is re-starting the paused enzyme.
"The dogma was that the recruitment of polymerase is the rate-limiting step," Zeitlinger explains. "Suddenly it was clear that this isn't always true." For many genes, the presence of paused polymerase indicates whether a gene is poised and ready for transcription.
Now, new research by Zeitlinger's lab, described in the December 27, 2012, issue of Cell Reports, has revealed far more about the role of paused RNA polymerase in embryonic development—and turned up another surprise. The Stowers scientists looked for genes with poised polymerase at five separate developmental stages in fruit fly muscle cells, from the very early embryo (the mesoderm) to fully differentiated muscle cells. They also compared the development of muscle cells to that of nerve cells.
Such work hadn't been done before because it requires examining a large number of cells and developing new software programs and methods of analysis. Graduate student Bjoern Gaertner did most of the lab work, while bioinformatician Jeff Johnston performed most of the analysis.
The question was whether genes could switch between having a poised polymerase and having no polymerase at all. The general expectation was that such differences would be found between different cell types. After all, sets of specific genes have to be activated to make muscle or nerve, and thus it might be wise to turn the wrong genes off when the cell type is fully developed.
However, the team found that the pattern of genes with poised polymerase varied depending on the stage of development. "It was surprising that the poised state was regulated over time, rather than by tissue type," says Zeitlinger.
So how then can a single cell give rise to all cell types without turning on the wrong genes? The answer, the new research suggests, is that there are other regulatory mechanisms at work that keep the poised polymerase in check. The team found that this can be accomplished by a family of proteins called the Polycomb group, which has previously been implicated in repressing the poised polymerase.
The Stowers team found that the action of these proteins varies by tissue type and thus can prevent the wrong poised genes from being turned on. Together, these two mechanisms explain how genes during the development of both muscle and nerves can be first poised to be expressed at the right time by paused polymerase, but then only actually activated in the right tissue type.
That's not the whole story, though. Zeitlinger's team also found that some genes don't actually need paused polymerase at all to be turned on. These genes have a distinctive DNA sequence—TATA—in their promoter regions. "What we found is that these promoters work in a fundamentally different way," Zeitlinger says. "It's very exciting."
Given the vast number of data and the complexity of the analysis, "this research took us a long time," says Zeitlinger. There are also many additional questions to be answered, such as what are the biochemical signals that bring the poised polymerase to genes over time.
But the work is bringing unprecedented clarity and detail to the complicated story of gene regulation. And because the researchers were able to show that the same mechanisms are at work in human cells too, the findings could eventually lead to a better understanding of disease. "The bigger vision is being able to understand the biochemical changes in development and map how development actually works," explains Zeitlinger. "And if we understand the cell better, we may be able to better predict what is going to happen in a diseased or cancer cell."
Stowers Institute for Medical Research: http://www.stowers-institute.org
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Pigs ‘edited’ with a warthog gene to resist African swine fever could help spawn GM animal farms in the UK
Mouse House to make naturalist biopic, six years after box-office failure of Creation, starring Paul Bettany
International team spends 10 years making inroads into treatment of bacterium which kills up to half of those it infects
You may not know it, but you probably have some Neanderthal in you. For people around the world, except sub-Saharan Africans, about 1 to 3 percent of their DNA comes from Neanderthals, our close cousins who disappeared roughly 39,000 years ago.
Research at Yale plotted what happened in the brains of two scientists as they held a conversation
From medicines to jet fuel, we have so many reasons to celebrate the microbes we live with every day
Genome sequencing indicates Kennewick Man is Native American, reopening the bitter battle over whether he should be reburied or studied
In the article on the discovery of dinosaurs (They’re back, Review, 6 June) you state: “In Sussex, a local doctor uncovered fragmentary remains of what appeared to be two more species of colossal extinct land reptiles.” You grossly underplay the contribution of Lewes-born Gideon Mantell, geologist and palaeontologist, author and diarist, friend to princes and international scholars as well as local doctor. Mantell not only discovered (aided by his wife) the first remains of the iguanodon in 1824 but named it – as it resembled the tooth of an iguana. This was the first known land dinosaur, Mary Anning having identified the first sea-living dinosaur.Mantell went on to put together more pieces of the jigsaw with extra fossil discoveries. In contrast to Richard Owen, whose models form the basis for the Crystal Palace dinosaurs, Mantell stated correctly that iguanodon would have walked on their back legs, using their forearms to fight or gather food. He did, however, attribute the thumb spike to a nose horn though later corrected this assumption. The Natural History Museum has a display on Gideon and his wife Mary’s contribution as well as the large “Mantell-piece” of Iguanodon fossils that he had on show in his museum in Brighton. He sold it, along with many more priceless items, to the British Museum in 1838. Gideon Mantell’s reputation deserves better than your throwaway remark. Debby MatthewsLewes, East Sussex Continue reading...
Unique triangular hairs help keep Saharan silver ants cool at 70°C by manipulating the physics of light
Most animals wouldn't confront a fearsome predator like a lion. But through sophisticated group work, hyenas launch successful raids