Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Stable Polycomb-dependent transgenerational inheritance of chromatin states in Drosophila

Nature Genetics volume 49, pages 876–886 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TEI) describes the transmission of alternative functional states through multiple generations in the presence of the same genomic DNA sequence. Very little is known about the principles and the molecular mechanisms governing this type of inheritance. Here, by transiently enhancing 3D chromatin interactions, we established stable and isogenic Drosophila epilines that carry alternative epialleles, as defined by differential levels of Polycomb-dependent trimethylation of histone H3 Lys27 (forming H3K27me3). After being established, epialleles can be dominantly transmitted to naive flies and can induce paramutation. Importantly, epilines can be reset to a naive state by disruption of chromatin interactions. Finally, we found that environmental changes modulate the expressivity of the epialleles, and we extended our paradigm to naturally occurring phenotypes. Our work sheds light on how nuclear organization and Polycomb group (PcG) proteins contribute to epigenetically inheritable phenotypic variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Establishment of stable Drosophila epilines via transient genetic perturbation.
Figure 2: Epiallele inheritance displays pseudodominance, parent-of-origin effect and paramutagenicity.
Figure 3: Enhanced long-range chromatin interactions underlie epiallele establishment.
Figure 4: Long-range chromatin interactions are necessary for epiallele maintenance.
Figure 5: PRC2 activity determines alternative chromatin states of the epialleles.
Figure 6: Environmental effects on the epialleles.
Figure 7: TEI of a homeotic trait.
Figure 8: Epiallele induction by long-range chromatin interactions and differential H3K27me3 modification.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

References

  1. Jablonka, E. & Raz, G. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. Q. Rev. Biol. 84, 131–176 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Danchin, É. et al. Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 475–486 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heard, E. & Martienssen, R.A. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms. Cell 157, 95–109 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lim, J.P. & Brunet, A. Bridging the transgenerational gap with epigenetic memory. Trends Genet. 29, 176–186 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Daxinger, L. & Whitelaw, E. Understanding transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via the gametes in mammals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 153–162 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Houri-Ze'evi, L. et al. A tunable mechanism determines the duration of the transgenerational small RNA inheritance in C. elegans. Cell 165, 88–99 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seong, K.H., Li, D., Shimizu, H., Nakamura, R. & Ishii, S. Inheritance of stress-induced, ATF-2-dependent epigenetic change. Cell 145, 1049–1061 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dias, B.G. & Ressler, K.J. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 89–96 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zeybel, M. et al. Multigenerational epigenetic adaptation of the hepatic wound-healing response. Nat. Med. 18, 1369–1377 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Johannes, F. et al. Assessing the impact of transgenerational epigenetic variation on complex traits. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000530 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Reinders, J. et al. Compromised stability of DNA methylation and transposon immobilization in mosaic Arabidopsis epigenomes. Genes Dev. 23, 939–950 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Greer, E.L. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 479, 365–371 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rassoulzadegan, M. et al. RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse. Nature 441, 469–474 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Xing, Y. et al. Evidence for transgenerational transmission of epigenetic tumor susceptibility in Drosophila. PLoS Genet. 3, 1598–1606 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ashe, A. et al. piRNAs can trigger a multigenerational epigenetic memory in the germline of C. elegans. Cell 150, 88–99 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cubas, P., Vincent, C. & Coen, E. An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature 401, 157–161 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Manning, K. et al. A naturally occurring epigenetic mutation in a gene encoding an SBP-box transcription factor inhibits tomato fruit ripening. Nat. Genet. 38, 948–952 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morgan, H.D., Sutherland, H.G., Martin, D.I. & Whitelaw, E. Epigenetic inheritance at the agouti locus in the mouse. Nat. Genet. 23, 314–318 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kassis, J.A. & Brown, J.L. Polycomb group response elements in Drosophila and vertebrates. Adv. Genet. 81, 83–118 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Steffen, P.A. & Ringrose, L. What are memories made of? How Polycomb and Trithorax proteins mediate epigenetic memory. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 340–356 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cavalli, G. & Paro, R. The Drosophila Fab-7 chromosomal element conveys epigenetic inheritance during mitosis and meiosis. Cell 93, 505–518 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dekker, J. & Mirny, L. The 3D genome as moderator of chromosomal communication. Cell 164, 1110–1121 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nguyen, H.Q. & Bosco, G. Gene positioning effects on expression in eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 627–646 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dixon, J.R., Gorkin, D.U. & Ren, B. Chromatin domains: the unit of chromosome organization. Mol. Cell 62, 668–680 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ciabrelli, F. & Cavalli, G. Chromatin-driven behavior of topologically associating domains. J. Mol. Biol. 427, 608–625 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bantignies, F., Grimaud, C., Lavrov, S., Gabut, M. & Cavalli, G. Inheritance of Polycomb-dependent chromosomal interactions in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 17, 2406–2420 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zink, D. & Paro, R. Drosophila Polycomb-group regulated chromatin inhibits the accessibility of a trans-activator to its target DNA. EMBO J. 14, 5660–5671 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyrchanova, O. et al. Functional dissection of the blocking and bypass activities of the Fab-8 boundary in the Drosophila Bithorax complex. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006188 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bantignies, F. et al. Polycomb-dependent regulatory contacts between distant Hox loci in Drosophila. Cell 144, 214–226 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li, H.B. et al. Insulators, not Polycomb response elements, are required for long-range interactions between Polycomb targets in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Cell. Biol. 31, 616–625 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Li, H.B., Ohno, K., Gui, H. & Pirrotta, V. Insulators target active genes to transcription factories and polycomb-repressed genes to polycomb bodies. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003436 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sievers, C., Comoglio, F., Seimiya, M., Merdes, G. & Paro, R. A deterministic analysis of genome integrity during neoplastic growth in Drosophila. PLoS One 9, e87090 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hodgetts, R. & Choi, A. Beta alanine and cuticle maturation in Drosophila. Nature 252, 710–711 (1974).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pilu, R. Paramutation: just a curiosity or fine tuning of gene expression in the next generation? Curr. Genomics 12, 298–306 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. de Vanssay, A. et al. Paramutation in Drosophila linked to emergence of a piRNA-producing locus. Nature 490, 112–115 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tolhuis, B. et al. Interactions among Polycomb domains are guided by chromosome architecture. PLoS Genet. 7, e1001343 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mahmoudi, T., Katsani, K.R. & Verrijzer, C.P. GAGA can mediate enhancer function in trans by linking two separate DNA molecules. EMBO J. 21, 1775–1781 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Déjardin, J. et al. Recruitment of Drosophila Polycomb group proteins to chromatin by DSP1. Nature 434, 533–538 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schuettengruber, B. et al. Functional anatomy of polycomb and trithorax chromatin landscapes in Drosophila embryos. PLoS Biol. 7, e13 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Iovino, N., Ciabrelli, F. & Cavalli, G. PRC2 controls Drosophila oocyte cell fate by repressing cell cycle genes. Dev. Cell 26, 431–439 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Herzog, V.A. et al. A strand-specific switch in noncoding transcription switches the function of a Polycomb/Trithorax response element. Nat. Genet. 46, 973–981 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Pirrotta, V. & Rastelli, L. White gene expression, repressive chromatin domains and homeotic gene regulation in Drosophila. BioEssays 16, 549–556 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer, 1998).

  44. Talbert, P.B. & Garber, R.L. The Drosophila homeotic mutation Nasobemia (AntpNs) and its revertants: an analysis of mutational reversion. Genetics 138, 709–720 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Melnikova, L. et al. Interaction between the GAGA factor and Mod(mdg4) proteins promotes insulator bypass in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 14806–14811 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bantignies, F. & Cavalli, G. Topological organization of Drosophila Hox genes using DNA fluorescent in situ hybridization. Methods Mol. Biol. 1196, 103–120 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S.L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Li, H. et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Obenchain, V. et al. VariantAnnotation: a Bioconductor package for exploration and annotation of genetic variants. Bioinformatics 30, 2076–2078 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Eden, E., Navon, R., Steinfeld, I., Lipson, D. & Yakhini, Z. GOrilla: a tool for discovery and visualization of enriched GO terms in ranked gene lists. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 48 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Robinson, J.T. & Mesirov, J.P. Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief. Bioinform. 14, 178–192 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S.L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Quinlan, A.R. & Hall, I.M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Love, M.I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study benefited from the CNRS human and technical resources allocated to the ECOTRONS Research Infrastructure as well as from the state allocation 'Investissement d'Avenir' AnaEE-France ANR-11-INBS-0001. We thank J. Roy, S. Devidal, A. Milcu, D. Landais, O. Ravel and A. Faez for assistance at the Ecotron-CNRS Facility in Montpellier; J. Foucaud, B. Serrate and A. Rombaut for assistance with conducting experiments on environmental effects in CBGP; J.-M. Chang and V. Loubiere for technical support; M. Siomi (Keio University) for providing the anti-Aubergine 4D10 antibody; and the Montpellier Ressources Imagerie facility MRI-IGH for microscopy support. F. Ciabrelli was supported by the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM). F.B. was supported by CNRS. F. Comoglio was supported by ETH Zurich. B.B. was supported by the Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship (WT100136MA). The research of R.P. was supported by the FP7 European Network of Excellence EpiGeneSys, the Swiss National Science Foundation and ETH Zurich. M.N. and A.A. were supported by NIH R01 grant GM097363. Research in the laboratory of G.C. was supported by grants from the European Research Council (ERC-2008-AdG no. 232947), the CNRS, the FP7 European Network of Excellence EpiGeneSys, the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement 676556 (MuG), the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale, the INSERM, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) and the Laboratory of Excellence EpiGenMed.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Federico Comoglio

    Present address: Present address: Department of Haematology, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research and Wellcome Trust/MRC Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, UK.,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Human Genetics, UMR 9002, CNRS and University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Filippo Ciabrelli, Boyan Bonev, Quentin Szabo, Frédéric Bantignies & Giacomo Cavalli

  2. Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland

    Federico Comoglio & Renato Paro

  3. CBGP-INRA, Montferrier sur Lez, France

    Simon Fellous & Anne Xuéreb

  4. Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

    Maria Ninova & Alexei Aravin

  5. Unité de Mathématiques et Informatique Appliquées de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet Tolosan, France

    Christophe Klopp

  6. Faculty of Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Renato Paro

Authors
  1. Filippo Ciabrelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federico Comoglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Fellous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Boyan Bonev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Ninova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Quentin Szabo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anne Xuéreb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christophe Klopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alexei Aravin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Renato Paro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Frédéric Bantignies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Giacomo Cavalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F. Ciabrelli and G.C. initiated and led the project. F. Ciabrelli designed and performed the experiments. F. Ciabrelli and G.C. interpreted the data. F. Ciabrelli and F.B. performed the FISH-I experiments. F. Ciabrelli, F.B. and Q.S. analyzed and interpreted the FISH-I data. F. Ciabrelli and F.B. performed the Antp[Ns] genetic crosses, scored the phenotypes and interpreted the data. F. Ciabrelli, S.F. and G.C. designed the experiments on environmental effects and interpreted the data. F. Ciabrelli, S.F. and A.X. performed the experiments on environmental effects. F. Comoglio analyzed genomic DNA sequencing data and performed bioinformatic analyses. C.K. analyzed sequencing data on the transgenic region. B.B. analyzed RNA-sequencing data and performed bioinformatic analyses. M.N. analyzed small-RNA-sequencing data and performed bioinformatic analyses. F. Ciabrelli, F.B., F. Comoglio, A.A., R.P. and G.C. wrote the manuscript. All the authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Frédéric Bantignies or Giacomo Cavalli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Phenotypes and epigenetic properties of Fab2L flies.

A- Phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels in Fab2L male (orange bars) and female (yellow bars) flies (n>150). Class 1: pigment=0%; Class 2: 0%<pigment≤5%; Class 3: 5%<pigment≤75%; Class 4: 75%<pigment<100%; Class 5: pigment=100%.

B- Representative pictures showing a Fab2L male fly on the left and a Fab2L female fly on the right, reared at 21°C.

C- Eye pigmentation assays performed on Fab2L male flies, combined with the indicated alleles on chromosome 3.

D- RT-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2L Class 2 and Fab2L Class 4 male adult heads, measuring relative mRNA levels normalized to Act5C.

E- ChIP-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2L Class 2 and Fab2L Class 4 in male adult heads, showing relative enrichments (ChIP/Input) for H3K27me3, normalized with a negative control.

F- Crossing scheme for phenotypic selection and charts representing the phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels of n>50 flies scored before (orange) and after (white and red) phenotypic selection.

Bars represent the frequency (A,F) or the mean of n=3 independent adult head collections +/- s. d. (C-E); two-tailed Fisher’s exact test (A,F) or two-tailed Student’s t-test (C-E): NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 2 Fab2L epiline establishment.

A- Phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels in Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* female flies (n>120). Class 1: pigment=0%; Class 2: 0%<pigment≤5%; Class 3: 5%<pigment≤75%; Class 4: 75%<pigment<100%; Class 5: pigment=100%.

B- Crossing schemes for phenotypic selection and charts representing the percentage of Class1 (pigment=0%) male flies in grey and Class 5 (pigment=100%) male flies in red, before (P0) and after (F12) the phenotypic selection (n>40). Note that the presence of the TM6 balancer in the F1, used here as a control, did not lead to establishment of any epiallele.

Bars represent the frequency of the flies scored; two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 3 FabX epiline establishment.

A- Crossing schemes, eye pigmentation assays and representative pictures of the observed phenotypes. Female FabX flies were scored at P0 and at F8. At each generation, 6 to 12 flies were selected on a total progeny of n>35.

B- Pictures showing a representative sample of FabX and FabXRed* female flies reared at 21°C.

Bars represent the mean of n=3 independent adult head collections +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 4 Fab2L epiline establishment in isogenized Canton-S genetic background.

A- Crossing scheme for epiallele establishment in Fab2L flies in Canton-S background. In the bottom, representative pictures of Fab2LWhite* Canton-S, Fab2L Canton-S, and Fab2LRed* Canton-S male flies reared at 21°C.

B- Phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels in Canton-S Fab2L (orange bars), Canton-S Fab2LWhite* (grey bars), and Canton-S Fab2LRed* (red bars) male (left chart) and female (right chart) flies. At each generation, n>10 flies were selected on a total progeny of n>40. The final scored progeny was n>130.

Bars represent the frequency; two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 5 Epiallele genetic properties and paramutation.

A- Crossing schemes between the epilines and phenotypic classification of the F1 progenies based on eye pigment levels in Fab2L #1 progeny (blue bars) and in Fab2L #2 progeny (black bars). The F1 progenies of n=5 single-fly crosses were scored for each cross.

B- Lateral view of adult Fab2L and Fab2L,black[1] male flies.

C- Crossing schemes and eye pigmentation assays in the paramutation test.

Bars represent the mean of the frequencies of n=5 single-fly cross progenies (A) or the mean of n=3 independent crosses (C) +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 6 37B- and 89E-loci long-range chromatin interactions and homologous unpairing in Fab2L lines.

A,B- Box plots representing the distance distributions of the FISH assays performed in the indicated genotypes between the 37B (transgene insertion locus) and the 89E (endogenous Fab-7 locus) loci. Distances are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments or in the germline. The centerline represents the median, the box delimits the interquartile-range and the limits define the distribution range. n represents the total number of nuclei analyzed from 3 embryos.

C,D- Charts representing the distance distributions of the FISH assays performed in the indicated genotypes between the 37B and the 89E loci. Distances are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments or in the germline.

E- Frequency of homologous unpairing at the 37B and the 89E loci in the FISH assays performed in the indicated genotypes. Levels of unpairing are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments, considering a minimum threshold distance between homologous loci of 0.5 μm.

Bars represent the frequency of distances between 37B and 89E loci (C,D) or the frequency of unpairing at 37B and 89E loci (E). In the figure, n represents the total number of nuclei analyzed from 3 embryos; two-tailed Student’s t-test (A-D) or two-tailed Fisher’s exact test (E); NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 7 37B- and 89E-loci long-range chromatin interactions in Fab2L epilines.

A,B- Box plots representing the distance distributions of the FISH assays performed in the indicated lines between the 37B and the 89E loci. Distances are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments or in the germline. The centerline represents the median, the box delimits the interquartile-range and the limits define the distribution range.

C,D- Charts representing the distance distributions of the FISH assays performed in the indicated lines between the 37B and the 89E loci. Distances are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments or in the germline.

Bars represent the frequency of distances between 37B and 89E loci (C,D). In the figure, n represents the total number of nuclei analyzed from 3 embryos; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 8 Effects of the number of Fab-7 loci and of the presence of endogenous Mcp on epiallele maintenance.

A- Crossing schemes, eye pigmentation assays and cartoons of the experiment testing the impact of Fab-7 copy number on epiallele maintenance. The pictures are representative of the observed phenotypes. In the cartoons, the green chromosomes represent chromosomes X (acrocentric) and Y (metacentric) chromosomes, the blue chromosomes represent chromosome 2, the red chromosomes represent chromosome 3, the black lines represent the transgenic insertion on chromosome X and/or 2 or the endogenous Fab-7 on chromosome 3, the white triangle represent the deletion of the endogenous Fab-7 and the asterisks indicate the presence of the epiallele. On the right, the counting of total number of Fab-7 copies, of endogenous Fab-7 copies and the presence or not of the epiallele for each condition.

B- Crossing schemes, eye pigmentation assays and representative pictures of the phenotypes observed in the Mcp[1] epiallele maintenance tests. The single crosses in the F2 have been performed in order to unambiguously distinguish between hemizygous and homozygous Mcp[1] males. Pictures represent wt and Mcp[1] male flies with an A4 to A5 homeotic transformation (yellow arrows), carrying either Fab2LWhite* or Fab2LRed* epiallele.

Bars represent the mean of n=3 adult head collections, coming from the same original cross +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 9 37B- and 89E-loci long-range chromatin interactions in Fab2L hemizygotes.

A,B- Charts representing the distance distributions of the FISH assays performed in the indicated genotypes between the 37B and the 89E loci. Distances are measured in stage 14-15 embryos in T1 and T2 segments or in the germline.

Bars represent the frequency of distances between 37B and 89E loci. In the figure, n represents the total number of nuclei analyzed from 3 embryos; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 10 Deposition of active chromatin marks in the adult head at the transgenic locus.

A,C- ChIP-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* male adult heads, showing relative enrichments (ChIP/Input) for H3K4me3, H3K9/K14ac and H4panacetylated normalized to a negative control. Amplicon locations are indicated below the charts.

Bars represent the mean of n=3 independent adult head collections +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 11 Chromatin-mark deposition at the transgenic locus in embryos.

A- ChIP-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* embryos 8 to 12 hours showing relative enrichments (ChIP/Input) for H3K27me3 normalized to a negative control. Amplicon locations are indicated below the charts.

B-D- ChIP-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* embryos 4 to 8 hours, showing relative enrichments (ChIP/Input) for H3K4me3, H3K9/K14ac and H4panacetylated normalized to a negative control. Amplicon locations are indicated below the charts.

Bars represent the mean of n=3 independent embryo collections +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 12 37B-locus colocalization with Polycomb foci in the epilines.

A- The charts show the percentage of centers of mass of the FISH signals (37B locus) that colocalize with a Polycomb focus in the indicated lines. In the figure, n represents the total number of FISH signals analyzed from 4 embryos. FISH-I assays were performed in T1 and T2 segments of stages 14-15 embryos.

B- The box plots show the distributions of the relative intensity of Polycomb within the centers of mass of the FISH signals for the different lines. In the figure, n represents the total number of Polycomb foci analyzed from 4 embryos. Polycomb intensities were scored only when FISH signals (37B locus) colocalized with Polycomb. The centerline represents the median, the box delimits the interquartile-range, the limits define the distribution range and the dots represent the outliers.

C- Examples of the FISH-I assays performed in the indicated epilines. Nuclei are stained with DAPI in blue, 37B locus in red, Polycomb in green. Scale bar is 1 μm.

Bars represent the frequency of colocalization (A); two-tailed Fisher’s exact test (A) or two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (B): NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 13 Epiline establishment via E(z)[1]/+ and epiline genetic interactions.

A- Crossing scheme for phenotypic selection and charts representing the percentage of Class 1 (pigment=0%) male flies in grey and Class 5 (pigment=100%) male flies in red at the F5 (n>40). As a negative control, we used the unrelated Sb[1] mutation, which did not allow establishing of epialleles upon selection. As a corollary, this control scheme shows that the presence of the TM3 balancer in the F1 does not trigger the induction of epialleles.

B,C- Crossing schemes and eye pigmentation assays performed on Fab2L (orange), Fab2LWhite* (grey) and Fab2LRed* (red) male flies, combined with the tested alleles on chromosome 3.

Bars represent the frequency of Class 1 (white-eyed) and Class 5 (red-eyed) (A) or the mean +/- s. d. of n=3 independent crosses (B,C); two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001

Supplementary Figure 14 Fab-7 long-ncRNA expression in adult heads.

A- IGV browser screen shots displaying the normalized transcriptome read density profiles on the Fab-7 transgene from different fly lines, separated by strand. Data scale represents reads per million (RPM).

B- RT-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* male adult heads, measuring relative mRNA levels of the Fab-7 ncRNA normalized to Act5C. Bars represent the mean of n=3 independent adult head collections +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 15 Lack of small-RNA expression at the transgenic locus in adult heads.

A- IGV browser screen shots displaying the small RNA read density profiles on the Fab2L transgene from different fly lines. The data scale represents number of reads, normalized for the sequencing depth using mir-184-3p as an endogenous reference; reads were mapped to the transgene sequence allowing 0 mismatches. Note that the reads displayed on the lacZ promoter are not unique to the transgene sequence.

B- IGV browser screen shots displaying the small RNA read density profiles from different fly lines, separated by strand. Data scale represents number of reads, normalized per million mapped reads. mir-100 represents a control microRNA that is expressed in Drosophila adult heads.

Supplementary Figure 16 Lack of small- and long-ncRNA expression at the transgenic locus in unfertilized eggs and ovaries.

A- IGV browser screen shots displaying the normalized transcriptome read density profiles on the Fab2L transgene from different fly lines, separated by strand. Data scale represents reads per million (RPM). Note that the few observed reads displayed on the lacZ promoter are not unique.

B- IGV browser shots displaying the small RNA read density profiles on the Fab2L transgene from different fly lines. Data scale represents number of reads, normalized for the sequencing depth using mir-184-3p as an endogenous reference; reads were mapped to the transgene sequence allowing 0 mismatches; some reads are not unique to the transgene sequence.

C- RT-qPCR assays performed on w[1118], Fab2L White*, Fab2L and Fab2L Red* adult ovaries, measuring relative mRNA levels of mini-withe, lacZ and the Fab-7 ncRNA normalized to Act5C. Bars represent the mean of n=3 independent ovary collections +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 17 Lack of effects of diet treatments on epiallele inheritance.

Diet exposures and phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels of percentage of Class 1 (pigment=0%), percentage of Class 3 (5%<pigment≤75%) and percentage of Class 5 (pigment=100%) in Fab2LWhite*, Fab2L and Fab2LRed* male adult heads, respectively. The experiment was performed once per condition. The lack of bars for some conditions indicates the absence of adult progeny. Bars represent the frequency of n>15 flies scored; two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 18 Lack of effects of parental age on epiallele inheritance.

Crossing schemes performed with differentially aged P0 flies and phenotypic classification of their F1 generation, based on eye pigment levels of Fab2L, Fab2LWhite* and Fab2LRed* male adult heads. 5 single-fly crosses were performed for each condition and n>15 flies were scored per replicate. Bars represent the mean of the frequencies of n=5 single-fly cross progenies +/- s. d.; two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 19 Paramutation effect in the natural environment.

Schematic representation and illustrative pictures of the cross between Fab2LRed*,+ and Fab2L, black[1], and its long-term exposure to natural conditions. The top chart indicates maximal and minimal temperature and relative humidity in the reproduced weeks. The bottom chart shows the percentage of Class 5 (pigment=100%) flies at four time points; The crosses were performed in n=3 independent cages and the phenotypic classification was based on the body color (wild-type or black). Linear mixed-model analysis between Week 0 and Week 21 time points: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 20 Effects of abiotic-condition treatment on the Fab2LRed* epiline.

Effect of constant and fluctuating abiotic conditions (temperature and humidity) on eye phenotype variability among n=5 independent populations of the same Fab2LRed* epiline. Greater coefficients of variation indicate greater variations of eye phenotypes among generations in each replicate population. n>20 flies were scored per replicate. Two-tailed Student’s t-test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001.

Supplementary Figure 21 Effects of high temperature on the Fab2LRed* epiline.

A- Phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels in Fab2LRed* flies reared at different temperatures.

B- Phenotypic classification based on eye pigment levels in Fab2LRed* flies reared either at 21°C constant temperature (red bars), or at 29°C only during the specified developmental stages (green and blue bars) (n>30) and 21°C during the other stages. Class 1: pigment=0%; Class 2: 0%<pigment≤5%; Class 3: 5%<pigment≤75%; Class 4: 75%<pigment<100%; Class 5: pigment=100%.

Bars represent the frequency of n>50 (A) or n>30 (B) flies scored.

Supplementary Figure 22 Antp[Ns] epiallele establishment in the Canton-S background.

Crossing schemes and charts representing the phenotypic distributions of the Antp[Ns] homeotic transformation phenotype in adult females for each generation. Phenotypic classification of the antenna to leg transformation phenotype. Class 1: weak transformation; Class 2: medium transformation; Class 3: severe transformation. Bars represent the mean of the frequencies of n=5 parallel single-fly crosses, deriving from independent recombination events in the F1, +/- s. d.; two-tailed Fisher’s exact test: NS P>0.05; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01; *** P<0.001. Fisher’s exact test was applied on the pooled populations from the 5 independent single-fly crosses at each generation. After pooling, flies were n>10 for each genotype.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–22. (PDF 3762 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

List of the putative epiline-specific events after gDNA sequencing analysis. (XLSX 218 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

Parameters used in the microcosm experiment. (XLSX 25 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Parameters used in the abiotic variables experiment. (XLSX 18 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

Full list of the oligonucleotides used in this study. (XLSX 127 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciabrelli, F., Comoglio, F., Fellous, S. et al. Stable Polycomb-dependent transgenerational inheritance of chromatin states in Drosophila. Nat Genet 49, 876–886 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3848

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3848

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing