Molecular determinants of nucleosome retention at CpG-rich sequences in mouse spermatozoa

Article metrics

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 04 October 2013

Abstract

In mammalian spermatozoa, most but not all of the genome is densely packaged by protamines. Here we reveal the molecular logic underlying the retention of nucleosomes in mouse spermatozoa, which contain only 1% residual histones. We observe high enrichment throughout the genome of nucleosomes at CpG-rich sequences that lack DNA methylation. Residual nucleosomes are largely composed of the histone H3.3 variant and are trimethylated at Lys4 of histone H3 (H3K4me3). Canonical H3.1 and H3.2 histones are also enriched at CpG-rich promoters marked by Polycomb-mediated H3K27me3, a modification predictive of gene repression in preimplantation embryos. Histone variant–specific nucleosome retention in sperm is strongly associated with nucleosome turnover in round spermatids. Our data show evolutionary conservation of the basic principles of nucleosome retention in mouse and human sperm, supporting a model of epigenetic inheritance by nucleosomes between generations.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Nucleosome occupancy in sperm is highly dependent on CpG composition.
Figure 2: Nucleosome occupancy correlates negatively with DNA methylation in sperm.
Figure 3: Histone variant–specific packaging of sperm DNA.
Figure 4: CpG density and gene expression associate with nucleosome eviction in round spermatids.
Figure 5: Extent of nucleosome turnover in round spermatids relates to histone variant–specific retention in sperm.
Figure 6: Combinatorial effects of CpG density, histone variants and histone modifications underlie unique packaging of sperm DNA.
Figure 7: Model of nucleosome retention during spermiogenesis.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

Change history

  • 12 July 2013

    In the version of this article initially published, the parentheses in Figure 2a denoting noninclusive endpoints in ranges had not been indicated. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. 1

    Smith, Z.D. et al. A unique regulatory phase of DNA methylation in the early mammalian embryo. Nature 484, 339–344 (2012).

  2. 2

    Gu, T.P. et al. The role of Tet3 DNA dioxygenase in epigenetic reprogramming by oocytes. Nature 477, 606–610 (2011).

  3. 3

    Aoki, F., Worrad, D.M. & Schultz, R.M. Regulation of transcriptional activity during the first and second cell cycles in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 181, 296–307 (1997).

  4. 4

    Puschendorf, M. et al. PRC1 and Suv39h specify parental asymmetry at constitutive heterochromatin in early mouse embryos. Nat. Genet. 40, 411–420 (2008).

  5. 5

    Nakamura, T. et al. PGC7 binds histone H3K9me2 to protect against conversion of 5mC to 5hmC in early embryos. Nature 486, 415–419 (2012).

  6. 6

    Kobayashi, H. et al. Contribution of intragenic DNA methylation in mouse gametic DNA methylomes to establish oocyte-specific heritable marks. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002440 (2012).

  7. 7

    Kishigami, S. et al. Epigenetic abnormalities of the mouse paternal zygotic genome associated with microinsemination of round spermatids. Dev. Biol. 289, 195–205 (2006).

  8. 8

    Bui, H.T. et al. Essential role of paternal chromatin in the regulation of transcriptional activity during mouse preimplantation development. Reproduction 141, 67–77 (2011).

  9. 9

    van der Heijden, G.W. et al. Sperm-derived histones contribute to zygotic chromatin in humans. BMC Dev. Biol. 8, 34 (2008).

  10. 10

    Hammoud, S.S. et al. Distinctive chromatin in human sperm packages genes for embryo development. Nature 460, 473–478 (2009).

  11. 11

    Brykczynska, U. et al. Repressive and active histone methylation mark distinct promoters in human and mouse spermatozoa. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 679–687 (2010).

  12. 12

    Mayer, W., Niveleau, A., Walter, J., Fundele, R. & Haaf, T. Demethylation of the zygotic paternal genome. Nature 403, 501–502 (2000).

  13. 13

    Gill, M.E., Erkek, S. & Peters, A.H. Parental epigenetic control of embryogenesis: a balance between inheritance and reprogramming? Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 24, 387–396 (2012).

  14. 14

    Heijmans, B.T. et al. Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17046–17049 (2008).

  15. 15

    Kaminen-Ahola, N. et al. Maternal ethanol consumption alters the epigenotype and the phenotype of offspring in a mouse model. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000811 (2010).

  16. 16

    Anway, M.D., Memon, M.A., Uzumcu, M. & Skinner, M.K. Transgenerational effect of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on male spermatogenesis. J. Androl. 27, 868–879 (2006).

  17. 17

    Carone, B.R. et al. Paternally induced transgenerational environmental reprogramming of metabolic gene expression in mammals. Cell 143, 1084–1096 (2010).

  18. 18

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

  19. 19

    Balhorn, R., Gledhill, B.L. & Wyrobek, A.J. Mouse sperm chromatin proteins: quantitative isolation and partial characterization. Biochemistry 16, 4074–4080 (1977).

  20. 20

    Gatewood, J.M., Cook, G.R., Balhorn, R., Bradbury, E.M. & Schmid, C.W. Sequence-specific packaging of DNA in human sperm chromatin. Science 236, 962–964 (1987).

  21. 21

    Gardiner-Garden, M., Ballesteros, M., Gordon, M. & Tam, P.P. Histone- and protamine-DNA association: conservation of different patterns within the β-globin domain in human sperm. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 3350–3356 (1998).

  22. 22

    Wykes, S.M. & Krawetz, S.A. The structural organization of sperm chromatin. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 29471–29477 (2003).

  23. 23

    Pittoggi, C. et al. A fraction of mouse sperm chromatin is organized in nucleosomal hypersensitive domains enriched in retroposon DNA. J. Cell Sci. 112, 3537–3548 (1999).

  24. 24

    Arpanahi, A. et al. Endonuclease-sensitive regions of human spermatozoal chromatin are highly enriched in promoter and CTCF binding sequences. Genome Res. 19, 1338–1349 (2009).

  25. 25

    Mohn, F. et al. Lineage-specific polycomb targets and de novo DNA methylation define restriction and potential of neuronal progenitors. Mol. Cell 30, 755–766 (2008).

  26. 26

    Kaplan, N. et al. The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome. Nature 458, 362–366 (2009).

  27. 27

    Tillo, D. & Hughes, T.R.G. +C content dominates intrinsic nucleosome occupancy. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 442 (2009).

  28. 28

    Deaton, A.M. & Bird, A. CpG islands and the regulation of transcription. Genes Dev. 25, 1010–1022 (2011).

  29. 29

    Schones, D.E. et al. Dynamic regulation of nucleosome positioning in the human genome. Cell 132, 887–898 (2008).

  30. 30

    Ramirez-Carrozzi, V.R. et al. A unifying model for the selective regulation of inducible transcription by CpG islands and nucleosome remodeling. Cell 138, 114–128 (2009).

  31. 31

    Fenouil, R. et al. CpG islands and GC content dictate nucleosome depletion in a transcription-independent manner at mammalian promoters. Genome Res. 22, 2399–2408 (2012).

  32. 32

    Li, Z., Schug, J., Tuteja, G., White, P. & Kaestner, K.H. The nucleosome map of the mammalian liver. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 742–746 (2011).

  33. 33

    Kelly, T.K. et al. Genome-wide mapping of nucleosome positioning and DNA methylation within individual DNA molecules. Genome Res. 22, 2497–2506 (2012).

  34. 34

    Stadler, M.B. et al. DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature 480, 490–495 (2011).

  35. 35

    Kacem, S. & Feil, R. Chromatin mechanisms in genomic imprinting. Mamm. Genome 20, 544–556 (2009).

  36. 36

    Smallwood, S.A. & Kelsey, G. De novo DNA methylation: a germ cell perspective. Trends Genet. 28, 33–42 (2012).

  37. 37

    Vavouri, T. & Lehner, B. Chromatin organization in sperm may be the major functional consequence of base composition variation in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002036 (2011).

  38. 38

    Molaro, A. et al. Sperm methylation profiles reveal features of epigenetic inheritance and evolution in primates. Cell 146, 1029–1041 (2011).

  39. 39

    Elsaesser, S.J., Goldberg, A.D. & Allis, C.D. New functions for an old variant: no substitute for histone H3.3. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 20, 110–117 (2010).

  40. 40

    Orsi, G.A., Couble, P. & Loppin, B. Epigenetic and replacement roles of histone variant H3.3 in reproduction and development. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 53, 231–243 (2009).

  41. 41

    Szenker, E., Ray-Gallet, D. & Almouzni, G. The double face of the histone variant H3.3. Cell Res. 21, 421–434 (2011).

  42. 42

    van der Heijden, G.W. et al. Chromosome-wide nucleosome replacement and H3.3 incorporation during mammalian meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. Nat. Genet. 39, 251–258 (2007).

  43. 43

    Piña, B. & Suau, P. Changes in histones H2A and H3 variant composition in differentiating and mature rat brain cortical neurons. Dev. Biol. 123, 51–58 (1987).

  44. 44

    Goldberg, A.D. et al. Distinct factors control histone variant H3.3 localization at specific genomic regions. Cell 140, 678–691 (2010).

  45. 45

    Zeng, F. & Schultz, R.M. RNA transcript profiling during zygotic gene activation in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 283, 40–57 (2005).

  46. 46

    Delaval, K. et al. Differential histone modifications mark mouse imprinting control regions during spermatogenesis. EMBO J. 26, 720–729 (2007).

  47. 47

    Posfai, E. et al. Polycomb function during oogenesis is required for mouse embryonic development. Genes Dev. 26, 920–932 (2012).

  48. 48

    Hackenberg, M. et al. CpGcluster: a distance-based algorithm for CpG-island detection. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 446 (2006).

  49. 49

    van der Heijden, G.W. et al. Asymmetry in histone H3 variants and lysine methylation between paternal and maternal chromatin of the early mouse zygote. Mech. Dev. 122, 1008–1022 (2005).

  50. 50

    Barchi, M., Geremia, R., Magliozzi, R. & Bianchi, E. Isolation and analyses of enriched populations of male mouse germ cells by sedimentation velocity: the centrifugal elutriation. Methods Mol. Biol. 558, 299–321 (2009).

  51. 51

    Méndez, J. & Stillman, B. Chromatin association of human origin recognition complex, cdc6, and minichromosome maintenance proteins during the cell cycle: assembly of prereplication complexes in late mitosis. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 8602–8612 (2000).

  52. 52

    Kent, W.J. et al. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 12, 996–1006 (2002).

  53. 53

    Alexa, A., Rahnenfuhrer, J. & Lengauer, T. Improved scoring of functional groups from gene expression data by decorrelating GO graph structure. Bioinformatics 22, 1600–1607 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank S. Dessus-Babus and T. Roloff (Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research (FMI) functional genomics group), I. Nissen (Laboratory for Quantitative Genomics, D-BSSE, Basel), L. Burger (FMI bioinformatics group), H. Kohler (FMI FACS facility) and the FMI animal facility for excellent assistance. We thank members of the Peters laboratory for fruitful discussions. S.E. is supported as a recipient of a Boehringer Ingelheim Fond fellowship. M.G. and R.M. are supported by European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) Long Term fellowships (ALTF 253-2011 and ALTF 600-2008). Research in the Peters and Schübeler labs is supported by the Novartis Research Foundation and the Swiss Initiative in Systems Biology (Cell Plasticity, Systems Biology of Cell Differentiation). The Peters lab further acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_125386 and National Research Programme NRP63, Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine), the Japanese Swiss Science and Technology Cooperation Program, the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network “Nucleosome4D” and the EMBO Young Investigator Program.

Author information

S.E., M.H. and A.H.F.M.P. conceived of and designed the experiments. S.E., M.H., C.-Y.L. and M.G. performed experiments. J.D. and J.v.d.V. provided antibodies. R.M. and D.S. performed and supervised bisulfite sequencing experiments, respectively. M.B.S. provided bioinformatics training and support. S.E., M.H., C.-Y.L., M.G., M.B.S. and A.H.F.M.P. analyzed the data. S.E. and A.H.F.M.P. prepared the manuscript.

Correspondence to Antoine H F M Peters.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–7, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Note (PDF 9797 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Erkek, S., Hisano, M., Liang, C. et al. Molecular determinants of nucleosome retention at CpG-rich sequences in mouse spermatozoa. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20, 868–875 (2013) doi:10.1038/nsmb.2599

Download citation

Further reading