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.

Contrasting epigenetic control of transgenes and endogenous genes promotes post-transcriptional transgene silencing in Arabidopsis

Abstract

Transgenes that are stably expressed in plant genomes over many generations could be assumed to behave epigenetically the same as endogenous genes. Here, we report that whereas the histone H3K9me2 demethylase IBM1, but not the histone H3K4me3 demethylase JMJ14, counteracts DNA methylation of Arabidopsis endogenous genes, JMJ14, but not IBM1, counteracts DNA methylation of expressed transgenes. Additionally, JMJ14-mediated specific attenuation of transgene DNA methylation enhances the production of aberrant RNAs that readily induce systemic post-transcriptional transgene silencing (PTGS). Thus, the JMJ14 chromatin modifying complex maintains expressed transgenes in a probationary state of susceptibility to PTGS, suggesting that the host plant genome does not immediately accept expressed transgenes as being epigenetically the same as endogenous genes.

Introduction

RNA-mediated gene silencing is a highly conserved eukaryotic mechanism that regulates endogenous gene expression and acts as a defense mechanism against viruses and transposons1,2,3. It occurs when double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) is formed by transcription of an inverted repeat, the copying of single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) by viral and host RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RDRs), or the simultaneous transcription of both the positive and negative strands of DNA. DICER-like (DCL) proteins convert the dsRNA into microRNAs (miRNAs) or small-interfering RNAs (siRNAs), which then guide ARGONAUTE-like (AGO) proteins to mediate sequence-specific gene silencing.

In plants, 24 nucleotide (nt) siRNAs guide transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) and RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM)4,5,6. The process of de novo RdDM also requires the cytosine methyltransferase DRM27. Following the establishment of DNA methylation and through subsequent rounds of DNA replication, cytosine methylation at CG and CHG sites can be maintained in the absence of siRNA by the cytosine methyltransferases MET1, and CMT2 and CMT3, respectively, whereas maintenance of CHH methylation requires the continual presence of 24 nt siRNAs and DRM27,8.

Abundant siRNAs are also derived from viral RNA and RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) transcripts that have been converted into dsRNA by viral or host RDRs. In plants, RDR6 plays the major role in producing these dsRNAs, which are processed by DCL4 and DCL2 into 21 nt and 22 nt siRNAs, respectively. These siRNAs form a complex with AGO1 and guide silencing of complementary RNA viruses and post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) of complementary mRNAs9. Once PTGS is triggered, the biogenesis of 21 and 22 nt siRNAs usually extends along the entire length of the mRNA in a process known as transitivity10,11,12. Furthermore, once induced, PTGS moves systemically throughout the plant2,13,14.

It is well established that over-expression of aberrant mRNAs lacking a 5′ cap15,16 or poly(A) tail17 induces RDR6-dependent PTGS in plants. The transcription of aberrant RNAs is a by-product of RNA Pol II transcription in all eukaryotes, but normally, aberrant RNAs are intercepted and removed by the highly conserved RNA Quality Control (RQC) pathway. In addition to removing aberrant RNAs, the RQC pathway modulates gene expression via mRNA turnover. The mechanism of mRNA turnover has been studied in much more detail than the fate of aberrantly transcribed RNA, and the first step in mRNA decay is the removal of the polyA tail, followed by the removal of the 5′ cap by the decapping complex, which is composed of DCP1, DCP2 and VARICOSE (VCS) in plants18. Once the stabilizing 5′ and 3′ modifications have been removed from the mRNA, the exposed RNA is degraded 5′-3′ by XRN exoribonucleases, and 3′-5′ by the exosome in all eukaryotes19. In Arabidopsis, dpc1, dcp2, vcs, xrn, and exosome mutations that compromise RQC allow aberrant RNA to accumulate and result in spontaneous RDR6-dependent PTGS of both transgenes15,16,20,21,22,23,24 and endogenous genes21,25.

Mutants impaired in the histone H3K4me3 demethylase JMJ14 have been identified in two independent forward genetic screens for PTGS-deficient mutants26,27. Molecular analysis of jmj14 plants compared to wild-type (WT) plants revealed a decrease in transgene siRNA accumulation, a decrease in transgene H3K4m3 and an increase in CHG methylation at the transgene promoter26,28. Thusfar, DNA methylation has only been mechanistically implicated in TGS of promoters in most eukaryotic lineages7, inhibition of transcriptional elongation in fungi29, and most recently, inhibition of aberrant transcription from the gene body, i.e., the intragenic regions, of plants30,31 and mammalian embryonic stem cells32. Therefore, JMJ14 could link DNA methylation to aberrant RNAs and PTGS. However, the increase of transgene DNA methylation in jmj14 mutants contrasted the decreased methylation of CHH and CHG sites observed in two endogenous transposons in jmj14 mutants27, and resembled more the effect of ibm1 mutations on endogenous sequences. IBM1 encodes a histone H3K9me2 demethylase, and ibm1 mutants have been reported to cause increased CHG and CHH methylation in the gene body of endogenous genes33,34,35. Therefore, the effect of jmj14 and ibm1 mutations on the epigenetic features of transgenic versus endogenous sequences required further investigation.

In this work, we perform genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of a jmj14 mutant and show that very few endogenous loci exhibit a change in DNA methylation in the mutant compared to wild type, and the DNA methylation changes in the jmj14 mutant are restricted to genomic sequences that normally exhibit highly variable DNA methylation levels36,37. In contrast, we detect increased methylation at all sequence contexts (CG, CHG, CHH) in transgenic sequences of the jmj14 mutant, but not the ibm1 mutant. We also show that JMJ14 promotes and IBM1 prevents transgene PTGS, respectively, and that the susceptibility of transgenes to PTGS correlates with low levels of DNA methylation in the transgene and high levels of transgene aberrant RNA, indicating that JMJ14 in combination with other chromatin modifying proteins plays a crucial role in establishing and maintaining stably expressed transgenes in an epigenetic state that is distinct from endogenous genes.

Results

A genetic screen for impaired systemic PTGS identifies additional jmj14 alleles

Using the transgenic line 10027-338, a genetic screen recovered three jmj14 mutants, #38, #90 and #148, that showed defects in root-to-shoot PTGS transmission (Fig. 1A). The 10027-3 GFP reporter system involves a constitutive p35S:GFP transgene linked to another transgene that drives root tip-specific expression of a GF hairpin RNA homologous to GFP38. In 10027-3 WT plants, PTGS of GFP is initiated in the root apex during embryogenesis, and then as the seedlings germinate, silencing spreads into the shoot apex such that all true leaves that form show complete PTGS of GFP38 (Fig. 1A). The systemic spreading of PTGS in this GFP reporter system requires RDR6-dependent amplification of dsRNA, using the constitutive GFP mRNA target as a template38. The three 10027-3 jmj14 mutants were identified by candidate gene sequencing on a collection of EMS-induced 10027-3 mutants showing defects in systemic PTGS39. Mutants #38 and #90 carry a nonsense and splice site mutation in JMJ14, respectively, and both mutants showed a lack of GFP silencing in the shoot apex but as the seedlings develop, PTGS of GFP spreads into the petiole and mid-vein of mature leaves (Fig. 1A). In contrast, mutant #148 contains a missense mutation in JMJ14 and showed a complete loss of GFP silencing (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1: Three new alleles of jmj14 show defects in systemic PTGS of GFP.
figure 1

A Rosette GFP phenotypes of EMS#38 (Q183*; jmj14-5), EMS#90 (splicing defect; jmj14-6) and EMS#148 (G331E; jmj14-7). Transgenic line 10027-3 wild type (WT), the parent used in the genetic screen to identify jmj14-5, jmj14-6 and jmj14-7, shows systemic PTGS of GFP. B, C EMS#90 (splice site mutant) and EMS#148 (G331E), respectively, were not complemented by EMS#38 (Q183*) as F1 plants from these crosses showed defective systemic PTGS. JMJ14 PCR genotyping assays are shown in the right-hand side of panel B, C; arrows indicate the size in bps of the larger jmj14 mutant allele and smaller WT allele for each PCR test and arrowheads indicate the diagnostic mutant jmj14 allele compared to respective WT allele. The results for one F1 plant from each cross are shown in the Figure, however, we confirmed the phenotype and genotype of at least four F1 plants from each cross. D Location of the new jmj14 mutations and the previously reported jmj14 allele, jmj14-4 (P789S)26 in the JMJ14 locus (AT4G20400). Exon and intron sequences are indicated by thick and narrow lines, respectively. Rosette images are of plants grown in soil under long-days for 4 weeks after planting. Uncropped and unprocessed scans of images of Fig. 1A–C are provided as a Source Data file.

F1 plants from crosses between mutants #38 and #90 (Fig. 1B), and between mutants #148 and #38 (Fig. 1C) displayed a defect in systemic PTGS, thereby confirming that the jmj14 mutations were the causative genetic defect in these mutants. These three mutants further substantiated the role of JMJ14 in RDR6-dependent PTGS26, and suggest the possible involvement of JMJ14 in systemic spreading of PTGS. Hereafter, the #38, #90 and #148 mutants will be referred to as jmj14-5, jmj14-6 and jmj14-7, respectively (Fig. 1D).

JMJ14 promotes aberrant RNA-based RDR6-dependent PTGS

The results presented above suggest that JMJ14 plays a role in the systemic spreading of PTGS. However, they do not exclude that JMJ14 also plays a role in the execution of PTGS. To resolve these two possibilities, the two-component GUS-silencing system 6b4-306 was used. This transgenic line consists of the p35S:GUS transgene locus called 6b4, which never triggers PTGS alone in WT plants, plus an unlinked p35S:hpGU hairpin transgene locus called 306, which produces dsRNA and siRNAs homologous to the first half of the GUS coding sequence40. In contrast to the 10027-3 GFP reporter system, both the 6b4 GUS transgene and 306 the hairpin transgene are expressed constitutively, resulting in the execution of PTGS in every cell, and therefore does not require RDR6-dependent spreading of PTGS to silence the GUS transgene throughout the plant40. Crossing the 6b4-306 double transgenic line to the jmj14-4 mutant (P789S; Fig. 1D) produced triple homozygous 6b4-306 jmj14 plants in which PTGS occurred as efficiently as in 6b4-306 WT controls (Fig. 2A). Thus, JMJ14 is specifically required for RDR6-dependent PTGS, and not for the execution of PTGS when siRNAs are derived from a constitutively expressed hairpin transgene.

Fig. 2: JMJ14 promotes aberrant RNA-induced PTGS, but is not required for PTGS induced by hairpin dsRNA.
figure 2

A Effect of JMJ14 impairment on the transgenic 6b4 GUS-expressing line and the 6b4-306 GUS-silenced line in which GUS mRNA produced by the 6b4 locus is silenced by the consitutive expression of GUS hairpin dsRNA by the 306 locus. No PTGS is observed in 6b4 and 6b4 jmj14 plants, whereas PTGS occurs efficiently in both 6b4-306 and 6b4-306 jmj14 plants. Results represent the mean of four replicates. Errors bars represent the standard deviation of these four replicates. B Effect of JMJ14 impairment on the transgenic 6b4 GUS-expressing line and the 6b4 vcs GUS-silenced line in which the 6b4 GUS transgene undergoes aberrant RNA-induced PTGS due to the loss of RQC. PTGS occurs efficiently in 6b4 vcs plants but is reduced in 6b4 vcs jmj14 plants, revealed by reduced accumulation of GUS siRNAs and increased GUS activity in 6b4 vcs jmj14 compared to 6b4 vcs plants. Results represent the mean of eight replicates. Errors bars represent the standard deviation of these eight replicates. Uncropped and unprocessed scans of images in Fig. 2B are provided as a Source Data file.

We next investigated the possibility that JMJ14 plays a role in the initiation of RDR6-dependent PTGS by enhancing the production of aberrant RNA from transgene loci. To address this question, we used the 6b4 transgenic line that does not carry any additional T-DNA loci. As mentioned above, the 6b4 locus carries a p35S:GUS transgene that never shows spontaneous PTGS in WT plants, but the introduction of 6b4 in various RQC-deficient mutant backgrounds results in the spontaneous triggering of PTGS16,21,22,24. This result is explained by the 6b4 GUS transgene producing low amounts of aberrant RNAs that are efficiently degraded by the cellular RQC pathways in WT plants. However, when RQC is impaired, aberrant RNAs derived from the 6b4 GUS transgene are converted into dsRNA by RDR6 and processed into 21- and 22 nt siRNAs by DCL4 and DCL2, respectively, thus activating PTGS. To determine if JMJ14 was contributing to the production of aberrant RNA from the 6b4 GUS transgene, we utilized the mRNA decapping-defective vcs-9 mutant to generate a 6b4 vcs jmj14 double mutant, which was compared to 6b4 WT, 6b4 jmj14 and 6b4 vcs plants for the level of PTGS. The hypomorphic vcs-9 allele was used because vcs-9 mutants are viable and fertile, and because spontaneous PTGS occurs with 100% efficiency in 6b4 vcs-9 plants21. We observed an increase in GUS activity and a reduction in GUS siRNA accumulation in 6b4 vcs jmj14 compared to 6b4 vcs plants (Fig. 2B). Given that JMJ14 is not involved in the production of siRNA derived from constitutively expressed hairpin RNA, these results strongly suggest that JMJ14 promotes PTGS by enhancing the production of aberrant RNA from the 6b4 GUS transgene.

JMJ14 impairment decreases the production of GUS aberrant RNAs

We previously identified an uncapped RNA, antisense to the GUS mRNA, hereafter referred to as aberrant SUG (abSUG) RNA11. Although it is not certain that this abSUG RNA is the aberrant RNA that triggers PTGS, its abundance correlates perfectly with the efficiency of PTGS in the two p35S:GUS reference lines 6b4 and L1. Indeed, it is detected at very low levels in 6b4 plants, which do not trigger PTGS spontaneously. It is also detected at only low levels in 6b4 xrn3 xrn4 and L1 plants, which trigger PTGS spontaneously with 100% efficiency, most likely because the abSUG RNA is degraded by PTGS, similar to GUS mRNA. However, abSUG RNA accumulates to higher levels in 6b4 xrn3 xrn4 rdr6 and L1 rdr6 plants, but remains low in 6b4 rdr6 plants. Given that the p35S:GUS transgene at the L1 locus is transcribed at a higher level than its identical transgene counterpart at the 6b4 locus, these results suggest that the production of abSUG at a high level in L1 plants or the absence of its degradation in 6b4 xrn3 xrn4 plants could explain the capacity of these plants to trigger PTGS11.

To further test the hypothesis that jmj14 mutations limits the production of aberrant RNAs, the abundance of abSUG RNA was measured in L1, L1 rdr6 and L1 jmj14 rdr6 plants. To reliably assess the effect of JMJ14 on the levels of the abSUG RNA, the rdr6 mutant background was used to avoid RDR6-dependent PTGS of the abSUG RNA. The amount of abSUG RNA was very low in L1 WT plants compared to L1 rdr6 plants, thereby confirming that abSUG RNA is degraded by PTGS in L1 WT plants (Fig. 3). However, the amount of abSUG RNA in the L1 rdr6 mutant was at least double the amount in the L1 jmj14 rdr6 double mutant (Fig. 3), which further supports the hypothesis that JMJ14 promotes transgene-derived aberrant RNA production.

Fig. 3: Impairing JMJ14 decreases the steady state level of aberrant abSUG RNA.
figure 3

Normalized expression of abSUG RNA in L1, L1 rdr6 and L1 rdr6 jmj14 plants. Results are expressed as a fold change compared to L1 (L1 = 1) and normalized to eIF1a. Error bars represent the standard deviation of three replicates. The significance was assayed with a Bonferroni corrected t-test (P < 0.05).

A synergistic relationship between systemic PTGS signals and aberrant RNA in the induction of RDR6-dependent PTGS

The results described above strongly suggest that JMJ14 promotes the production of aberrant RNA from transgene loci, and that JMJ14 also plays a role in systemic PTGS. To investigate the possibility of a collaborative relationship between aberrant RNA produced from transgene loci and systemic PTGS signals in the induction of RDR6-dependent PTGS, we conducted reciprocal grafting experiments using WT and jmj14 mutants as rootstocks and scions in our GFP and GUS reporter systems for graft-transmissible PTGS13,38.

When GFP-expressing 10027-3 jmj14-7 scions were grafted onto GFP-silenced 10027-3 WT rootstocks, graft-transmissible PTGS failed to be initiated (Fig. 4A), suggesting that the jmj14-7 mutation completely abolished the capacity of the scion to respond to the systemic PTGS signal transmitted from the 10027-3 WT roots. A feature of PTGS in plants is the predominance of 21 nt siRNAs produced by DCL4, along with a much lower abundance of 22 nt siRNA produced by DCL2. Nevertheless, DCL2 and its 22 nt siRNA play a more important role in systemic PTGS than DCL438,41. Therefore, we also grafted 10027-3 jmj14-7 scions onto 10027-3 dcl4-5 rootstocks that produce predominantly DCL2-dependent 22 nt siRNAs38, and again, graft-transmissible PTGS failed to be initiated in the jmj14-7 scions. These results suggest that jmj14 scions are incapable of responding to either DCL4-dependent 21 nt or DCL2-dependent 22 nt siRNAs as mobile silencing signals.

Fig. 4: JMJ14 is required for reception of graft-transmissible PTGS in scions and efficient transmission of PTGS from rootstocks.
figure 4

A Grafting results using the transgenic 214 GFP-expressing and 10027-3 GFP-silencing system for systemic PTGS. When GFP-expressing 10027-3 jmj14-7 scions were grafted onto either 10027-3 wild-type (WT) rootstocks that produce primarily DCL4-dependent 21 nt siRNAs or 10027-3 dcl4-5 rootstocks producing predominantly DCL2-dependent 22 nt siRNAs38, no systemic PTGS was observed. Similarly, when this most severe jmj14 allele, jmj14-7, was used as rootstocks and grafted to GFP-expressing 214 WT scions, no transmission of systemic PTGS was observed. Weaker alleles of jmj14, i.e., jmj14-5 and jmj14-6, were also used as rootstocks grafted onto GFP-expressing 214 WT scions38, and these mutant rootstocks showed delayed transmission of systemic PTGS compared to WT rootstocks. In total, 22 to 66 grafted plants were assessed over at least two independent experiments for each combination of grafted genotypes. B Grafting results using the transgenic GUS-expressing 6b4 line and GUS-silencing 6b4-306 and L1 lines as a system for systemic PTGS. When 6b4 scions were grafted onto 6b4-306, L1 or L1 jmj14-4 rootstocks, systemic PTGS was observed, although delayed when using L1 jmj14-4 rootstocks. In contrast, when 6b4 jmj14-4 scions were grafted onto 6b4-306 or L1 rootstocks, no systemic PTGS was observed. In total, 16 to 74 grafted plants were assessed over at least two independent experiments for each combination of grafted genotypes. C GUS activity (units/µg protein/min) and GUS siRNA accumulation in ungrafted 6b4, 6b4 jmj14, L1, L1 jmj14 lines and 6b4 // 6b4-306, 6b4 jmj14 // 6b4-306, 6b4 // L1, 6b4 // L1 jmj14 and 6b4 jmj14 // L1 grafts. Each sample corresponds to a mix of four plants. The two blots were hybridized with the same probe and exposed the same amount of time. Uncropped and unprocessed scans of images in Fig. 4C are provided as a Source Data file.

We also grafted GFP-expressing scions of transgenic line 214 (Supplementary Fig. 1) onto 10027-3 or 10027-3 jmj14 mutant lines as rootstocks13. Whereas GFP PTGS is efficiently transmitted from 10027-3 rootstocks to 214 scions, we observed a decrease in systemic transmission of PTGS when 214 scions were grafted onto 10027-3 jmj14 rootstocks (Fig. 4A).

These findings were confirmed using the jmj14-4 mutant allele in the 6b4 GUS reporter background. Whereas grafting 6b4 WT scions grafted onto L1 WT rootstocks triggered efficient GUS PTGS in 6b4 scions, 6b4 jmj14-4 scions grafted onto L1 WT rootstocks did not trigger PTGS (Fig. 4B, C). In addition, 6b4 jmj14-4 scions also failed to initiate PTGS when grafted onto 6b4-306 rootstocks (Fig. 4C). Furthermore, similar to what was observed for jmj14-5 and jmj14-6 rootstocks using GFP as the reporter for PTGS (Fig. 4A), when GUS-expressing 6b4 WT scions were grafted onto L1 jmj14-4 rootstocks, the onset of graft-transmissible PTGS in the scions was delayed (Fig. 4B). Altogether, these results indicate that JMJ14 plays an essential role in the perception of the PTGS systemic signal.

Transgene DNA methylation counteracts aberrant RNA-induced PTGS

Southern blot analysis using a methylation-sensitive enzyme previously revealed that L1 jmj14-3, L1 jmj14-4, 6b4 jmj14-3, and 6b4 jmj14-4 plants exhibit increased DNA methylation at CHG sites in the promoter of the p35S:GUS transgene26. To determine the methylation profile of the entire transgene locus in a jmj14 mutant background, whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) analysis was performed on plants carrying the 6b4 locus. WGBS revealed that the transgenic line 6b4 carried a single T-DNA insertion. However, the left border did not delineate the 6b4 T-DNA insertion and the entire binary vector was also found to have inserted adjacent to the left border (Supplementary Fig. 2). This phenomenon of co-transfer of non-T-DNA vector sequences occurs frequently with T-DNA integration events into plant chromosomes42. WGBS analysis revealed a high level of CG methylation in the GUS coding sequence of 6b4 plants (Fig. 5), which most likely reflects the highly transcribed status of the p35S:GUS transgene in this transgenic line. Of note, almost no CG methylation was found in the adjacent NPTII transgene (Supplementary Fig. 3), consistent with a low level of NPTII expression and the 6b4 line being barely resistant to kanamycin11. However, a surprisingly high level of CG methylation was observed in the non-T-DNA vector sequences inserted along with the T-DNA (Supplementary Fig. 3), suggesting that these sequences had been transcribed by a plant RNA polymerase prior to, and/or after integration into the chromosome. In contrast to CG methylation, the level of CHH and CHG methylation was very low in both T-DNA and vector sequences of the 6b4 locus in the WT genetic background (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3). The situation was very different in 6b4 jmj14-4 plants where the GUS coding sequence exhibited CHG hypermethylation and the 35S promoter showed increased CHG and CHH methylation (Fig. 5). Of note, CHH and CHG hypermethylation in 6b4 jmj14 was not observed in the adjacent NPTII transgene but was observed in the vector sequences flanking the left border (Supplementary Fig. 3A), suggesting that CHH and CHG hypermethylation in jmj14 occurs mostly at sequences that show high levels of CG methylation in the WT genetic background.

Fig. 5: JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 prevent CHG and CHH methylation of the p35S:GUS transgene.
figure 5

A CG, CHG and CHH methylation (where H = A, C or T) profiles for the 6b4 GUS transgene consisting of a modified 35S promoter (p35S), the GUS coding sequence (GUS) and a Rubisco terminator (tRbcS). The top panel shows DNA methylation profiles of 5-week-old plants for 6b4 WT control 1 (6b4-1 WT), and mutants 6b4 jmj14, 6b4 jmj14 drm2 cmt3 and 6b4 drm2 cmt3. The bottom panel shows DNA methylation profiles of 8-week-old plants for 6b4 WT control 2 (6b4-2 WT) and mutants 6b4 nac50 nac52 and 6b4 ibm1. Bisulfite data were analyzed using R version 4.0.2. B Proportion of methylated cytosines in the three sequence contexts across the p35S and GUS sequences show that increased CHG and CHH methylation in 6b4 jmj14 and 6b4 nac50 nac52 plants is dependent on the DRM2-CMT3 pathway, and that impairment of IBM1, if anything, decreases rather than increases DNA methylation of the GUS coding sequence.

These results prompted us to hypothesize that CHH and CHG hypermethylation of the p35S:GUS transgene in 6b4 jmj14 plants could prevent, or at least reduce, the production of aberrant RNAs (Fig. 3), thus explaining why jmj14 scions cannot trigger PTGS upon grafting onto silenced rootstocks (Fig. 4). To test this hypothesis, 6b4 jmj14 drm2 cmt3 plants were generated, and we confirmed the absence of CHH and CHG methylation in the p35S:GUS transgene and the entire 6b4 locus in this line (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3). When grafted onto GUS-silenced rootstocks, 6b4 jmj14 drm2 cmt3 plants triggered PTGS as efficiently as grafted 6b4 WT controls (Table 1), supporting the hypothesis that CHH and CHG hypermethylation is instrumental in preventing systemic PTGS in 6b4 jmj14 plants.

Table 1 Frequency of spontaneous and graft-induced PTGS.

There is a low but detectable level of CHG methylation (but not CHH methylation) in the GUS coding sequence of 6b4 WT plants (Fig. 5), and we asked if this residual level of CHG methylation prevents spontaneous induction of PTGS in these plants. To test this hypothesis, 6b4 drm2 cmt3 plants were generated. Our analysis revealed that CHG methylation is reduced in the GUS coding sequence of 6b4 drm2 cmt3 plants compared to 6b4 WT plants (Fig. 5A), and indeed, ~10% of these plants trigger spontaneous PTGS (Table 1). These results strongly support the hypothesis that transgene CHG methylation strongly limits the production of aberrant RNAs that would otherwise induce spontaneous PTGS of the homologous GUS coding sequence. In 6b4 drm2 cmt3 plants, we propose that the lower level of CHG methylation of the GUS coding sequence increases the transcription of aberrant RNAs, thereby allowing spontaneous PTGS to occur. While 6b4 WT plants produce insufficient aberrant RNAs to trigger spontaneous PTGS of the GUS coding sequence, it is sufficient for graft-induced PTGS to occur due to a synergistic relationship between aberrant RNA expressed from the GUS transgene of 6b4 WT scions and systemic PTGS signals derived from GUS-silenced rootstocks. In contrast, in 6b4 jmj14 scions, increased CHG methylation further limits the production of aberrant RNA from the 6b4 GUS transgene, rendering it non-responsive to graft-transmissible PTGS signals from silenced GUS rootstocks.

Remarkably, WGBS of 6b4 WT and 6b4 jmj14-4 plants revealed that loss of JMJ14 had a limited effect on the extent of DNA methylation at endogenous loci (Fig. 6). A summary of all endogenous DMRs identified between 6b4 WT and 6b4 jmj14-4 is presented in Supplementary Data 1. Only one endogenous hyper CHG DMR was identified in jmj14, and this endogenous region did not show hyper CG and hyper CHH methylation, whereas the transgenic sequences (both the T-DNA and the co-integrated backbone sequences of the binary vector) exhibited hyper CG, hyper CHG and hyper CHH methylation (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3).

Fig. 6: JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 do not affect CHG and CHH methylation of endogenous genes and TEs.
figure 6

The gene body of endogenous genes (left panels) and TEs (right panels) were annotated according to the TAIR10 reference genome and aligned at the 5′ and 3′ ends (dashed lines), and average CG, CHG and CHH methylation levels for 100-bp intervals were plotted in pairwise comparisons between 6b4-1 WT and 6b4 jmj14, and 6b4 drm2 cmt3 and 6b4 jmj14 drm2 cmt3 of 5-week-old plants, and 6b4-2 WT and 6b4 nac50 nac52, and 6b4-2 WT and 6b4 ibm1 for 8-week-old plants. This analysis showed that CHG and CHH methylation in the body of endogenous genes and TEs is not affected in 6b4 jmj14 and 6b4 nac50 nac52 plants, whereas CHG and CHH is substantially increased in the body of endogenous genes in 6b4 ibm1 plants. Bisulfite data were analyzed using R version 4.0.2.

Both JMJ14 and NAC52 interact with the p35S:GUS transgene and are required for systemic PTGS

Mutations in JMJ14 were previously shown to adversely affect Pol II occupancy and H3K4me3 levels in the promoter of the p35S:GUS transgene in transgenic line 6b426. However, it was not determined if this effect was due to a direct interaction between JMJ14 and chromatin at the 35S promoter. To address this question, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) of JMJ14 was performed on the 6b4 jmj14-4 line complemented with a pJMJ14:3xFlag-JMJ14 transgene43. ChIP was conducted using Flag antibodies and followed by quantitative PCR (qPCR) using primer pairs located in the 35S promoter, and in the 5′ and 3′ regions within the GUS transgene body. Quantitative ChIP-PCR revealed a significant enrichment of JMJ14 primarily at the 35S promoter (Fig. 7A). These results indicate that JMJ14 is a component of chromatin at the promoter of the p35S:GUS transgene, and are consistent with Pol II occupancy, high levels of H3K4me326 and lack of DNA methylation (Fig. 5) within the 35S promoter of 6b4 WT plants.

Fig. 7: Hierarchical binding of JMJ14 and NAC52 to the promoter and coding sequence of the p35S:GUS transgene, respectively.
figure 7

A ChIP-qPCR analyses were performed on the aerial part of 17-day-old seedlings of the indicated genotypes using a Flag antibody to immunoprecipitate JMJ14-Flag. Levels are given as percentages of IPsample/IP6b4 relative to GAPDH, which was used as a control. The graphical representation shows the fold change as the mean of four replicates. Error bars represent the standard deviation of these four replicates. The significance was assayed with a Bonferroni corrected two-sides t-test (P < 0.05). Results indicate a relative enrichment of JMJ14 on the 35S promoter of the 6b4 locus, which was not affected by the sgs1 mutation impairing NAC52. B ChIP-qPCR analyses were performed on the aerial part of 17-day-old seedlings of the indicated genotypes using a GFP antibody to immunoprecipitate NAC52-GFP. Levels are given as percentages of IPsample/IP6b4 relative to GAPDH, which was used as a control. The graphical representation shows the fold change as the mean of five replicates. Error bars represent the standard deviation of these five replicates. The significance was assayed with a Bonferroni corrected two-sides t-test (P < 0,05). Results indicate a relative enrichment of NAC52 on the 35S promoter and the beginning of the GUS coding sequence of the 6b4 locus, which was abolished by the jmj14 mutation, indicating a hierarchical action of JMJ14 and NAC52 at the 6b4 locus.

JMJ14 has also been shown to interact with the NAC-domain transcription factor NAC52 and its close relative NAC5044,45. NAC50 and NAC52 most likely play redundant roles, but NAC52 appears more important than NAC50 in Arabidopsis due to its higher level of expression. Indeed, a genetic screen for PTGS impaired mutants identified a mutation, originally named sgs1, which turned out to be a mutant allele of NAC52, whereas reverse genetics showed that a nac50 knockout mutation had no effect on PTGS28. To determine whether NAC50 or NAC52 participates in graft-induced PTGS of the 6b4 GUS transgene, a 6b4 nac50 nac52 double mutant was generated and grafted onto GUS-silenced rootstocks. Similar to 6b4 jmj14, the 6b4 nac50 nac52 scions were incapable of triggering PTGS of GUS when grafted onto GUS-silenced rootstocks (Table 1), indicating that both JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 are required for reception of graft-induced PTGS of the 6b4 GUS transgene. In addition, WGBS analysis of non-grafted 6b4 nac50 nac52 plants revealed transgene CHH and CHG hypermethylation similar to non-grafted 6b4 jmj14 plants (Fig. 5B and Supplementary Fig. 3B), confirming the correlation between CHH and CHG hypermethylation and decreased induction of PTGS.

Importantly, WGBS of 6b4 WT and 6b4 nac50 nac52 plants also confirmed that like the loss of JMJ14, loss of both NAC50 and NAC52 had a limited effect on the extent of DNA methylation at endogenous loci. Indeed, only one endogenous hyper CHG DMR was identified in jmj14 and only one endogenous hyper CHG DMR was identified in nac50 nac52 (Supplementary Data 1). These two DMRs were located on chromosome 5 and chromosome 3, respectively, indicating that jmj14- and nac50 nac52-dependent hyper CHG methylation is only found in the transgenic sequences (both the T-DNA and the co-integrated backbone sequences of the binary vector). Moreover, transgenic sequences not only exhibited hyper CHG methylation but also hyper CG and hyper CHH methylation (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3). The only endogenous hyper CHG methylation found in jmj14 did not show hyper CG and hyper CHH methylation, while the only endogenous hyper CHG methylation found in nac50 nac52 showed hyper CHH methylation but not hyper CG methylation (Supplementary Data 1). Therefore, it is most likely that the endogenous DMRs observed between wild type and either jmj14 or nac50 nac52 correspond to endogenous genomic sequences that exhibit highly variable methylation levels36,37. Together, WGBS analysis of WT, jmj14 and nac50 nac52 plants indicates that JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 specifically limit the level of DNA methylation of transgenes and have essentially no effect on the DNA methylation status of endogenous genes.

To further address the role of NAC50/NAC52 in PTGS, a pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP transgene was generated and introduced into the 6b4 WT line. The pUBQ10 promoter drives constitutive expression of transgenes in Arabidopsis. At first, we tested whether the pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP constructs expressed a functional protein that actually interacts with JMJ14. To do so, co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) experiments were performed on plants resulting from a cross between a pJMJ14:JMJ14-Myc line46 and the 6b4 + pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP line. As expected, JMJ14-Myc and NAC52-GFP proteins co-precipitated in pull-down assays using a GFP antibody (Supplementary Fig. 4). Furthermore, ChIP was conducted on the 6b4 + pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP line using GFP antibodies, followed by qPCR using primer pairs located in the 35S promoter, and in the 5′ and 3′ regions within the GUS transgene body. The ChIP-qPCR analysis revealed a significant enrichment of NAC52 in the 35S promoter and the 5′ region of the GUS coding sequence (Fig. 7B).

Finally, to address the hierarchical action of JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 in PTGS, we generated 6b4 jmj14 nac52 + pJMJ14:3xFlag-JMJ1443 and 6b4 jmj14 + pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP lines. ChIP-qPCR revealed that the association of JMJ14 with chromatin at the 35S:GUS transgene was not affected by the nac52(sgs1) mutation (Fig. 7A), whereas the association of NAC52 was impaired by the jmj14 mutation (Fig. 7B). Altogether, these results strongly suggest that JMJ14 binds to chromatin at the promoter of the p35S:GUS transgene, which promotes the binding of NAC50/NAC52 to the 35S promoter and the downstream GUS coding sequence. Our results are consistent with JMJ14 and NAC50/NAC52 acting in a chromatin complex to prevent CHG methylation throughout the entire transgene, thus allowing aberrant RNAs to be produced, which in turn induce PTGS.

IBM1 impairment slightly decreases CHH and CHG methylation in the transgene body and promotes PTGS

To test further the hypothesis that transgene methylation influences PTGS capacity, the 6b4 locus was introduced into the ibm1 mutant background. IBM1 encodes an H3K9me2 demethylase that suppresses CHH and CHG methylation in the body of about half of the endogenous genes of Arabidopsis33,34,35,47. We therefore expected 6b4 ibm1 plants to exhibit increased CHH and CHG methylation in the GUS coding sequence and suppress induction of PTGS when grafted onto silenced GUS rootstocks. However, while WGBS analysis confirmed increased CHH and CHG methylation in the body of 9000 endogenous genes (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Data 1), CHH and CHG methylation remained the same or slightly decreased in transgenic sequences in 6b4 ibm1 plants (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3B). The decrease in CHG methylation in transgenic sequences of 6b4 ibm1 plants was most obvious in the GUS coding sequence (Fig. 5B). These results confirmed that actively expressed transgenes and endogenous genes exhibit major epigenetic differences. Moreover, spontaneous triggering of GUS PTGS occured in ~20% of 6b4 ibm1 plants (Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 5), indicating that JMJ14 and IBM1 have opposite effects on transgene PTGS.

Discussion

Endogenous protein-coding genes produce aberrant RNAs that are efficiently degraded by RNA quality control (RQC) pathways. In plants, this is essential to prevent the conversion of aberrant RNAs into dsRNA by RDRs, which would result in the production of siRNAs that could destroy homologous and essential mRNAs. Indeed, RQC impairment causes lethality in Arabidopsis, which can be rescued by suppressing RDR6 activity21,25. Similarly, transgenes produce aberrant RNAs in proportion to the level of transcript, and provided the aberrant RNAs do not exceed an abundance threshold within the cell, they are also eliminated by RQC. However, if RQC is impaired or saturated by high levels of transcription, both transgenes and endogenous genes can be subjected to RDR6-dependent PTGS15,16. Occasionally, endogenous loci in plants can be subjected to PTGS despite a functioning RQC pathway being present. However, these loci generally exhibit genomic rearrangements involving gene duplication events that allow the production of dsRNA and induction of PTGS48,49,50,51,52,53,54. It is assumed that such rearrangements involving endogenous genes are tolerated because they only adversely affect dispensable genes. Obviously, transgenes are also dispensable because they correspond to sequences that do not exist naturally in plants, and the transgene loci that induce PTGS the most efficiently involve strong promoters and/or tandem insertion of multiple copies of the transgene, often in inverted orientations55. High rates of transcription from multiple transgenes increases the chances of aberrant RNA by-products forming, and only a fraction of this aberrant RNA needs to escape degradation by RQC to be recruited by RDR6, and converted into dsRNA to induce PTGS.

Despite these similarities, actively expressed transgenes are generally more susceptible to PTGS than endogenous genes. These differences between actively expressed transgenes and endogenous genes have long remained a mystery. Our finding that transgenes and endogenous genes exhibit different epigenetic characteristics is particularly interesting because transgenes are transferred into the host genome as naked DNA or naked DNA associated with Agrobacterium proteins, and once integrated into the chromosome, must associate with histones to form chromatin. At present, the type of eukaryotic histones that associate with naked or newly integrated foreign DNA is not known. One could imagine that the insertion of extrachromosomal DNA into the chromosome attracts particular histone marks to label this DNA as ‘new or foreign’. It seems likely that what happens for transgenes also occurs when a new copy of a retrotransposon integrates into the genome. Supporting this hypothesis, it has been shown that activation of retrotransposons triggers a PTGS response, just like transgenes do56,57,58. Although this hypothesis is attractive, our findings suggest that there are striking epigenetic differences between transgenes and endogenous loci, including genes and stabilized transposons. Here, we showed that transgenes and endogenous loci (genes and stabilized transposons) behave differently when the histone H3K4me3 demethylase JMJ14, and two cooperating transcription factors that interact with JMJ14, NAC50, and NAC52, are impaired. Indeed, in jmj14 or nac50 nac52 mutants, an increase in CHG methylation, and CHH methylation to a lesser extent, is observed at the 6b4 transgene locus (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3). An increase in CHG methylation was particularly evident in the promoter and gene body of the p35S:GUS transgene, and also parts of the integrated Agrobacterium vector sequences (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 3), whereas no change in DNA methylation profiles was observed at any endogenous genomic loci in these mutants (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Data 1). Remarkably, the jmj14 and nac50nac52 mutations also suppress the triggering of PTGS of the p35S:GUS and p35S:GFP when these transgenic mutant lines were used as scions grafted onto rootstocks showing PTGS (Fig. 4 and Table 1). Moreover, CHH and CHG hypermethylation, and not simply the absence of JMJ14 or NAC50/NAC52, appears causal in preventing PTGS because 6b4 jmj14 drm2 cmt3 scions trigger PTGS when grafted onto silenced rootstocks (Table 1), indicating that the impairment of DRM2-CMT3-dependent CHH and CHG methylation in a jmj14 background restores the susceptibility of transgenes to graft-transmissible PTGS. As JMJ14 and NAC52 bind to the p35S:GUS transgene within the 6b4 locus (Fig. 7), we propose that the interacting complex limits CHG and CHH methylation of the GUS coding sequence, allowing the production of aberrant RNAs that are required to trigger and maintain PTGS. Supporting this hypothesis, the 6b4 drm2 cmt3 transgenic line lacks CHH and CHG methylation of the GUS coding sequence and triggers PTGS spontaneously, whereas the 6b4 WT line exhibits a low CHH and CHG methylation level of the GUS coding sequence that is nevertheless sufficient to block the spontaneous triggering of PTGS.

The 6b4 T-DNA insertion locus contains not only an intact T-DNA but also the entire Agrobacterium binary vector sequence alongside the left border of the T-DNA (Supplementary Fig. 2). Remarkably, the CHG and CHH methylation profiles of the vector sequences were similar to the p35S:GUS transgene in WT plants and increased in the jmj14 mutant in a DRM2-CMT3-dependent manner (Supplementary Fig. 3). These results suggest that not just promoter-driven transgenes, but also promoterless foreign DNA sequences could be subject to JMJ14-dependent suppression of CHG and CHH methylation, resulting in the production of aberrant RNA and potential PTGS of homologous mRNA. It is interesting to note that bombardment of transgenic tobacco expressing a p35S:GFP transgene with promoterless GFP DNA sequences can induce PTGS59. Adding to this earlier report, our data are consistent with promoter-independent aberrant RNA transcripts being produced from foreign DNA sequences prior to or immediately after integration into the plant chromosome. In contrast to the p35S:GUS transgene and Agrobacterium vector sequences, CHG and CHH methylation of the pNOS:NPTII:tNOS transgene within the 6b4 locus remained low in the jmj14 and nac50 nac52 mutant backgrounds (Supplementary Fig. 3). This could be explained by JMJ14 not being able to bind to the Agrobacterium NOS promoter, which may have been selected for during the evolution of Agrobacterium as a pathogen to ensure that the transferred oncogenes on the T-DNA were not epigenetically distinguishable from endogenous plant genes.

H3K4 trimethylation and DNA methylation are considered to have antagonistic influences activating and repressing expression of endogenous genes, respectively46. Therefore, it was expected that for endogenous loci in jmj14 mutants, where H3K4me3 levels increase, DNA methylation would decrease. However, our WGBS analysis revealed that there were minimal changes in DNA methylation levels within endogenous genes of jmj14 (Fig. 6), further emphasizing the difference between transgenes and endogenous sequences. Nevertheless, we asked whether the binding of JMJ14 could promote the production of aberrant RNAs from endogenous genes and their subsequent transformation into siRNAs, like it does at the p35S:GUS transgene of the 6b4 locus. If this was the case, one would expect that the fraction of endogenous genes that produce siRNAs when RQC is impaired21,25,60 would be enriched for genes that bind JMJ1445. However, the fraction of siRNA-producing endogenous genes that bind JMJ14 is exactly that expected by chance (Supplementary Fig. 6), whether considering the siRNA-producing endogenous genes identified in the decapping mutants dcp2 and vcs21, the siRNA-producing endogenous genes identified in the exonuclease double mutant xrn4 ski225, or the siRNA-producing endogenous genes identified when plants are infected by viruses that inhibit RQC60. Therefore, unlike the p35S:GUS transgene of the 6b4 locus, which binds JMJ14, endogenous genes that bind JMJ14 do not appear particularly prone to producing endogenous siRNAs when RQC is compromised. Altogether with our results, these results reinforce the idea that transgene DNA hypermethylation caused by the absence of JMJ14 is specific to transgenes and not endogenous genes.

We not only found that transgenes and endogenous genes exhibit different epigenetic behavior with regard to the H3K4me3 demethylase JMJ14, but also to the histone H3K9me2 demethylase IBM133,34,35,47. Indeed, in jmj14 mutant plants, an increase in DNA methylation is observed in the newly inserted sequences of the 6b4 locus but not in endogenous genes, whereas in ibm1 mutant plants, an increase in DNA methylation is observed in endogenous genes but not in the newly inserted sequences of the 6b4 locus (Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Fig. 3). Moreover, whereas 6b4 plants do not trigger PTGS spontaneously but undergo systemic PTGS when grafted on silenced rootstocks, 6b4 jmj14 plants do not trigger PTGS spontaneously and are incapable of undergoing systemic PTGS, while 6b4 ibm1 plants trigger PTGS spontaneously, similar to 6b4 drm2 cmt3 plants (Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 5), indicating that JMJ14 and IBM1 have opposite effects on transgene PTGS. It may be assumed that actively expressed transgenes behave epigenetically the same as endogenous genes. However, our data suggest that despite being stably expressed in a WT background, transgenes exhibit epigenetic features that strongly differs from that of endogenous genes with regard to JMJ14 and IBM1 regulation.

To conclude, our research shows that JMJ14 maintains expressed transgenes in an epigenetic state that allows a residual level of aberrant RNA to be produced from the transgene body, thereby rendering the transgene particularly susceptible to PTGS. This epigenetic phenomenon could therefore represent an evolutionary probation period for the expressed transgene, until it is either completely silenced, or alternatively, epigenetically accepted as an endogenous locus in the new host genome.

Methods

Plant material

The transgenic reporter lines 10027-3, 214, L1, 6b4 and 6b4-306, and the mutants jmj14-4, nac52sgs1nac50 nac52, rdr6sgs2-1, cmt3-7, drm2-3, ibm1-1, vcs-9 all are in the Arabidopsis accession Columbia13,21,26,38,40,44,47,61,62. The transgenic lines carrying the tagged constructs pJMJ14:JMJ14-Myc, pJMJ14:Flag-JMJ14 and pUBQ10:NAC52-GFP also are in the Arabidopsis accession Columbia28,43,46. Primers used for genotyping are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

Growth conditions and grafting techniques

Arabidopsis seeds were surface-sterilized, sown on a nutritive medium (1.3% S-medium Duchefa, 1% Phytoblend agar), vernalized at 4 °C for 2 days, and then placed in a culture chamber at 23 °C, 70% humidity, 120 µE m−2 light with a 16 h light/8 h dark (long-days) or 8 h light/16 h dark (short-days) photoperiod. Seedlings grown under long-day conditions were transferred to soil after 2 weeks. Seedlings grown under short-day conditions were used for grafting expertiments as described in ref. 63. Briefly, 6 days after gemination, seedlings were cut transversely across the hypocotyl using a razor blade (90° butt graft). Then, scions and rootstocks were placed on a nitrocellulose filter (Hybond). Hypocotyls of scions and rootstock were introduced into a silicon microtube (2 mm long) to connect them to each other, and incubated under short-day conditions (8 h light, 16 h dark) for 7 to 14 days. Grafted seedlings that did not show adventitious roots were transferred to soil and grown under a short-days photoperiod.

GUS activity and GUS RNA analysis

GUS protein was extracted from plant leaves, and GUS activity was quantified by monitoring the quantity of 4-methylumbelliferone produced by cleavage of the substrate 4-methylumbelliferyl-b-D-glucuronide (Duchefa) on a fluorometer (Thermo Scientific fluoroskan ascent)64.

RNA extraction and HMW or LMW RNA gel blot analyses were performed using 5–10 µg of total RNA and GUS, U6 and 25S probes16. For the reverse transcription, RNA was treated with DNaseI (Invitrogen) and 1 μg of DNA‐free RNA was reverse transcribed with the primer called RT_ASGUS_Linker using the RevertAid H Minus Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoFisher, http://www.thermofisher.com/) Amplification was performed by using the LK and RbcS1Rev primers11, and qPCR results were normalized with EiF1a11.

Whole-genome bisulfite sequencing and DNA methylation analysis

Plants were grown under short-day conditions for five weeks (experiment 1: 6b4-1, 6b4 jmj14, 6b4 jmj14 cmt3 drm2, 6b4 cmt3 drm2) or eight weeks (experiment 2: 6b4-2, 6b4 nac50 nac52, 6b4 ibm1). Genomic DNA was isolated from leaf tissue from a mix of eight plants per genotype using the Nucleospin Plant II Maxi kit (Macharey Nagel), and library preparation and sequencing was performed by BGI Genomics (Hong Kong). Briefly, genomic DNA was fragmented to 100–300 bp by sonication, end-repaired, and ligated to methylated adaptors. Bisulfite treatment was then performed using the EZ DNA Methylation-Gold kit (Zymo), and the bisulfite-treated fragments were PCR amplified and sequenced as paired-end 100 bp reads (PE100) with DNBSEQ technology. Pre-processed high-quality reads were mapped to the TAIR10 genome using bismark with default settings for paired-end libraries65, and all downstream analysis were performed using custom R scripts. All figures presenting bisulfite data were generated using R version 4.0.2. A summary of all bisulfite sequencing data generated in this study is presented in Supplementary Table 2, and is accessible through NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE152584).

ChIP-qPCR analysis

ChiP was performed on chromatin using 2 g of crosslinked in vitro shoots from 15-day-old seedlings66. Chromatin was sonicated (30 s ‘’ON”/30 s ‘’OFF”) with a Bioruptor UCD200 (Diagenode). The chromatin solution was diluted 10 fold with ChiP dilution buffer. Fifty microliters of Dynabeads Protein G (invitrogen) and 25 µL of GFP-Trap Dynabeads (chromotek) was washed twice with ChiP dilution buffer. Nineteen micrograms of Flag (Sigma F3165) antibodies were added to G Protein and incubated at least 2 h at 4 °C with gentle rotation. Beads were washed three times with ChiP dilution buffer. Then, 1 mL of the diluted chromatin was added to the beads/antibodies and incubated overnight at 4 °C with gentle agitation. Beads were washed as decribed66. After the last TE wash, reverse crosslinking (at least 4 h at 65 °C) and elution were performed using an IPure kit (Diagenode (AL-100-0100)). The final elution was performed in 60 µL and the chromatin was stored at −20 °C until analysis.

Using the Biorad-CFX-Maestro Software, the ChIP was analyzed by qPCR using 2 µL of chromatin in triplicate. Primers are listed in Supplementary Table 1. The mean of three qPCR results (with SD < 0.4 cycle threshold) was used for each point. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH)) was used as an internal ref. 67. Results are represented as fold change: normalized expression (ΔΔCq) given by the ratio of Relative Quantity of the sample (2(Cq 6b4-Cq sample) for each identical oligo with 100% efficiency) divided by the Relative Quantity of GAPDH. At least two biological replicates were analyzed each time. Results show the mean and SD of the independent biological replicates.

Co-immunoprecipitation experiment

For each bulk of plants 15 days after germination, 2 g of fresh tissue was ground in CoIP Buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7.5, 100 mM EDTA, 15% Glycerol, 1% NP40, 1% Triton X100, 1x cOmpleteTM Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (Merck). After 30 min on ice, samples were centrifugated at 7650 × g at 4 °C and the supernatant quantified after miracloth filtration. Five micrograms of this crude extract was submitted to preclear on 50 μL of magnetic beads coated with protein A for 2 h at 4 °C. After magnetic decantation, 50 μL of GFP-Trap_M (gtm-20, Chromotek) was rinsed (2x PBS0.1% and 1x CoIP buffer) and added to the supernatant. This was incubated overnight at 4 °C with gentle agitation. The GFP beads were then rinsed 6x in CoIP buffer, and finally adjusted to 40 μL of CoIP buffer, 5 μL of 6x Laemmli buffer and incubated at 95 °C for 5 min. After vortexing, 40 μL of this final supernatant was loaded onto a 10% polyacrylamide gel. Following sodium dodecyl sulphate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, western blotting was performed using anti myc (mouse 9E10, sigma-M4439), anti GFP (Rabbit Abcam-Ab290) or anti tubulin (mouse B-5-1-2, sigma-T5168) antibodies. An ImageQuant-LAS4000 (GE Healthcare) was used for detection.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

Data supporting the findings of this work are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information files. A reporting summary for this Article is available as a Supplementary Information file. The datasets and plant materials generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Bisulfite sequencing data are accessible through NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus GSE152584. The source data underlying Figs. 1A–C, 2B, and 4C, as well as Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5 are provided as a Source Data file. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. 1.

    Bartel, D. P. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell 116, 281–297 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Baulcombe, D. RNA silencing in plants. Nature 431, 356–363 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lippman, Z. & Martienssen, R. The role of RNA interference in heterochromatic silencing. Nature 431, 364–370 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Havecker, E. R. et al. The Arabidopsis RNA-directed DNA methylation argonautes functionally diverge based on their expression and interaction with target loci. Plant Cell 22, 321–334 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Xie, Z. et al. Genetic and functional diversification of small RNA pathways in plants. PLoS Biol. 2, 642–652 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Guo, X., Wang, X. J. & Zhang, X. Arabidopsis AGO3 predominantly recruits 24-nt small RNAs to regulate epigenetic silencing. Nat. Plants 2, 16049 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Law, J. A. & Jacobsen, S. E. Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 204–220 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Zemach, A. et al. The Arabidopsis nucleosome remodeler DDM1 allows DNA methyltransferases to access H1-containing heterochromatin. Cell 153, 193–205 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Martinez de Alba, A. E., Elvira-Matelot, E. & Vaucheret, H. Gene silencing in plants: a diversity of pathways. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1829, 1300–1308 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mlotshwa, S. et al. DICER-LIKE2 plays a primary role in transitive silencing of transgenes in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE 3, e1755 (2008).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Parent, J. S. et al. Post-transcriptional gene silencing triggered by sense transgenes involves uncapped antisense RNA and differs from silencing intentionally triggered by antisense transgenes. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 8464–8475 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Vaistij, F. E., Jones, L. & Baulcombe, D. C. Spreading of RNA targeting and DNA methylation in RNA silencing requires transcription of the target gene and a putative RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Plant Cell 14, 857–867 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brosnan, C. A. et al. Nuclear gene silencing directs reception of long-distance mRNA silencing in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 14741–14746 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Palauqui, J. C., Elmayan, T., Pollien, J. M. & Vaucheret, H. Systemic acquired silencing: transgene-specific post-transcriptional silencing is transmitted by grafting from silenced stocks to non-silenced scions. EMBO J. 16, 4738–4745 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gazzani, S., Lawrenson, T., Woodward, C., Headon, D. & Sablowski, R. A link between mRNA turnover and RNA interference in Arabidopsis. Science 306, 1046–1048 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gy, I. et al. Arabidopsis FIERY1, XRN2, and XRN3 are endogenous RNA silencing suppressors. Plant Cell 19, 3451–3461 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Luo, Z. & Chen, Z. Improperly terminated, unpolyadenylated mRNA of sense transgenes is targeted by RDR6-mediated RNA silencing in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 19, 943–958 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Goeres, D. C. et al. Components of the Arabidopsis mRNA decapping complex are required for early seedling development. Plant Cell 19, 1549–1564 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chen, C. Y. & Shyu, A. B. Mechanisms of deadenylation-dependent decay. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 2, 167–183 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gregory, B. D. et al. A link between RNA metabolism and silencing affecting Arabidopsis development. Dev. Cell 14, 854–866 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Martinez de Alba, A. E. et al. In plants, decapping prevents RDR6-dependent production of small interfering RNAs from endogenous mRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 2902–2913 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Moreno, A. B. et al. Cytoplasmic and nuclear quality control and turnover of single-stranded RNA modulate post-transcriptional gene silencing in plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 4699–4708 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Thran, M., Link, K. & Sonnewald, U. The Arabidopsis DCP2 gene is required for proper mRNA turnover and prevents transgene silencing in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 72, 368–377 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Yu, A. et al. Second-site mutagenesis of a hypomorphic argonaute1 allele identifies SUPERKILLER3 as an endogenous suppressor of transgene posttranscriptional gene silencing. Plant Physiol. 169, 1266–1274 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zhang, X. et al. Plant biology. Suppression of endogenous gene silencing by bidirectional cytoplasmic RNA decay in Arabidopsis. Science 348, 120–123 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Le Masson, I. et al. Mutations in the Arabidopsis H3K4me2/3 demethylase JMJ14 suppress posttranscriptional gene silencing by decreasing transgene transcription. Plant Cell 24, 3603–3612 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Searle, I. R., Pontes, O., Melnyk, C. W., Smith, L. M. & Baulcombe, D. C. JMJ14, a JmjC domain protein, is required for RNA silencing and cell-to-cell movement of an RNA silencing signal in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 24, 986–991 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Butel, N., Le Masson, I., Bouteiller, N., Vaucheret, H. & Elmayan, T. sgs1: a neomorphic nac52 allele impairing post-transcriptional gene silencing through SGS3 downregulation. Plant J. 90, 505–519 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rountree, M. R. & Selker, E. U. DNA methylation inhibits elongation but not initiation of transcription in Neurospora crassa. Genes Dev. 11, 2383–2395 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bewick, A. J. & Schmitz, R. J. Gene body DNA methylation in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 36, 103–110 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Choi, J., Lyons, D. B., Kim, M. Y., Moore, J. D. & Zilberman, D. DNA methylation and histone H1 jointly repress transposable elements and aberrant intragenic transcripts. Mol. Cell 77, 310–323 (2020). e7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Neri, F. et al. Intragenic DNA methylation prevents spurious transcription initiation. Nature 543, 72–77 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Inagaki, S. et al. Autocatalytic differentiation of epigenetic modifications within the Arabidopsis genome. EMBO J. 29, 3496–3506 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Miura, A. et al. An Arabidopsis jmjC domain protein protects transcribed genes from DNA methylation at CHG sites. EMBO J. 28, 1078–1086 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wang, X. et al. RNA-binding protein regulates plant DNA methylation by controlling mRNA processing at the intronic heterochromatin-containing gene IBM1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15467–15472 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Becker, C. et al. Spontaneous epigenetic variation in the Arabidopsis thaliana methylome. Nature 480, 245–249 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Schmitz, R. J. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic instability is a source of novel methylation variants. Science 334, 369–373 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Taochy, C. et al. A genetic screen for impaired systemic RNAi highlights the crucial role of DICER-LIKE 2. Plant Physiol. 175, 1424–1437 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Cao, J. et al. Can-Seq: a PCR and DNA sequencing strategy for identifying new alleles of known and candidate genes. Plant Methods 16, 16 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Beclin, C., Boutet, S., Waterhouse, P. & Vaucheret, H. A branched pathway for transgene-induced RNA silencing in plants. Curr. Biol. 12, 684–688 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Parent, J. S., Bouteiller, N., Elmayan, T. & Vaucheret, H. Respective contributions of Arabidopsis DCL2 and DCL4 to RNA silencing. Plant J. 81, 223–232 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gelvin, S. B. Integration of Agrobacterium T-DNA into the Plant Genome. Annu. Rev. Genet. 51, 195–217 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Jeong, J. H. et al. Repression of FLOWERING LOCUS T chromatin by functionally redundant histone H3 lysine 4 demethylases in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE 4, e8033 (2009).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ning, Y. Q. et al. Two novel NAC transcription factors regulate gene expression and flowering time by associating with the histone demethylase JMJ14. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 1469–1484 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Zhang, S. et al. C-terminal domains of a histone demethylase interact with a pair of transcription factors and mediate specific chromatin association. Cell Discov. 1, 15003 (2015).

  46. 46.

    Deleris, A. et al. Involvement of a Jumonji-C domain-containing histone demethylase in DRM2-mediated maintenance of DNA methylation. EMBO Rep. 11, 950–955 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Saze, H., Shiraishi, A., Miura, A. & Kakutani, T. Control of genic DNA methylation by a jmjC domain-containing protein in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 319, 462–465 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Clough, S. J. et al. Features of a 103-kb gene-rich region in soybean include an inverted perfect repeat cluster of CHS genes comprising the I locus. Genome 47, 819–831 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Coen, E. S. & Carpenter, R. A semi-dominant allele, niv-525, acts in trans to inhibit expression of its wild-type homologue in Antirrhinum majus. EMBO J. 7, 877–883 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Della Vedova, C. B. et al. The dominant inhibitory chalcone synthase allele C2-Idf (inhibitor diffuse) from Zea mays (L.) acts via an endogenous RNA silencing mechanism. Genetics 170, 1989–2002 (2005).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Durand, S., Bouche, N., Perez Strand, E., Loudet, O. & Camilleri, C. Rapid establishment of genetic incompatibility through natural epigenetic variation. Curr. Biol. 22, 326–331 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Melquist, S. & Bender, J. Transcription from an upstream promoter controls methylation signaling from an inverted repeat of endogenous genes in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 17, 2036–2047 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Tuteja, J. H., Clough, S. J., Chan, W. C. & Vodkin, L. O. Tissue-specific gene silencing mediated by a naturally occurring chalcone synthase gene cluster in Glycine max. Plant Cell 16, 819–835 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Tuteja, J. H., Zabala, G., Varala, K., Hudson, M. & Vodkin, L. O. Endogenous, tissue-specific short interfering RNAs silence the chalcone synthase gene family in glycine max seed coats. Plant Cell 21, 3063–3077 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Sidorenko, L. V. et al. GC-rich coding sequences reduce transposon-like, small RNA-mediated transgene silencing. Nat. Plants 3, 875–884 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Creasey, K. M. et al. miRNAs trigger widespread epigenetically activated siRNAs from transposons in Arabidopsis. Nature 508, 411–415 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Mari-Ordonez, A. et al. Reconstructing de novo silencing of an active plant retrotransposon. Nat. Genet. 45, 1029–1039 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Nuthikattu, S. et al. The initiation of epigenetic silencing of active transposable elements is triggered by RDR6 and 21-22 nucleotide small interfering RNAs. Plant Physiol. 162, 116–131 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Voinnet, O., Vain, P., Angell, S. & Baulcombe, D. C. Systemic spread of sequence-specific transgene RNA degradation in plants is initiated by localized introduction of ectopic promoterless DNA. Cell 95, 177–187 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Cao, M. et al. Virus infection triggers widespread silencing of host genes by a distinct class of endogenous siRNAs in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14613–14618 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Elmayan, T. et al. Arabidopsis mutants impaired in cosuppression. Plant Cell 10, 1747–1758 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Lindroth, A. M. et al. Requirement of CHROMOMETHYLASE3 for maintenance of CpXpG methylation. Science 292, 2077–2080 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Turnbull, C. G., Booker, J. P. & Leyser, H. M. Micrografting techniques for testing long-distance signalling in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 32, 255–262 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Elmayan, T. & Vaucheret, H. Expression of single copies of a strongly expressed 35S transgene can be silenced post-transcriptionally. Plant J. 9, 787–797 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Gendrel, A. V., Lippman, Z., Martienssen, R. & Colot, V. Profiling histone modification patterns in plants using genomic tiling microarrays. Nat. Methods 2, 213–218 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Czechowski, T., Stitt, M., Altmann, T., Udvardi, M. K. & Scheible, W. R. Genome-wide identification and testing of superior reference genes for transcript normalization in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 139, 5–17 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Angélique Déléris for providing the pJMJ14:JMJ14-Myc line, Dr. Yoo-Sun Noh for providing the pJMJ14:Flag-JMJ14 line, and Dr. Xin-Jian He for providing the nac50 nac52 mutant.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

N.B., A.Y., I.L.M., C.T., N.R.G., J.C., and S.B. conducted the experiments; F.B., T.E., A.S., B.J.C., and H.V. analyzed the data; B.J.C. and H.V. designed the experiments and wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bernard J. Carroll or Hervé Vaucheret.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Brian Gregory and other, anonymous, reviewers for their contributions to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Source data

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butel, N., Yu, A., Le Masson, I. et al. Contrasting epigenetic control of transgenes and endogenous genes promotes post-transcriptional transgene silencing in Arabidopsis. Nat Commun 12, 2787 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22995-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22995-3

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

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