The human gene catalogue is essentially complete, but we lack an equivalently vetted inventory of bona fide human enhancers. Hundreds of thousands of candidate enhancers have been nominated via biochemical annotations; however, only a handful of these have been validated and confidently linked to their target genes. Here we review emerging technologies for discovering, characterizing and validating human enhancers at scale. We furthermore propose a new framework for operationally defining enhancers that accommodates the heterogeneous and complementary results that are emerging from reporter assays, biochemical measurements and CRISPR screens.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $22.08 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Jacob, F. & Monod, J. Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 3, 318–356 (1961).
Ptashne, M. Specific binding of the λ phage repressor to λ DNA. Nature 214, 232–234 (1967).
Axel, R., Cedar, H. & Felsenfeld, G. Synthesis of globin ribonucleic acid from duck-reticulocyte chromatin in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 70, 2029–2032 (1973).
Weintraub, H. & Groudine, M. Chromosomal subunits in active genes have an altered conformation. Science 193, 848–856 (1976).
Stalder, J. et al. Tissue-specific DNA cleavages in the globin chromatin domain introduced by DNAase I. Cell 20, 451–460 (1980).
Moreau, P. et al. The SV40 72 base repair repeat has a striking effect on gene expression both in SV40 and other chimeric recombinants. Nucleic Acids Res. 9, 6047–6068 (1981).
Banerji, J., Rusconi, S. & Schaffner, W. Expression of a β-globin gene is enhanced by remote SV40 DNA sequences. Cell 27, 299–308 (1981). The first episomal observation of in vitro enhancer activity, this work coined the term ‘enhancer’.
Mercola, M., Wang, X., Olsen, J. & Calame, K. Transcriptional enhancer elements in the mouse immunoglobulin heavy chain locus. Science 221, 663–665 (1983).
Banerji, J., Olson, L. & Schaffner, W. A lymphocyte-specific cellular enhancer is located downstream of the joining region in immunoglobulin heavy chain genes. Cell 33, 729–740 (1983).
Gillies, S. D., Morrison, S. L., Oi, V. T. & Tonegawa, S. A tissue-specific transcription enhancer element is located in the major intron of a rearranged immunoglobulin heavy chain gene. Cell 33, 717–728 (1983).
Hanahan, D. Heritable formation of pancreatic β-cell tumours in transgenic mice expressing recombinant insulin/simian virus 40 oncogenes. Nature 315, 115–122 (1985).
Tuan, D., Solomon, W., Li, Q. & London, I. M. The ‘β-like-globin’ gene domain in human erythroid cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 82, 6384–6388 (1985).
Gross, D. S. & Garrard, W. T. Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 57, 159–197 (1988).
Hebbes, T. R., Thorne, A. W. & Crane-Robinson, C. A direct link between core histone acetylation and transcriptionally active chromatin. EMBO J. 7, 1395–1402 (1988).
Lee, D. Y., Hayes, J. J., Pruss, D. & Wolffe, A. P. A positive role for histone acetylation in transcription factor access to nucleosomal DNA. Cell 72, 73–84 (1993).
Hebbes, T. R., Clayton, A. L., Thorne, A. W. & Crane-Robinson, C. Core histone hyperacetylation co-maps with generalized DNase I sensitivity in the chicken β-globin chromosomal domain. EMBO J. 13, 1823–1830 (1994).
Serfling, E., Jasin, M. & Schaffner, W. Enhancers and eukaryotic gene transcription. Trends Genet. 1, 224–230 (1985).
Ikuta, T. & Kan, Y. W. In vivo protein–DNA interactions at the β-globin gene locus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 10188–10192 (1991).
Forsberg, M. & Westin, G. Enhancer activation by a single type of transcription factor shows cell type dependence. EMBO J. 10, 2543–2551 (1991).
Ptashne, M. Gene regulation by proteins acting nearby and at a distance. Nature 322, 697–701 (1986).
Müeller-Storm, H. P., Sogo, J. M. & Schaffner, W. An enhancer stimulates transcription in trans when attached to the promoter via a protein bridge. Cell 58, 767–777 (1989).
Van der Ploeg, L. H. T. et al. γ-β-Thalassaemia studies showing that deletion of the γ- and δ-genes influences β-globin gene expression in man. Nature 283, 637–642 (1980).
Kioussis, D., Vanin, E., deLange, T., Flavell, R. A. & Grosveld, F. G. β-Globin gene inactivation by DNA translocation in γβ-thalassaemia. Nature 306, 662–666 (1983).
Driscoll, M. C., Dobkin, C. S. & Alter, B. P. γδβ-Thalassemia due to a de novo mutation deleting the 5ʹ β-globin gene activation-region hypersensitive sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 86, 7470–7474 (1989).
Philipsen, S., Talbot, D., Fraser, P. & Grosveld, F. The β-globin dominant control region: hypersensitive site 2. EMBO J. 9, 2159–2167 (1990).
Talbot, D., Philipsen, S., Fraser, P. & Grosveld, F. Detailed analysis of the site 3 region of the human β-globin dominant control region. EMBO J. 9, 2169–2177 (1990).
Grosveld, F. et al. The regulation of human globin gene switching. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 339, 183–191 (1993).
Moon, A. M. & Ley, T. J. Conservation of the primary structure, organization, and function of the human and mouse β-globin locus-activating regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7693–7697 (1990).
Margot, J. B., Demers, G. W. & Hardison, R. C. Complete nucleotide sequence of the rabbit β-like globin gene cluster: analysis of intergenic sequences and comparison with the human β-like globin gene cluster. J. Mol. Biol. 205, 15–40 (1989).
Li, Q., Zhou, B., Powers, P., Enver, T. & Stamatoyannopoulos, G. Primary structure of the goat β-globin locus control region. Genomics 9, 488–499 (1991).
Reitman, M. & Felsenfeld, G. Developmental regulation of topoisomerase II sites and DNase I-hypersensitive sites in the chicken β-globin locus. Mol. Cell. Biol. 10, 2774–2786 (1990).
Dunham, I. et al. The DNA sequence of human chromosome 22. Nature 402, 489–495 (1999).
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
Hardison, R. C., Oeltjen, J. & Miller, W. Long human–mouse sequence alignments reveal novel regulatory elements: a reason to sequence the mouse genome. Genome Res. 7, 959–966 (1997).
Loots, G. G. et al. Identification of a coordinate regulator of interleukins 4, 13, and 5 by cross-species sequence comparisons. Science 288, 136–140 (2000). This study identifies the non-coding regions regulating several interleukin genes by comparing 1 Mb of mouse–human orthologous sequences. The global application of this strategy was one of the key motivations for sequencing of the mouse genome.
Hardison, R. C. Conserved noncoding sequences are reliable guides to regulatory elements. Trends Genet. 16, 369–372 (2000).
Pennacchio, L. A. & Rubin, E. M. Genomic strategies to identify mammalian regulatory sequences. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 100–109 (2001).
Nobrega, M. A., Ovcharenko, I., Afzal, V. & Rubin, E. M. Scanning human gene deserts for long-range enhancers. Science 302, 413 (2003).
Pennacchio, L. A. et al. In vivo enhancer analysis of human conserved non-coding sequences. Nature 444, 499–502 (2006).
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420, 520–562 (2002).
Dermitzakis, E. T. et al. Numerous potentially functional but non-genic conserved sequences on human chromosome 21. Nature 420, 578–582 (2002).
Sabo, P. J. et al. Genome-scale mapping of DNase I sensitivity in vivo using tiling DNA microarrays. Nat. Methods 3, 511–518 (2006).
Boyle, A. P. et al. High-resolution mapping and characterization of open chromatin across the genome. Cell 132, 311–322 (2008).
Hesselberth, J. R. et al. Global mapping of protein–DNA interactions in vivo by digital genomic footprinting. Nat. Methods 6, 283–289 (2009).
Thurman, R. E. et al. The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome. Nature 489, 75–82 (2012).
Laurent, L. et al. Dynamic changes in the human methylome during differentiation. Genome Res. 20, 320–331 (2010).
Lister, R. et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 462, 315–322 (2009).
Cokus, S. J. et al. Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452, 215–219 (2008).
Barski, A. et al. High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129, 823–837 (2007).
Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448, 553–560 (2007).
Heintzman, N. D. et al. Distinct and predictive chromatin signatures of transcriptional promoters and enhancers in the human genome. Nat. Genet. 39, 311–318 (2007). This study provides one of the earliest uses of genome-wide biochemical annotation datasets to annotate candidate enhancers.
Robertson, G. et al. Genome-wide profiles of STAT1 DNA association using chromatin immunoprecipitation and massively parallel sequencing. Nat. Methods 4, 651–657 (2007).
Johnson, D. S., Mortazavi, A., Myers, R. M. & Wold, B. Genome-wide mapping of in vivo protein–DNA interactions. Science 316, 1497–1502 (2007).
Visel, A. et al. ChIP-seq accurately predicts tissue-specific activity of enhancers. Nature 457, 854–858 (2009).
Shendure, J. et al. DNA sequencing at 40: past, present and future. Nature 550, 345–353 (2017).
De Santa, F. et al. A large fraction of extragenic RNA pol II transcription sites overlap enhancers. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000384 (2010).
Kim, T.-K. et al. Widespread transcription at neuronal activity-regulated enhancers. Nature 465, 182–187 (2010).
Andersson, R. et al. An atlas of active enhancers across human cell types and tissues. Nature 507, 455–461 (2014). This article reports an integrated analysis of cap analysis of gene expression (CAGE) datasets across hundreds of cell types and tissues performed to generate biochemical annotations of thousands of cell type-specific enhancers by their signatures of bidirectional transcription.
Core, L. J. et al. Analysis of nascent RNA identifies a unified architecture of initiation regions at mammalian promoters and enhancers. Nat. Genet. 46, 1311–1320 (2014).
ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012). This report summarizes the wealth of data generated by the ENCODE Consortium. Hundreds of genome-wide datasets are used across hundreds of cell types and tissues to ascribe a function to the majority of the genome via biochemical annotation.
Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).
Stunnenberg, H. G., International Human Epigenome Consortium & Hirst, M. The International Human Epigenome Consortium: A Blueprint for Scientific Collaboration and Discovery. Cell 167, 1897 (2016).
Arner, E. et al. Transcribed enhancers lead waves of coordinated transcription in transitioning mammalian cells. Science 347, 1010–1014 (2015).
ENCODE Project. SCREEN: search candidate regulatory elements by ENCODE. ENCODE Project http://screen.encodeproject.org/index/about (2019).
Maurano, M. T. et al. Systematic localization of common disease-associated variation in regulatory DNA. Science 337, 1190–1195 (2012).
Contributors to Wikimedia projects. Blind Men and An Elephant—Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 2006).
Patwardhan, R. P. et al. Massively parallel functional dissection of mammalian enhancers in vivo. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 265–270 (2012). Along with Melnikov et al. (2012), this study is the first application of an MPRA to enhancer sequences.
Spitz, F. & Furlong, E. E. M. Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 613–626 (2012).
Shlyueva, D., Stampfel, G. & Stark, A. Transcriptional enhancers: from properties to genome-wide predictions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 272–286 (2014).
Blackwood, E. M. & Kadonaga, J. T. Going the distance: a current view of enhancer action. Science 281, 60–63 (1998).
Li, L. & Wunderlich, Z. An enhancer’s length and composition are shaped by its regulatory task. Front. Genet. 8, 63 (2017).
Gasperini, M. et al. A genome-wide framework for mapping gene regulation via cellular genetic screens. Cell 176, 377–390 (2019).
Smedley, D. et al. A whole-genome analysis framework for effective identification of pathogenic regulatory variants in Mendelian disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 595–606 (2016).
Corradin, O. & Scacheri, P. C. Enhancer variants: evaluating functions in common disease. Genome Med. 6, 85 (2014).
Gjoneska, E. et al. Conserved epigenomic signals in mice and humans reveal immune basis of Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 518, 365–369 (2015).
Whyte, W. A. et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell 153, 307–319 (2013).
Wang, X. et al. High-resolution genome-wide functional dissection of transcriptional regulatory regions and nucleotides in human. Nat. Commun. 9, 5380 (2018).
Ghavi-Helm, Y. et al. Highly rearranged chromosomes reveal uncoupling between genome topology and gene expression. Nat. Genet. 51, 1272–1282 (2019).
Zabidi, M. A. et al. Enhancer-core-promoter specificity separates developmental and housekeeping gene regulation. Nature 518, 556–559 (2015). STARR-seq utilizing different classes of promoters in D. melanogaster shows that enhancers often do not work in a promoter-generic fashion.
Dorighi, K. M. et al. Mll3 and Mll4 facilitate enhancer RNA synthesis and transcription from promoters independently of H3K4 monomethylation. Mol. Cell 66, 568–576.e4 (2017).
Rickels, R. et al. Histone H3K4 monomethylation catalyzed by Trr and mammalian COMPASS-like proteins at enhancers is dispensable for development and viability. Nat. Genet. 49, 1647–1653 (2017).
Cusanovich, D. A. et al. Multiplex single cell profiling of chromatin accessibility by combinatorial cellular indexing. Science 348, 910–914 (2015).
Buenrostro, J. D. et al. Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature 523, 486–490 (2015).
Eagen, K. P. Principles of chromosome architecture revealed by Hi-C. Trends Biochem. Sci. 43, 469–478 (2018).
Inoue, F. & Ahituv, N. Decoding enhancers using massively parallel reporter assays. Genomics 106, 159–164 (2015).
Klein, J. C., Chen, W., Gasperini, M. & Shendure, J. Identifying novel enhancer elements with CRISPR-based screens. ACS Chem. Biol. 13, 326–332 (2018).
Hnisz, D., Day, D. S. & Young, R. A. Insulated neighborhoods: structural and functional units of mammalian gene control. Cell 167, 1188–1200 (2016).
Maricque, B. B., Chaudhari, H. G. & Cohen, B. A. A massively parallel reporter assay dissects the influence of chromatin structure on cis-regulatory activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 90–95 (2019).
Heinz, S., Romanoski, C. E., Benner, C. & Glass, C. K. The selection and function of cell type-specific enhancers. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 144–154 (2015).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation. Nature 518, 331–336 (2015). This study shows compelling use of Hi-C contact maps to study the dynamics of enhancer–promoter interactions through cellular differentiation.
Thanos, D. & Maniatis, T. Virus induction of human IFNβ gene expression requires the assembly of an enhanceosome. Cell 83, 1091–1100 (1995).
Simeonov, D. R. et al. Discovery of stimulation-responsive immune enhancers with CRISPR activation. Nature 549, 111–115 (2017).
Ray, J. et al. Chromatin conformation remains stable upon extensive transcriptional changes driven by heat shock. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19431–19439 (2019).
Fuda, N. J., Ardehali, M. B. & Lis, J. T. Defining mechanisms that regulate RNA polymerase II transcription in vivo. Nature 461, 186–192 (2009).
Juven-Gershon, T., Cheng, S. & Kadonaga, J. T. Rational design of a super core promoter that enhances gene expression. Nat. Methods 3, 917–922 (2006).
Chen, F. X. et al. PAF1 regulation of promoter-proximal pause release via enhancer activation. Science 357, 1294–1298 (2017).
Engreitz, J. M. et al. Local regulation of gene expression by lncRNA promoters, transcription and splicing. Nature 539, 452–455 (2016).
Murakami, S., Nagari, A. & Kraus, W. L. Dynamic assembly and activation of estrogen receptor α enhancers through coregulator switching. Genes. Dev. 31, 1535–1548 (2017).
Gosselin, D. et al. An environment-dependent transcriptional network specifies human microglia identity. Science 356, eaal3222 (2017).
Vihervaara, A. et al. Transcriptional response to stress is pre-wired by promoter and enhancer architecture. Nat. Commun. 8, 255 (2017).
Iwafuchi-Doi, M. et al. The pioneer transcription factor foxa maintains an accessible nucleosome configuration at enhancers for tissue-specific gene activation. Mol. Cell 62, 79–91 (2016).
Furlong, E. E. M. & Levine, M. Developmental enhancers and chromosome topology. Science 361, 1341–1345 (2018).
Calo, E. & Wysocka, J. Modification of enhancer chromatin: what, how, and why? Mol. Cell 49, 825–837 (2013).
Lindblad-Toh, K. et al. A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals. Nature 478, 476–482 (2011).
Fulco, C. P. et al. Systematic mapping of functional enhancer-promoter connections with CRISPR interference. Science 354, 769–773 (2016).
Henriques, T. et al. Widespread transcriptional pausing and elongation control at enhancers. Genes Dev. 32, 26–41 (2018).
Kwasnieski, J. C., Fiore, C., Chaudhari, H. G. & Cohen, B. A. High-throughput functional testing of ENCODE segmentation predictions. Genome Res. 24, 1595–1602 (2014).
Muerdter, F. et al. Resolving systematic errors in widely used enhancer activity assays in human cells. Nat. Methods 15, 141–149 (2018).
Rao, S. S. P. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014).
Weintraub, A. S. et al. YY1 Is a structural regulator of enhancer-promoter loops. Cell 171, 1573–1588.e28 (2017).
Williamson, I. et al. Anterior–posterior differences in HoxD chromatin topology in limb development. Development 139, 3157–3167 (2012).
Ghavi-Helm, Y. et al. Enhancer loops appear stable during development and are associated with paused polymerase. Nature 512, 96–100 (2014).
Benabdallah, N. S. et al. Decreased enhancer-promoter proximity accompanying enhancer activation. Mol. Cell 76, 473–484 (2019).
Alexander, J. M. et al. Live-cell imaging reveals enhancer-dependent Sox2 transcription in the absence of enhancer proximity. eLife 8, e41769 (2019).
Osterwalder, M. et al. Enhancer redundancy provides phenotypic robustness in mammalian development. Nature 554, 239–243 (2018).
Levings, P. P. & Bungert, J. The human β-globin locus control region. Eur. J. Biochem. 269, 1589–1599 (2002).
Hnisz, D. et al. Super-enhancers in the control of cell identity and disease. Cell 155, 934–947 (2013).
Lettice, L. A. et al. A long-range Shh enhancer regulates expression in the developing limb and fin and is associated with preaxial polydactyly. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12, 1725–1735 (2003).
Bahr, C. et al. Author correction: A Myc enhancer cluster regulates normal and leukaemic haematopoietic stem cell hierarchies. Nature 558, E4 (2018).
Haberle, V. et al. Transcriptional cofactors display specificity for distinct types of core promoters. Nature 570, 122–126 (2019).
Cho, S. W. et al. Promoter of lncRNA Gene PVT1 Is a tumor-suppressor DNA boundary element. Cell 173, 1398–1412.e22 (2018).
Cinghu, S. et al. Intragenic enhancers attenuate host gene expression. Mol. Cell 68, 104–117.e6 (2017).
Blow, M. J. et al. ChIP-seq identification of weakly conserved heart enhancers. Nat. Genet. 42, 806–810 (2010).
Schmidt, D. et al. Five-vertebrate ChIP-seq reveals the evolutionary dynamics of transcription factor binding. Science 328, 1036–1040 (2010).
King, M. C. & Wilson, A. C. Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188, 107–116 (1975).
Danko, C. G. et al. Dynamic evolution of regulatory element ensembles in primate CD4+ T cells. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 537–548 (2018).
Kulakovskiy, I. V. et al. HOCOMOCO: a comprehensive collection of human transcription factor binding sites models. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D195–D202 (2013).
Lambert, S. A. et al. The human transcription factors. Cell 172, 650–665 (2018).
Van Loo, P. & Marynen, P. Computational methods for the detection of cis-regulatory modules. Brief. Bioinform. 10, 509–524 (2009).
Teytelman, L., Thurtle, D. M., Rine, J. & van Oudenaarden, A. Highly expressed loci are vulnerable to misleading ChIP localization of multiple unrelated proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18602–18607 (2013).
Worsley Hunt, R. & Wasserman, W. W. Non-targeted transcription factors motifs are a systemic component of ChIP-seq datasets. Genome Biol. 15, 412 (2014).
Jain, D., Baldi, S., Zabel, A., Straub, T. & Becker, P. B. Active promoters give rise to false positive ‘phantom peaks’ in ChIP-seq experiments. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 6959–6968 (2015).
Diao, Y. et al. A new class of temporarily phenotypic enhancers identified by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genetic screening. Genome Res. 26, 397–405 (2016).
Pliner, H. A. et al. Cicero predicts cis-regulatory DNA Interactions from single-cell chromatin accessibility data. Mol. Cell 71, 858–871.e8 (2018).
Ernst, J. et al. Mapping and analysis of chromatin state dynamics in nine human cell types. Nature 473, 43–49 (2011).
GTEx Consortium et al. Genetic effects on gene expression across human tissues. Nature 550, 204–213 (2017).
Strober, B. J. et al. Dynamic genetic regulation of gene expression during cellular differentiation. Science 364, 1287–1290 (2019).
van der Wijst, M. G. P. et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing identifies celltype-specific cis-eQTLs and co-expression QTLs. Nat. Genet. 50, 493–497 (2018).
Ptashne, M. How eukaryotic transcriptional activators work. Nature 335, 683–689 (1988).
Schleif, R. DNA looping. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 61, 199–223 (1992).
Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009).
Dekker, J., Rippe, K., Dekker, M. & Kleckner, N. Capturing chromosome conformation. Science 295, 1306–1311 (2002).
Nora, E. P. et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012).
de Laat, W. & Duboule, D. Topology of mammalian developmental enhancers and their regulatory landscapes. Nature 502, 499–506 (2013).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012).
Sexton, T. et al. Three-dimensional folding and functional organization principles of the Drosophila genome. Cell 148, 458–472 (2012).
Fullwood, M. J. & Ruan, Y. ChIP-based methods for the identification of long-range chromatin interactions. J. Cell. Biochem. 107, 30–39 (2009).
Mumbach, M. R. et al. HiChIP: efficient and sensitive analysis of protein-directed genome architecture. Nat. Methods 13, 919–922 (2016).
Fang, R. et al. Mapping of long-range chromatin interactions by proximity ligation-assisted ChIP-seq. Cell Res. 26, 1345–1348 (2016).
Ma, W. et al. Fine-scale chromatin interaction maps reveal the cis-regulatory landscape of human lincRNA genes. Nat. Methods 12, 71–78 (2015).
Chen, H. et al. Dynamic interplay between enhancer-promoter topology and gene activity. Nat. Genet. 50, 1296–1303 (2018).
Schmitt, A. D. et al. A compendium of chromatin contact maps reveals spatially active regions in the human genome. Cell Rep. 17, 2042–2059 (2016).
Williamson, I., Lettice, L. A., Hill, R. E. & Bickmore, W. A. Shh and ZRS enhancer colocalisation is specific to the zone of polarising activity. Development 143, 2994–3001 (2016).
Gu, B. et al. Transcription-coupled changes in nuclear mobility of mammalian cis-regulatory elements. Science 359, 1050–1055 (2018).
Rao, S. S. P. et al. Cohesin loss eliminates all loop domains. Cell 171, 305–320.e24 (2017). Rapid cohesin depletion in cultured cells results in widespread loss of the genome’s 3D organization, with minimal changes in gene expression. This has caused the field to question the importance of genome organization (that is, stable enhancer–promoter loops as they had been conceptualized).
Nora, E. P. et al. Targeted degradation of CTCF decouples local insulation of chromosome domains from genomic compartmentalization. Cell 169, 930–944.e22 (2017).
Trapnell, C. Defining cell types and states with single-cell genomics. Genome Res. 25, 1491–1498 (2015).
Novick, A. & Weiner, M. Enzyme induction as an all-or-none phenomenon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 43, 553–566 (1957).
Bonn, S. et al. Tissue-specific analysis of chromatin state identifies temporal signatures of enhancer activity during embryonic development. Nat. Genet. 44, 148–156 (2012).
Cusanovich, D. A. et al. A single-cell atlas of in vivo mammalian chromatin accessibility. Cell 174, 1309–1324.e18 (2018).
Cusanovich, D. A. et al. The cis-regulatory dynamics of embryonic development at single-cell resolution. Nature 555, 538–542 (2018).
Lai, B. et al. Publisher correction: principles of nucleosome organization revealed by single-cell micrococcal nuclease sequencing. Nature 564, E17 (2018).
Ramani, V. et al. Massively multiplex single-cell Hi-C. Nat. Methods 14, 263–266 (2017).
Flyamer, I. M. et al. Single-nucleus Hi-C reveals unique chromatin reorganization at oocyte-to-zygote transition. Nature 544, 110–114 (2017).
Nagano, T. et al. Cell-cycle dynamics of chromosomal organization at single-cell resolution. Nature 547, 61–67 (2017).
Nagano, T. et al. Single-cell Hi-C reveals cell-to-cell variability in chromosome structure. Nature 502, 59–64 (2013).
Tan, L., Xing, D., Chang, C.-H., Li, H. & Xie, X. S. Three-dimensional genome structures of single diploid human cells. Science 361, 924–928 (2018).
Lee, D. S. et al. Simultaneous profiling of 3D genome structure and DNA methylation in single human cells. Nat. Methods 16, 999–1006 (2019).
Rotem, A. et al. Single-cell ChIP-seq reveals cell subpopulations defined by chromatin state. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1165–1172 (2015).
Hainer, S. J., Bošković, A., McCannell, K. N., Rando, O. J. & Fazzio, T. G. Profiling of pluripotency factors in single cells and early embryos. Cell 177, 1319–1329 (2019).
Benabdallah, N. S. et al. Decreased enhancer–promoter proximity accompanying enhancer activation. Mol. Cell 76, 473–484.e7 (2019).
Fukaya, T., Lim, B. & Levine, M. Enhancer control of transcriptional bursting. Cell 166, 358–368 (2016).
Patwardhan, R. P. et al. High-resolution analysis of DNA regulatory elements by synthetic saturation mutagenesis. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 1173–1175 (2009). This study provides the first demonstration of an MPRA coupled to sequencing-based readout, used here to evaluate all possible single-nucleotide variants of bacteriophage and mammalian core promoters.
Arnold, C. D. et al. Genome-wide quantitative enhancer activity maps identified by STARR-seq. Science 339, 1074–1077 (2013). This is the first article to describe STARR-seq, as well as the first whole-genome shotgun MPRA. Quantitative, genome-wide maps of enhancer potential generated in two different D. melanogaster cell lines provide insight into the general characteristics of enhancers and enable analysis of cell-type specificity.
Gasperini, M., Starita, L. & Shendure, J. The power of multiplexed functional analysis of genetic variants. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1782–1787 (2016).
Vockley, C. M. et al. Direct GR binding sites potentiate clusters of TF binding across the human genome. Cell 166, 1269–1281.e19 (2016).
Vanhille, L. et al. High-throughput and quantitative assessment of enhancer activity in mammals by CapStarr-seq. Nat. Commun. 6, 6905 (2015).
Klein, J. C., Keith, A., Agarwal, V., Durham, T. & Shendure, J. Functional characterization of enhancer evolution in the primate lineage. Genome Biol. 19, 99 (2018).
Ulirsch, J. C. et al. Systematic functional dissection of common genetic variation affecting red blood cell traits. Cell 165, 1530–1545 (2016).
Tewhey, R. et al. Direct identification of hundreds of expression-modulating variants using a multiplexed reporter assay. Cell 172, 1132–1134 (2018).
Vockley, C. M. et al. Massively parallel quantification of the regulatory effects of noncoding genetic variation in a human cohort. Genome Res. 25, 1206–1214 (2015).
Klein, J. C. et al. Functional testing of thousands of osteoarthritis-associated variants for regulatory activity. Nat. Commun. 10, 2434 (2019).
Liu, Y. et al. Functional assessment of human enhancer activities using whole-genome STARR-sequencing. Genome Biol. 18, 219 (2017).
Melnikov, A. et al. Systematic dissection and optimization of inducible enhancers in human cells using a massively parallel reporter assay. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 271 (2012). Along with Patwardhan et al. (2012), this study shows the first application of an MPRA to variants of enhancer sequences, in addition to coining the term ‘massively parallel reporter assay’.
Kircher, M. et al. Saturation mutagenesis of twenty disease-associated regulatory elements at single base-pair resolution. Nat. Commun. 10, 3583 (2019).
Grossman, S. R. et al. Systematic dissection of genomic features determining transcription factor binding and enhancer function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E1291–E1300 (2017).
Smith, R. P. et al. Massively parallel decoding of mammalian regulatory sequences supports a flexible organizational model. Nat. Genet. 45, 1021–1028 (2013).
van Arensbergen, J. et al. Genome-wide mapping of autonomous promoter activity in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 145–153 (2017).
Gilbert, N. & Allan, J. Supercoiling in DNA and chromatin. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 25, 15–21 (2014).
Inoue, F. et al. A systematic comparison reveals substantial differences in chromosomal versus episomal encoding of enhancer activity. Genome Res. 27, 38–52 (2017).
Akhtar, W. et al. Chromatin position effects assayed by thousands of reporters integrated in parallel. Cell 154, 914–927 (2013).
Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR–Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014).
Zhou, Y. et al. High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells. Nature 509, 487–491 (2014).
Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014).
Canver, M. C. et al. BCL11A enhancer dissection by Cas9-mediated in situ saturating mutagenesis. Nature 527, 192–197 (2015). This study is the first CRISPR-based screen to identify functional non-coding sequence within an enhancer.
van Overbeek, M. et al. DNA repair profiling reveals nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-mediated breaks. Mol. Cell 63, 633–646 (2016).
Chen, W. et al. Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 7989– 8003 (2019).
Vierstra, J. et al. Functional footprinting of regulatory DNA. Nat. Methods 12, 927–930 (2015).
Wright, J. B. & Sanjana, N. E. CRISPR screens to discover functional noncoding elements. Trends Genet. 32, 526–529 (2016).
Korkmaz, G. et al. Functional genetic screens for enhancer elements in the human genome using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 192–198 (2016).
Rajagopal, N. et al. High-throughput mapping of regulatory DNA. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 167–174 (2016).
Sanjana, N. E. et al. High-resolution interrogation of functional elements in the noncoding genome. Science 353, 1545–1549 (2016).
Diao, Y. et al. A tiling-deletion-based genetic screen for cis-regulatory element identification in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 14, 629–635 (2017).
Gasperini, M. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated scanning for regulatory elements required for HPRT1 expression via thousands of large, programmed genomic deletions. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 192–205 (2017).
Aparicio-Prat, E. et al. DECKO: Single-oligo, dual-CRISPR deletion of genomic elements including long non-coding RNAs. BMC Genomics 16, 846 (2015).
Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K. & Bradley, A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 765–771 (2018).
Thakore, P. I. et al. Highly specific epigenome editing by CRISPR–Cas9 repressors for silencing of distal regulatory elements. Nat. Methods 12, 1143–1149 (2015). This study provides the first demonstration that nuclease-inactivated Cas9 tethered to the KRAB repressor and targeted to an enhancer can mediate repression of a target gene.
Klann, T. S. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 epigenome editing enables high-throughput screening for functional regulatory elements in the human genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 561 (2017).
Fulco, C. P. et al. Activity-by-contact model of enhancer–promoter regulation from thousands of CRISPR perturbations. Nat. Genet. 51, 1664–1669 (2019).
Kearns, N. A. et al. Functional annotation of native enhancers with a Cas9-histone demethylase fusion. Nat. Methods 12, 401–403 (2015).
Kwon, D. Y., Zhao, Y.-T., Lamonica, J. M. & Zhou, Z. Locus-specific histone deacetylation using a synthetic CRISPR–Cas9-based HDAC. Nat. Commun. 8, 15315 (2017).
Lei, Y. et al. Targeted DNA methylation in vivo using an engineered dCas9–MQ1 fusion protein. Nat. Commun. 8, 16026 (2017).
Vojta, A. et al. Repurposing the CRISPR–Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5615–5628 (2016).
Liu, X. S. et al. Editing DNA methylation in the mammalian genome. Cell 167, 233–247.e17 (2016).
Huang, Y.-H. et al. DNA epigenome editing using CRISPR–cas suntag-directed DNMT3A. Genome Biol. 18, 176 (2017).
Xie, S., Duan, J., Li, B., Zhou, P. & Hon, G. C. Multiplexed engineering and analysis of combinatorial enhancer activity in single cells. Mol. Cell 66, 285–299.e5 (2017). This study reports the first use of single-cell RNA-seq to phenotype pools of candidate enhancer perturbations in a ‘whole-transcriptome’ screen.
Hong, J.-W., Hendrix, D. A. & Levine, M. S. Shadow enhancers as a source of evolutionary novelty. Science 321, 1314 (2008).
Sabari, B. R. et al. Coactivator condensation at super-enhancers links phase separation and gene control. Science 361, eaar3958 (2018).
Visel, A., Minovitsky, S., Dubchak, I. & Pennacchio, L. A. VISTA enhancer browser—a database of tissue-specific human enhancers. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D88–D92 (2007).
Lupiáñez, D. G. et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene–enhancer interactions. Cell 161, 1012–1025 (2015). This article demonstrates that rearrangement across TAD boundaries can cause a pathogenic phenotype in humans; the study also uses CRISPR–Cas9 to effectively reconstruct human patient genome rearrangements in mouse models.
Dickel, D. E. et al. Ultraconserved enhancers are required for normal development. Cell 172, 491–499.e15 (2018). This report demonstrates that the knockout of ultraconserved enhancers in a mouse model had subtle but consequential effects on organismal development that were not readily detected by gross phenotyping.
Zeng, W., Wu, M. & Jiang, R. Prediction of enhancer–promoter interactions via natural language processing. BMC Genomics 19, 84 (2018).
Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).
Gill, L. L., Karjalainen, K. & Zaninetta, D. A transcriptional enhancer of the mouse T cell receptor δ gene locus. Eur. J. Immunol. 21, 807–810 (1991).
Greaves, D. R., Wilson, F. D., Lang, G. & Kioussis, D. Human CD2 3ʹ-flanking sequences confer high-level, T cell-specific, position-independent gene expression in transgenic mice. Cell 56, 979–986 (1989).
Raab, J. R. & Kamakaka, R. T. Insulators and promoters: closer than we think. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 439–446 (2010).
Mikhaylichenko, O. et al. The degree of enhancer or promoter activity is reflected by the levels and directionality of eRNA transcription. Genes. Dev. 32, 42–57 (2018).
Weingarten-Gabbay, S. et al. Systematic interrogation of human promoters. Genome Res. 29, 171–183 (2019).
Ngoc, L. V., Wang, Y.-L., Kassavetis, G. A. & Kadonaga, J. T. The punctilious RNA polymerase II core promoter. Genes Dev. 31, 1289–1301 (2017).
Jayavelu, N. D., Jajodia, A., Mishra, A. & Hawkins, R. An atlas of silencer elements for the human and mouse genomes. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/252304 (2018).
West, A. G., Gaszner, M. & Felsenfeld, G. Insulators: many functions, many mechanisms. Genes. Dev. 16, 271–288 (2002).
Stranger, B. E. et al. Patterns of cis regulatory variation in diverse human populations. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002639 (2012).
Pollard, K. S., Hubisz, M. J., Rosenbloom, K. R. & Siepel, A. Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies. Genome Res. 20, 110–121 (2010).
Siepel, A. et al. Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Res. 15, 1034–1050 (2005).
Khan, A. et al. JASPAR 2018: update of the open-access database of transcription factor binding profiles and its web framework. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1284 (2018).
Kulakovskiy, I. V. et al. HOCOMOCO: towards a complete collection of transcription factor binding models for human and mouse via large-scale ChIP-Seq analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D252–D259 (2018).
Schones, D. E. et al. Dynamic regulation of nucleosome positioning in the human genome. Cell 132, 887–898 (2008).
Buenrostro, J. D., Giresi, P. G., Zaba, L. C., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat. Methods 10, 1213–1218 (2013).
Mahat, D. B. et al. Base-pair-resolution genome-wide mapping of active RNA polymerases using precision nuclear run-on (PRO-seq). Nat. Protoc. 11, 1455–1476 (2016).
Tome, J. M., Tippens, N. D. & Lis, J. T. Single-molecule nascent RNA sequencing identifies regulatory domain architecture at promoters and enhancers. Nat. Genet. 50, 1533–1541 (2018).
Ku, W. L. et al. Single-cell chromatin immunocleavage sequencing (scChIC-seq) to profile histone modification. Nat. Methods 16, 323–325 (2019).
Skene, P. J. & Henikoff, S. An efficient targeted nuclease strategy for high-resolution mapping of DNA binding sites. eLife 6, e21856 (2017).
Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216 (2012). This study reports a computational framework for utilizing ChIP–seq of histone modifications to classify regions of the genome by their likely biological function (for example, strong enhancer or weak promoter).
Hoffman, M. M. et al. Unsupervised pattern discovery in human chromatin structure through genomic segmentation. Nat. Methods 9, 473–476 (2012).
The authors thank S. Kim, C. Trapnell and S. Domcke, as well as other members of the Shendure Lab, for helpful discussions. J.S. is an investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
- Transcription factors
(TFs). Proteins that bind DNA, typically consisting of specific DNA sequences or motifs, and contribute to the regulation of RNA transcription.
- Open chromatin
A nucleosome-loose packaging state of DNA that is permissive for transcription-factor binding.
- Episomal reporter vector
Plasmid DNA that can be synthetically delivered, is autonomous from genomic DNA and includes a reporter gene, typically downstream of a candidate regulatory element (for example, an enhancer adjacent to a minimal promoter).
- Expressed sequence tag
(EST). In the early days of genomics, shotgun sequencing of cDNA was used as an efficient strategy for discovering genes, and subsequently to quantify their relative abundance.
- Open reading frame
The portion of a gene that is translatable by a ribosome; these are relatively straightforward to annotate by sequence alone, due to the required start and stop codons.
- Regulatory element
A functional non-coding DNA sequence that regulates transcription; classes of regulatory elements include enhancers, promoters, silencers and insulators (further defined in Box 2).
- Chromosome conformation capture
(3C). Methods that map the 3D positioning, looping and spatial organization of DNA within the nucleus, often relative to other segments of DNA.
Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. A system that consists of the components of a bacterial immune system that have been adopted for synthetic genetic perturbation. The term is most often used in reference to the Type II Cas9 endonuclease version, which can introduce a double-stranded break into genomic DNA as directed by a synthetic guide RNA.
- Topologically associating domains
(TADs). Broad regions of genomic DNA that are physically packaged together in the nucleus in 3D space, typically at a scale from hundreds of kilobases to several megabases.
- Pioneer factor
A TF that can directly interact with compact, closed chromatin; this class of TFs are thought to initiate (‘pioneer’) chromatin remodelling events.
- Linkage disequilibrium
The population genetics phenomenon by which genetic variants are nonrandomly associated within a population. Variants are said to be in ‘linkage disequilibrium’ if they are found to reside on a haplotype more frequently than one would expect by completely random assortment; variants in linkage disequilibrium are nearby on a genomic locus and hence are co-inherited because they are rarely separated through meiotic recombination.
- Simpson’s paradox
A phenomenon in statistics in which different trends may exist in subgroups of a dataset but are undetectable when the groups are analysed as a whole.
- Saturation mutagenesis
A molecular biology technique in which all possible sequence changes are generated from a parental sequence (for example, all possible amino acids in an open reading frame, or all possible single-nucleotide variants in an enhancer).
- Protospacer-adjacent motif
(PAM). In the original CRISPR bacterial immune system, fragments of previously encountered viral DNA are preserved in the bacterial genome; these ‘remembered’ sequences are processed into RNAs that guide the CRISPR nuclease to destroy newly invading viral DNA. But, to prevent the nuclease from destroying the matching ‘remembered’ sequence in the bacteria’s own genome, a motif (the PAM) is required next to the target sequence in the viral genome. When genome editing is performed in eukaryotic cells, the presence of this sequence is still required by CRISPR nucleases.
- Shadow enhancers
Redundant enhancers, often located far away from their target gene; enhancer redundancy is thought to enable robust buffered expression of the target gene and to provide a versatile platform for the evolution of new regulatory functions.
The fourth generation of projects funded by the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium, begun in 2017 and including a new component focused on the implementation of high-throughput functional assays.
- Human Cell Atlas
An international scientific community to coordinate the generation of human single-cell datasets, with the goal of generating a reference map of every cell type in the human body.
About this article
Cite this article
Gasperini, M., Tome, J.M. & Shendure, J. Towards a comprehensive catalogue of validated and target-linked human enhancers. Nat Rev Genet 21, 292–310 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0209-0
Genomic resources for dissecting the role of non-protein coding variation in gene-environment interactions
Adeno-associated virus gene replacement for recessive inner ear dysfunction: Progress and challenges
Hearing Research (2020)
Frontiers in Chemistry (2020)
Developmental Cell (2020)
Exploring 3D chromatin contacts in gene regulation: The evolution of approaches for the identification of functional enhancer-promoter interaction
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (2020)