Gene expression programmes conferring cellular identity are achieved through the organization of chromatin structures that either facilitate or impede transcription. Among the key determinants of chromatin organization are the histone modifications that correlate with a given transcriptional status and chromatin state. Until recently, the details for the segregation of nucleosomes on DNA replication and their implications in re-establishing heritable chromatin domains remained unclear. Here, we review recent findings detailing the local segregation of parental nucleosomes and highlight important advances as to how histone methyltransferases associated with the establishment of repressive chromatin domains facilitate epigenetic inheritance.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 06 May 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $6.58 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Waddington, C. H. The epigenotype. 1942. Int. J. Epidemiol. 41, 10–13 (2012).
Berger, S. L., Kouzarides, T., Shiekhattar, R. & Shilatifard, A. An operational definition of epigenetics. Genes Dev. 23, 781–783 (2009).
Allis, C. D., Caparros, M.-L., Jenuwein, T., Reinberg, D. & Lachner, M. Epigenetics (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2015).
Kornberg, R. D. Chromatin structure: a repeating unit of histones and DNA. Science 184, 868–871 (1974).
Luger, K., Mader, A. W., Richmond, R. K., Sargent, D. F. & Richmond, T. J. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 Å resolution. Nature 389, 251–260 (1997).
Luger, K., Dechassa, M. L. & Tremethick, D. J. New insights into nucleosome and chromatin structure: an ordered state or a disordered affair? Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 13, 436–447 (2012).
Allis, C. D. & Jenuwein, T. The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 487–500 (2016).
Campos, E. I. & Reinberg, D. Histones: annotating chromatin. Annu. Rev. Genet. 43, 559–599 (2009).
Cedar, H. & Bergman, Y. Epigenetic silencing during early lineage commitment. 2009 Apr 30. In: StemBook [Internet] (Harvard Stem Cell Institute, 2008).
Allshire, R. C. & Madhani, H. D. Ten principles of heterochromatin formation and function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 229–244 (2018).
Palozola, K. C., Lerner, J. & Zaret, K. S. A changing paradigm of transcriptional memory propagation through mitosis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 55–64 (2019).
Stewart-Morgan, K. R., Reveron-Gomez, N. & Groth, A. Transcription restart establishes chromatin accessibility after DNA replication. Mol. Cell 75, 284–297 e6 (2019).
Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature 171, 964–967 (1953).
Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).
Cedar, H. & Bergman, Y. Programming of DNA methylation patterns. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 81, 97–117 (2012).
Li, E. & Zhang, Y. DNA methylation in mammals. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a019133 (2014).
Margueron, R. & Reinberg, D. Chromatin structure and the inheritance of epigenetic information. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 285–296 (2010).
Gaydos, L. J., Wang, W. & Strome, S. Gene repression. H3K27me and PRC2 transmit a memory of repression across generations and during development. Science 345, 1515–1518 (2014).
Audergon, P. N. et al. Epigenetics. Restricted epigenetic inheritance of H3K9 methylation. Science 348, 132–135 (2015).
Ragunathan, K., Jih, G. & Moazed, D. Epigenetics. Epigenetic inheritance uncoupled from sequence-specific recruitment. Science 348, 1258699 (2015). Audergon et al. (2015) and Ragunathan et al. (2015) show that ectopic recruitment of Clr4 to euchromatin leads to transcriptional repression as heterochromatin structures are established and that repression of the targeted locus was sustained even in the absence of Clr4.
Coleman, R. T. & Struhl, G. Causal role for inheritance of H3K27me3 in maintaining the OFF state of a Drosophila HOX gene. Science 356, eaai8236 (2017).
Wang, Z. et al. Genome-wide mapping of HATs and HDACs reveals distinct functions in active and inactive genes. Cell 138, 1019–1031 (2009).
Henikoff, S. & Shilatifard, A. Histone modification: cause or cog? Trends Genet. 27, 389–396 (2011).
Perez-Lluch, S. et al. Absence of canonical marks of active chromatin in developmentally regulated genes. Nat. Genet. 47, 1158–1167 (2015).
Reinberg, D. & Vales, L. D. Chromatin domains rich in inheritance. Science 361, 33–34 (2018).
Grewal, S. I. & Klar, A. J. Chromosomal inheritance of epigenetic states in fission yeast during mitosis and meiosis. Cell 86, 95–101 (1996).
Nakayama, J., Rice, J. C., Strahl, B. D., Allis, C. D. & Grewal, S. I. Role of histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in epigenetic control of heterochromatin assembly. Science 292, 110–113 (2001).
Grewal, S. I. & Jia, S. Heterochromatin revisited. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 35–46 (2007).
Zhang, K., Mosch, K., Fischle, W. & Grewal, S. I. Roles of the Clr4 methyltransferase complex in nucleation, spreading and maintenance of heterochromatin. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 381–388 (2008).
Muller, M. M., Fierz, B., Bittova, L., Liszczak, G. & Muir, T. W. A two-state activation mechanism controls the histone methyltransferase Suv39h1. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 188–193 (2016).
Shinkai, Y. & Tachibana, M. H3K9 methyltransferase G9a and the related molecule GLP. Genes Dev. 25, 781–788 (2011).
Lewis, E. B. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila. Nature 276, 565–570 (1978).
Pelegri, F. & Lehmann, R. A role of polycomb group genes in the regulation of gap gene expression in Drosophila. Genetics 136, 1341–1353 (1994).
Beuchle, D., Struhl, G. & Muller, J. Polycomb group proteins and heritable silencing of Drosophila Hox genes. Development 128, 993–1004 (2001).
Muller, J. et al. Histone methyltransferase activity of a Drosophila Polycomb group repressor complex. Cell 111, 197–208 (2002).
Czermin, B. et al. Drosophila enhancer of Zeste/ESC complexes have a histone H3 methyltransferase activity that marks chromosomal Polycomb sites. Cell 111, 185–196 (2002).
Cao, R. et al. Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in polycomb-group silencing. Science 298, 1039–1043 (2002).
Kuzmichev, A., Nishioka, K., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P. & Reinberg, D. Histone methyltransferase activity associated with a human multiprotein complex containing the Enhancer of Zeste protein. Genes Dev. 16, 2893–2905 (2002).
Yu, J. R., Lee, C. H., Oksuz, O., Stafford, J. M. & Reinberg, D. PRC2 is high maintenance. Genes Dev. 33, 903–935 (2019).
Hansen, K. H. et al. A model for transmission of the H3K27me3 epigenetic mark. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 1291–1300 (2008).
Margueron, R. et al. Role of the polycomb protein EED in the propagation of repressive histone marks. Nature 461, 762–767 (2009).
Laprell, F., Finkl, K. & Muller, J. Propagation of Polycomb-repressed chromatin requires sequence-specific recruitment to DNA. Science 356, 85–88 (2017). Gaydos et al. (2014), Coleman and Struhl (2017) and Laprell et al. (2017) show that ectopic recruitment of PRC2 results in transcriptional repression of the locus when high levels of H3K27me3 are established and that on removal of the initiating signal, H3K27me3 levels persisted.
Jiao, L. & Liu, X. Structural basis of histone H3K27 trimethylation by an active polycomb repressive complex 2. Science 350, aac4383 (2015).
Brooun, A. et al. Polycomb repressive complex 2 structure with inhibitor reveals a mechanism of activation and drug resistance. Nat. Commun. 7, 11384 (2016).
Justin, N. et al. Structural basis of oncogenic histone H3K27M inhibition of human polycomb repressive complex 2. Nat. Commun. 7, 11316 (2016).
Lee, C. H. et al. Allosteric activation dictates PRC2 activity independent of its recruitment to chromatin. Mol. Cell 70, 422–434 e6 (2018).
Lee, C. H. et al. Distinct stimulatory mechanisms regulate the catalytic activity of polycomb repressive complex 2. Mol. Cell 70, 435–448 e5 (2018).
Loyola, A., Bonaldi, T., Roche, D., Imhof, A. & Almouzni, G. PTMs on H3 variants before chromatin assembly potentiate their final epigenetic state. Mol. Cell 24, 309–316 (2006).
Jasencakova, Z. et al. Replication stress interferes with histone recycling and predeposition marking of new histones. Mol. Cell 37, 736–743 (2010).
Annunziato, A. T. Assembling chromatin: the long and winding road. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1819, 196–210 (2013).
Svikovic, S. & Sale, J. E. The effects of replication stress on S phase histone management and epigenetic memory. J. Mol. Biol. 429, 2011–2029 (2017).
Cusick, M. E., Herman, T. M., DePamphilis, M. L. & Wassarman, P. M. Structure of chromatin at deoxyribonucleic acid replication forks: prenucleosomal deoxyribonucleic acid is rapidly excised from replicating simian virus 40 chromosomes by micrococcal nuclease. Biochemistry 20, 6648–6658 (1981).
Herman, T. M., DePamphilis, M. L. & Wassarman, P. M. Structure of chromatin at deoxyribonucleic acid replication forks: location of the first nucleosomes on newly synthesized simian virus 40 deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry 20, 621–630 (1981).
Sogo, J. M., Stahl, H., Koller, T. & Knippers, R. Structure of replicating simian virus 40 minichromosomes. The replication fork, core histone segregation and terminal structures. J. Mol. Biol. 189, 189–204 (1986).
Worcel, A., Han, S. & Wong, M. L. Assembly of newly replicated chromatin. Cell 15, 969–977 (1978).
Jackson, V. & Chalkley, R. A reevaluation of new histone deposition on replicating chromatin. J. Biol. Chem. 256, 5095–5103 (1981).
Hake, S. B. & Allis, C. D. Histone H3 variants and their potential role in indexing mammalian genomes: the “H3 barcode hypothesis”. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6428–6435 (2006).
Henikoff, S. & Smith, M. M. Histone variants and epigenetics. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a019364 (2015).
Talbert, P. B. & Henikoff, S. Histone variants on the move: substrates for chromatin dynamics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 115–126 (2017).
Hammond, C. M., Stromme, C. B., Huang, H., Patel, D. J. & Groth, A. Histone chaperone networks shaping chromatin function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 141–158 (2017).
Grover, P., Asa, J. S. & Campos, E. I. H3-H4 histone chaperone pathways. Annu. Rev. Genet. 52, 109–130 (2018).
Mendiratta, S., Gatto, A. & Almouzni, G. Histone supply: multitiered regulation ensures chromatin dynamics throughout the cell cycle. J. Cell Biol. 218, 39–54 (2019).
Hansen, R. S. et al. Sequencing newly replicated DNA reveals widespread plasticity in human replication timing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 139–144 (2010).
Xu, M. et al. Partitioning of histone H3-H4 tetramers during DNA replication-dependent chromatin assembly. Science 328, 94–98 (2010).
Almouzni, G. & Cedar, H. Maintenance of epigenetic information. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 8, a019372 (2016).
Gan, H. et al. The Mcm2-Ctf4-Polalpha axis facilitates parental histone H3-H4 transfer to lagging strands. Mol. Cell 72, 140–151 e3 (2018).
Petryk, N. et al. MCM2 promotes symmetric inheritance of modified histones during DNA replication. Science 361, 1389–1392 (2018).
Bellelli, R. et al. POLE3-POLE4 is a histone H3-H4 chaperone that maintains chromatin integrity during DNA replication. Mol. Cell 72, 112–126 e5 (2018).
Yu, C. et al. A mechanism for preventing asymmetric histone segregation onto replicating DNA strands. Science 361, 1386–1389 (2018).
Stewart-Morgan, K. R., Petryk, N. & Groth, A. Chromatin replication and epigenetic cell memory. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 361–371 (2020).
Madamba, E. V., Berthet, E. B. & Francis, N. J. Inheritance of histones H3 and H4 during DNA replication in vitro. Cell Rep. 21, 1361–1374 (2017).
Burgers, P. M. J. & Kunkel, T. A. Eukaryotic DNA replication fork. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 86, 417–438 (2017).
Gruszka, D. T., Xie, S., Kimura, H. & Yardimci, H. Single-molecule imaging reveals control of parental histone recycling by free histones during DNA replication. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc0330 (2020).
Reveron-Gomez, N. et al. Accurate recycling of parental histones reproduces the histone modification landscape during DNA replication. Mol. Cell 72, 239–249 e5 (2018).
Schlissel, G. & Rine, J. The nucleosome core particle remembers its position through DNA replication and RNA transcription. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20605–20611 (2019).
Escobar, T. M. et al. Active and repressed chromatin domains exhibit distinct nucleosome segregation during DNA replication. Cell 179, 953–963 e11 (2019). This study demonstrates that parental nucleosomes are redistributed locally in repressed chromatin domains, but are dispersed in active chromatin domains, after DNA replication in mouse embryonic stem cells.
Clement, C. et al. High-resolution visualization of H3 variants during replication reveals their controlled recycling. Nat. Commun. 9, 3181 (2018).
Zasadzinska, E. et al. Inheritance of CENP-A nucleosomes during DNA replication requires HJURP. Dev. Cell 47, 348–362 e7 (2018).
Holla, S. et al. Positioning heterochromatin at the nuclear periphery suppresses histone turnover to promote epigenetic inheritance. Cell 180, 150–164 e15 (2020).
Harvey, Z. H., Chakravarty, A. K., Futia, R. A. & Jarosz, D. F. A prion epigenetic switch establishes an active chromatin state. Cell 180, 928–940 e14 (2020).
Gruss, C., Wu, J., Koller, T. & Sogo, J. M. Disruption of the nucleosomes at the replication fork. EMBO J. 12, 4533–4545 (1993).
Groth, A. et al. Regulation of replication fork progression through histone supply and demand. Science 318, 1928–1931 (2007).
Huang, H. et al. A unique binding mode enables MCM2 to chaperone histones H3-H4 at replication forks. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 618–626 (2015).
Richet, N. et al. Structural insight into how the human helicase subunit MCM2 may act as a histone chaperone together with ASF1 at the replication fork. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 1905–1917 (2015).
English, C. M., Maluf, N. K., Tripet, B., Churchill, M. E. & Tyler, J. K. ASF1 binds to a heterodimer of histones H3 and H4: a two-step mechanism for the assembly of the H3-H4 heterotetramer on DNA. Biochemistry 44, 13673–13682 (2005).
English, C. M., Adkins, M. W., Carson, J. J., Churchill, M. E. & Tyler, J. K. Structural basis for the histone chaperone activity of Asf1. Cell 127, 495–508 (2006).
Natsume, R. et al. Structure and function of the histone chaperone CIA/ASF1 complexed with histones H3 and H4. Nature 446, 338–341 (2007).
Rhind, N. & Gilbert, D. M. DNA replication timing. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a010132 (2013).
Loyola, A. et al. The HP1alpha-CAF1-SetDB1-containing complex provides H3K9me1 for Suv39-mediated K9me3 in pericentric heterochromatin. EMBO Rep. 10, 769–775 (2009).
Quivy, J. P. et al. A CAF-1 dependent pool of HP1 during heterochromatin duplication. EMBO J. 23, 3516–3526 (2004).
Waddington, C. H. Organisers & Genes (Cambridge University Press, 1947).
Soufi, A. & Dalton, S. Cycling through developmental decisions: how cell cycle dynamics control pluripotency, differentiation and reprogramming. Development 143, 4301–4311 (2016).
Wooten, M., Ranjan, R. & Chen, X. Asymmetric histone inheritance in asymmetrically dividing stem cells. Trends Genet. 36, 30–43 (2020).
Tran, V., Lim, C., Xie, J. & Chen, X. Asymmetric division of Drosophila male germline stem cell shows asymmetric histone distribution. Science 338, 679–682 (2012).
Wooten, M. et al. Asymmetric histone inheritance via strand-specific incorporation and biased replication fork movement. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 732–743 (2019). Tran et al. (2012) and Wooten et al. (2019) discover that H3 and H4, but not H2A and H2B, are asymmetrically distributed when the male germline stem cell divides, such that the self-renewed germ stem cell retains parental H3 and H4, while the gonialblast committed to differentiation acquires newly synthesized H3 and H4.
Garcia Del Arco, A., Edgar, B. A. & Erhardt, S. In vivo analysis of centromeric proteins reveals a stem cell-specific asymmetry and an essential role in differentiated, non-proliferating cells. Cell Rep. 22, 1982–1993 (2018).
Chen, X. & Zion, E. Asymmetric histone inheritance regulates stem cell fate in Drosophila midgut. Available at SSRN 3671969 (2020).
Chen, X., Kahney, E. W., Sohn, L., Viets-Layng, K. & Johnston, R. Characterization of histone inheritance patterns in the Drosophila female germline. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.255455 (2020).
Ma, B. et al. Differential histone distribution patterns in induced asymmetrically dividing mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Rep. 32, 108003 (2020).
Evano, B., Khalilian, S., Le Carrou, G., Almouzni, G. & Tajbakhsh, S. Dynamics of asymmetric and symmetric divisions of muscle stem cells in vivo and on artificial niches. Cell Rep. 30, 3195–3206 e7 (2020).
Azuara, V. et al. Chromatin signatures of pluripotent cell lines. Nat. Cell Biol. 8, 532–538 (2006).
Bernstein, B. E. et al. A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell 125, 315–326 (2006).
Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448, 553–560 (2007).
Voigt, P. et al. Asymmetrically modified nucleosomes. Cell 151, 181–193 (2012).
Voigt, P., Tee, W. W. & Reinberg, D. A double take on bivalent promoters. Genes Dev. 27, 1318–1338 (2013).
Jadhav, U. et al. Acquired tissue-specific promoter bivalency is a basis for PRC2 necessity in adult cells. Cell 165, 1389–1400 (2016).
Katan-Khaykovich, Y. & Struhl, K. Splitting of H3-H4 tetramers at transcriptionally active genes undergoing dynamic histone exchange. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1296–1301 (2011). Xu et al. (2010) and Katan-Khaykovich and Struhl (2011) show that old (H3.1–H4)2 tetramer cores are deposited behind the replication fork without mixing old and new H3.1–H4 dimers, while a significant amount of old (H3.3–H4)2 tetramer cores split.
Huang, C. et al. H3.3-H4 tetramer splitting events feature cell-type specific enhancers. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003558 (2013).
Prado, F., Cortes-Ledesma, F. & Aguilera, A. The absence of the yeast chromatin assembly factor Asf1 increases genomic instability and sister chromatid exchange. EMBO Rep. 5, 497–502 (2004).
Tyler, J. K. et al. The RCAF complex mediates chromatin assembly during DNA replication and repair. Nature 402, 555–560 (1999).
Iida, T. & Araki, H. Noncompetitive counteractions of DNA polymerase epsilon and ISW2/yCHRAC for epigenetic inheritance of telomere position effect in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 217–227 (2004).
Tsubota, T. et al. Double-stranded DNA binding, an unusual property of DNA polymerase epsilon, promotes epigenetic silencing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 32898–32908 (2006).
Cheloufi, S. et al. The histone chaperone CAF-1 safeguards somatic cell identity. Nature 528, 218–224 (2015).
Ishiuchi, T. et al. Early embryonic-like cells are induced by downregulating replication-dependent chromatin assembly. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 662–671 (2015).
Gaillard, P. H. L. et al. Initiation and bidirectional propagation of chromatin assembly from a target site for nucleotide excision repair. EMBO J. 16, 6281–6289 (1997).
Nabatiyan, A., Szuts, D. & Krude, T. Induction of CAF-1 expression in response to DNA strand breaks in quiescent human cells. Mol. Cell Biol. 26, 1839–1849 (2006).
Linger, J. & Tyler, J. K. The yeast histone chaperone chromatin assembly factor 1 protects against double-strand DNA-damaging agents. Genetics 171, 1513–1522 (2005).
Kaufman, P. D., Kobayashi, R. & Stillman, B. Ultraviolet radiation sensitivity and reduction of telomeric silencing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells lacking chromatin assembly factor-I. Genes Dev. 11, 345–357 (1997).
Quivy, J. P., Gerard, A., Cook, A. J., Roche, D. & Almouzni, G. The HP1-p150/CAF-1 interaction is required for pericentric heterochromatin replication and S-phase progression in mouse cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 972–979 (2008).
Huang, S., Li, X., Yusufzai, T. M., Qiu, Y. & Felsenfeld, G. USF1 recruits histone modification complexes and is critical for maintenance of a chromatin barrier. Mol. Cell Biol. 27, 7991–8002 (2007).
Schwartzentruber, J. et al. Driver mutations in histone H3.3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma. Nature 482, 226–231 (2012).
Wu, G. et al. Somatic histone H3 alterations in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas and non-brainstem glioblastomas. Nat. Genet. 44, 251–253 (2012).
Nacev, B. A. et al. The expanding landscape of ‘oncohistone’ mutations in human cancers. Nature 567, 473–478 (2019).
Lowe, B. R., Maxham, L. A., Hamey, J. J., Wilkins, M. R. & Partridge, J. F. Histone H3 mutations: an updated view of their role in chromatin deregulation and cancer. Cancers 11, 660 (2019).
Mohammad, F. & Helin, K. Oncohistones: drivers of pediatric cancers. Genes Dev. 31, 2313–2324 (2017).
Stafford, J. M. et al. Multiple modes of PRC2 inhibition elicit global chromatin alterations in H3K27M pediatric glioma. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau5935 (2018).
Lewis, P. W. et al. Inhibition of PRC2 activity by a gain-of-function H3 mutation found in pediatric glioblastoma. Science 340, 857–861 (2013).
Chan, Y. S. et al. A PRC2-dependent repressive role of PRDM14 in human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming. Stem Cell 31, 682–692 (2013).
Sarthy, J. F. et al. Histone deposition pathways determine the chromatin landscapes of H3.1 and H3.3 K27M oncohistones. eLife 9, e61090 (2020).
Marchal, C., Sima, J. & Gilbert, D. M. Control of DNA replication timing in the 3D genome. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 721–737 (2019).
Donley, N. & Thayer, M. J. DNA replication timing, genome stability and cancer: late and/or delayed DNA replication timing is associated with increased genomic instability. Semin. Cancer Biol. 23, 80–89 (2013).
Hiratani, I. & Gilbert, D. M. Replication timing as an epigenetic mark. Epigenetics 4, 93–97 (2009).
Smith, S. & Stillman, B. Purification and characterization of CAF-I, a human cell factor required for chromatin assembly during DNA replication in vitro. Cell 58, 15–25 (1989).
Tagami, H., Ray-Gallet, D., Almouzni, G. & Nakatani, Y. Histone H3.1 and H3.3 complexes mediate nucleosome assembly pathways dependent or independent of DNA synthesis. Cell 116, 51–61 (2004).
Goldberg, A. D. et al. Distinct factors control histone variant H3.3 localization at specific genomic regions. Cell 140, 678–691 (2010).
Drane, P., Ouararhni, K., Depaux, A., Shuaib, M. & Hamiche, A. The death-associated protein DAXX is a novel histone chaperone involved in the replication-independent deposition of H3.3. Genes Dev. 24, 1253–1265 (2010).
Dunleavy, E. M. et al. HJURP is a cell-cycle-dependent maintenance and deposition factor of CENP-A at centromeres. Cell 137, 485–497 (2009).
Foltz, D. R. et al. Centromere-specific assembly of CENP-a nucleosomes is mediated by HJURP. Cell 137, 472–484 (2009).
Yang, J. et al. The histone chaperone FACT contributes to DNA replication-coupled nucleosome assembly. Cell Rep. 14, 1128–1141 (2016).
Elgin, S. C. & Reuter, G. Position-effect variegation, heterochromatin formation, and gene silencing in Drosophila. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 5, a017780 (2013).
Allshire, R. C. & Ekwall, K. Epigenetic regulation of chromatin states in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a018770 (2015).
Muller, H. J. & Altenburg, E. The frequency of translocations produced by X-rays in Drosophila. Genetics 15, 283–311 (1930).
Aagaard, L. et al. Functional mammalian homologues of the Drosophila PEV-modifier Su(var)3-9 encode centromere-associated proteins which complex with the heterochromatin component M31. EMBO J. 18, 1923–1938 (1999).
O’Carroll, D. et al. Isolation and characterization of Suv39h2, a second histone H3 methyltransferase gene that displays testis-specific expression. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 9423–9433 (2000).
Peters, A. H. et al. Loss of the Suv39h histone methyltransferases impairs mammalian heterochromatin and genome stability. Cell 107, 323–337 (2001).
Trojer, P. & Reinberg, D. Facultative heterochromatin: is there a distinctive molecular signature? Mol. Cell 28, 1–13 (2007).
Schuettengruber, B., Bourbon, H. M., Di Croce, L. & Cavalli, G. Genome regulation by Polycomb and Trithorax: 70 years and counting. Cell 171, 34–57 (2017).
Deal, R. B., Henikoff, J. G. & Henikoff, S. Genome-wide kinetics of nucleosome turnover determined by metabolic labeling of histones. Science 328, 1161–1164 (2010).
Alabert, C. et al. Nascent chromatin capture proteomics determines chromatin dynamics during DNA replication and identifies unknown fork components. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 281–293 (2014).
Alabert, C. et al. Two distinct modes for propagation of histone PTMs across the cell cycle. Genes Dev. 29, 585–590 (2015).
Barski, A. et al. High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129, 823–837 (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).
Robertson, G. et al. Genome-wide profiles of STAT1 DNA association using chromatin immunoprecipitation and massively parallel sequencing. Nat. Methods 4, 651–657 (2007).
Dean, K. M. & Palmer, A. E. Advances in fluorescence labeling strategies for dynamic cellular imaging. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10, 512–523 (2014).
Saavedra, F. et al. JMJD1B, a novel player in histone H3 and H4 processing to ensure genome stability. Epigenetics Chromatin 13, 6 (2020).
Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013).
Liu, X. et al. In situ capture of chromatin interactions by biotinylated dCas9. Cell 170, 1028–1043 e19 (2017).
Myers, S. A. et al. Discovery of proteins associated with a predefined genomic locus via dCas9-APEX-mediated proximity labeling. Nat. Methods 15, 437–439 (2018).
Gao, X. D. et al. C-BERST: defining subnuclear proteomic landscapes at genomic elements with dCas9-APEX2. Nat. Methods 15, 433–436 (2018).
The authors thank L. Vales for discussion and revision of the manuscript. They also thank K. J. Armache for revision of the manuscript. This work was performed during a sabbatical of A.L. in the laboratory of D.R., New York University Langone Health. T.M.E. is supported by US National Cancer Institute NIH grant 3R01CA199652-14S1. A.L. is supported by grants from Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (FONDECYT 1200577 and Programa de Apoyo a Centros con Financiamiento Basal AFB170004) of Chile. D.R. is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the National Cancer Institute (NIH 9R01CA199652-13A1 grant).
D.R. is a co-founder of Constellation Pharmaceuticals and Fulcrum Therapeutics. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Light-staining, decondensed, gene-rich and transcriptionally active and accessible regions of the genome, enriched in trimethylated histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4me3) and acetylated histone H3 (H3ac).
Dark-staining, condensed, gene-poor and repetitive regions of the genome. These regions can be further classified into facultative and constitutive heterochromatin that are enriched in trimethylated histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3) and H3K9me3, respectively.
- Transcriptional signature
Transcriptional patterns that are specific to a given cell type and are responsible for cellular identity.
- Epigenetic mechanism
A molecular process that is involved in establishing a heritable state of chromatin by modifications of DNA or post-translational modification of the histone H3 isoforms, such as DNA methylation or trimethylated histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3)/H3K9me3, respectively.
- Parental histones
Histones that have existed before the S phase-specific synthesis of histones.
- Epigenetic modification
This term is incorrectly used in many circumstances. The designation refers to DNA methylation and post-translational modifications to histones that facilitate transcriptional programmes that are inherited across cell division. Indeed, as of today in mammals, only two modifications to histone H3 are known to be epigenetic (as described in the glossary definition for ‘epigenetic mechanism’). In yeast, only deacetylation of lysine 16 of histone H4 establishes an epigenetic programme at three specific loci, as explained in the main text.
- ‘Read–write’ mechanism
Enzymatic activity of some methyltransferases that exhibit a self-contained positive-feedback loop. Thus far, only SUV39H1/SUV39H2 and Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) have shown this activity, in which a domain of the SUV39H1/SUV39H2 polypeptide or a subunit of PRC2 recognizes the product of its catalysis, trimethylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9me3) or H3K27me3, respectively. These binding events result in the stimulation of the activity of the SET domain, which comprises the same polypeptide in the case of SUV39H1/SUV39H2 or another subunit in the case of PRC2, further spreading the histone modification.
- Allosteric stimulation
Activation of an enzyme mediated by a small regulatory molecule that interacts at a site other than the active site.
- Newly synthesized ‘naive’ histones
Histones that have been recently synthesized and contain only few post-translational modifications, including monomethylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9me1), acetylated histone H4 lysine 5 (H4K5ac) and H4K12ac.
- Parental nucleosome segregation
The disassembly of the parental nucleosomes into one histone (H3–H4)2 tetramer and two histone H2A–H2B dimers ahead of the replication fork and their placement behind the fork to the leading and lagging strand.
- Histone eviction
Complete removal of histones forming part of nucleosomes, as a consequence of DNA processing, such as transcription, DNA replication and DNA repair.
- Histone turnover
The rate of histone exchange at a particular locus. In the main text, we focus mainly on the histone exchange associated with transcription as chromatin within an active transcriptional domain has higher histone turnover than chromatin within a silent transcriptional domain.
- Replication timing
The order in which segments of DNA are duplicated during the S phase of the cell cycle. Correlation exists where early replication timing corresponds to euchromatin and late replication timing corresponds to heterochromatin regions.
- Bivalent promoters
Promoters that have both repressive (trimethylated histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3)) and activating (H3K4me3) histone post-translational modifications within the same nucleosome.
Recurrent mutations in histone genes that lead to the expression of mutant histones with oncogenic characteristics. Their expression affects the global chromatin landscape of the cell.
About this article
Cite this article
Escobar, T.M., Loyola, A. & Reinberg, D. Parental nucleosome segregation and the inheritance of cellular identity. Nat Rev Genet 22, 379–392 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00312-w
This article is cited by
Nature Reviews Genetics (2022)
Nature Communications (2022)
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (2021)