Skip to main content

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

  • Article
  • Published:

Transcription factor competition at the γ-globin promoters controls hemoglobin switching

Nature Genetics volume 53, pages 511–520 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 17 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

BCL11A, the major regulator of fetal hemoglobin (HbF, α2γ2) level, represses γ-globin expression through direct promoter binding in adult erythroid cells in a switch to adult hemoglobin (HbA, α2β2). To uncover how BCL11A initiates repression, we used CRISPR–Cas9, dCas9, dCas9-KRAB and dCas9-VP64 screens to dissect the γ-globin promoters and identified an activator element near the BCL11A-binding site. Using CUT&RUN and base editing, we demonstrate that a proximal CCAAT box is occupied by the activator NF-Y. BCL11A competes with NF-Y binding through steric hindrance to initiate repression. Occupancy of NF-Y is rapidly established following BCL11A depletion, and precedes γ-globin derepression and locus control region (LCR)–globin loop formation. Our findings reveal that the switch from fetal to adult globin gene expression within the >50-kb β-globin gene cluster is initiated by competition between a stage-selective repressor and a ubiquitous activating factor within a remarkably discrete region of the γ-globin promoters.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

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

Fig. 1: dCas9 dense perturbation reveals an activator element at the γ-globin promoters.
Fig. 2: NF-Y activates γ-globin through direct binding to the proximal CCAAT.
Fig. 3: Base editing of the NF-Y motif reduces γ-globin expression.
Fig. 4: NF-Y rapidly activates γ-globin after acute depletion of BCL11A.
Fig. 5: NF-Y binding is affected by steric hindrance at the γ-globin promoters.
Fig. 6: A simplified model for hemoglobin switching.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All raw and processed CRISPR screen, CUT&RUN, ChIP–seq, PRO-seq and ATAC-seq data have been deposited in the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE150530. All unprocessed immunoblot gels for Fig. 4a and Extended Data Figs. 2a, 4a,c and 5f can be found in Source data provided with this paper.

Code availability

We made use of publically available software for processing high-throughput sequencing raw data. For single-locus CUT&RUN footprinting, the code can be found at https://bitbucket.org/qzhudfci/cutruntools/src/master/. Code for deconvolution of CRISPR screen data can be found at https://github.com/pinellolab. Custom codes used in this study can be found at https://github.com/yao-qiuming/Nan_NG2020.

Change history

References

  1. Hay, D. et al. Genetic dissection of the α-globin super-enhancer in vivo. Nat. Genet. 48, 895–903 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Carter, D., Chakalova, L., Osborne, C. S., Dai, Y. & Fraser, P. Long-range chromatin regulatory interactions in vivo. Nat. Genet. 32, 623–626 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tolhuis, B. et al. Looping and interaction between hypersensitive sites in the active beta-globin locus. Mol. Cell 10, 1453–1465 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Palstra, R. J. et al. The β-globin nuclear compartment in development and erythroid differentiation. Nat. Genet. 35, 190–194 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chada, K., Magram, J. & Costantini, F. An embryonic pattern of expression of a human fetal globin gene in transgenic mice. Nature 319, 685–689 (1986).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Magram, J., Chada, K. & Costantini, F. Developmental regulation of a cloned adult β-globin gene in transgenic mice. Nature 315, 338–340 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Starck, J. et al. Developmental regulation of human gamma- and beta-globin genes in the absence of the locus control region. Blood 84, 1656–1665 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bender, M. A., Bulger, M., Close, J. & Groudine, M. β-Globin gene switching and DNase I sensitivity of the endogenous β-globin locus in mice do not require the locus control region. Mol. Cell 5, 387–393 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Masuda, T. et al. Transcription factors LRF and BCL11A independently repress expression of fetal hemoglobin. Science 351, 285–289 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sankaran, V. G. et al. Human fetal hemoglobin expression is regulated by the developmental stage-specific repressor BCL11A. Science 322, 1839–1842 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sankaran, V. G. et al. Developmental and species-divergent globin switching are driven by BCL11A. Nature 460, 1093–1097 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, N. et al. Direct promoter repression by BCL11A controls the fetal to adult hemoglobin switch. Cell 173, 430–442 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Martyn, G. E. et al. Natural regulatory mutations elevate the fetal globin gene via disruption of BCL11A or ZBTB7A binding. Nat. Genet. 50, 498–503 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Traxler, E. A. et al. A genome-editing strategy to treat β-hemoglobinopathies that recapitulates a mutation associated with a benign genetic condition. Nat. Med. 22, 987–990 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang, P. et al. Comparative analysis of three-dimensional chromosomal architecture identifies a novel fetal hemoglobin regulatory element. Genes Dev. 31, 1704–1713 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ivaldi, M. S. et al. Fetal g-globin genes are regulated by the BGLT3 long noncoding RNA locus. Blood 132, 1963–1973 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sankaran, V. G. et al. A functional element necessary for fetal hemoglobin silencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 807–814 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaensler, K. M. L. et al. Sequences in the Aγ-δ intergenic region are not required for stage-specific regulation of the human β-globin gene locus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3374–3379 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kurita, R. et al. Establishment of immortalized human erythroid progenitor cell lines able to produce enucleated red blood cells. PLoS ONE 8, e59890 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Canver, M. C. et al. BCL11A enhancer dissection by Cas9-mediated in situ saturating mutagenesis. Nature 527, 192–197 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shariati, S. A. et al. Reversible disruption of specific transcription factor-DNA interactions using CRISPR/Cas9. Mol. Cell 74, 622–633 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mantovani, R. The molecular biology of the CCAAT-binding factor NF-Y. Gene 239, 15–27 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dolfini, D., Zambelli, F., Pedrazzoli, M., Mantovani, R. & Pavesi, G. A high definition look at the NF-Y regulome reveals genome-wide associations with selected transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 4684–4702 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fleming, J. D. et al. NF-Y coassociates with FOS at promoters, enhancers, repetitive elements, and inactive chromatin regions, and is stereo-positioned with growth-controlling transcription factors. Genome Res. 23, 1195–1209 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nardini, M. et al. Sequence-specific transcription factor NF-Y displays histone-like DNA binding and H2B-like ubiquitination. Cell 152, 132–143 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Coustry, F., Hu, Q., de Crombrugghe, B. & Maity, S. N. CBF/NF-Y functions both in nucleosomal disruption and transcription activation of the chromatin-assembled topoisomerase IIalpha promoter. Transcription activation by CBF/NF-Y in chromatin is dependent on the promoter structure. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 40621–40630 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oldfield, A. J. et al. Histone-fold domain protein NF-Y promotes chromatin accessibility for cell type-specific master transcription factors. Mol. Cell 55, 708–722 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bellorini, M. et al. CCAAT binding NF-Y-TBP interactions: NF-YB and NF-YC require short domains adjacent to their histone fold motifs for association with TBP basic residues. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 2174–2181 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Frontini, M. et al. NF-Y recruitment of TFIID, multiple interactions with histone fold TAFIIs. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 5841–5848 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kabe, Y. et al. NF-Y is essential for the recruitment of RNA polymerase II and inducible transcription of several CCAAT box-containing genes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 512–522 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Oldfield, A. J. et al. NF-Y controls fidelity of transcription initiation at gene promoters through maintenance of the nucleosome-depleted region. Nat. Commun. 10, 3072 (2019).

  33. Zhu, X. et al. NF-Y recruits both transcription activator and repressor to modulate tissue- and developmental stage-specific expression of human γ-globin gene. PLoS ONE 7, e47175 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Duan, Z., Stamatoyannopoulos, G. & Li, Q. Role of NF-Y in in vivo regulation of the gamma-globin gene. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 3083–3095 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Fang, X., Han, H., Stamatoyannopoulos, G. & Li, Q. Developmentally specific role of the CCAAT box in regulation of human γ-globin gene expression. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 5444–5449 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Martyn, G. E., Quinlan, K. G. R. & Crossley, M. The regulation of human globin promoters by CCAAT box elements and the recruitment of NF-Y. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gene Regul. Mech. 1860, 525–536 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu, J. et al. Transcriptional silencing of γ-globin by BCL11A involves long-range interactions and cooperation with SOX6. Genes Dev. 24, 783–789 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Skene, P. J. & Henikoff, S. An efficient targeted nuclease strategy for high-resolution mapping of DNA binding sites. eLife 6, e21856 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhu, Q., Liu, N., Orkin, S. H. & Yuan, G. C. CUT and RUNTools: a flexible pipeline for CUT and RUN processing and footprint analysis. Genome Biol. 20, 192 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Liberati, C., Ronchi, A., Lievens, P., Ottolenghi, S. & Mantovani, R. NF-Y organizes the γ-globin CCAAT boxes region. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 16880–16889 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liberati, C., di Silvio, A., Ottolenghi, S. & Mantovani, R. NF-Y binding to twin CCAAT boxes: role of Q-rich domains and histone fold helices. J. Mol. Biol. 285, 1441–1455 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Luo, D. et al. MNase, as a probe to study the sequence-dependent site exposures in the +1 nucleosomes of yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7124–7137 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hu, Q., Lu, J.-F., Luo, R., Sen, S. & Maity, S. N. Inhibition of CBF/NF-Y mediated transcription activation arrests cells at G2/M phase and suppresses expression of genes activated at G2/M phase of the cell cycle. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 6272–6285 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kao, C. Y., Tanimoto, A., Arima, N., Sasaguri, Y. & Padmanabhan, R. Transactivation of the human cdc2 promoter by adenovirus E1A induces the expression and assembly of a heteromeric complex consisting of the CCAAT box binding factor, CBF/NF-Y, and a 110-kDa DNA-binding protein. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 23043–23051 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Nishimasu, H. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease with expanded targeting space. Science 361, 1259–1262 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Stevens, A. J. et al. A promiscuous split intein with expanded protein engineering applications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8538–8543 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Zafra, M. P. et al. Optimized base editors enable efficient editing in cells, organoids and mice. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 888–893 (2018).

  49. Wang, L. et al. Reactivation of γ-globin expression through Cas9 or base editor to treat β-hemoglobinopathies. Cell Res. 30, 276–278 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Shao, Z., Zhang, Y., Yuan, G. C., Orkin, S. H. & Waxman, D. J. MAnorm: a robust model for quantitative comparison of ChIP-Seq data sets. Genome Biol. 13, R16 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Xu, J. et al. Corepressor-dependent silencing of fetal hemoglobin expression by BCL11A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6518–6523 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Gillespie, M. A. et al. Absolute quantification of transcription factors reveals principles of gene regulation in erythropoiesis. Mol. Cell https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2020.03.031 (2020).

  54. Basak, A. et al. Control of human hemoglobin switching by LIN28B-mediated regulation of BCL11A translation. Nat. Genet. 52, 138–145 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilber, A., Nienhuis, A. W. & Persons, D. A. Transcriptional regulation of fetal to adult hemoglobin switching: new therapeutic opportunities. Blood 117, 3945–3953 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. van Arensbergen, J., van Steensel, B. & Bussemaker, H. J. In search of the determinants of enhancer–promoter interaction specificity. Trends Cell Biol. 24, 695–702 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Oudelaar, A. M. et al. Dynamics of the 4D genome during in vivo lineage specification and differentiation. Nat. Commun. 11, 2722 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Milos, P. M. & Zaret, K. S. A ubiquitous factor is required for C/EBP-related proteins to form stable transcription complexes on an albumin promoter segment in vitro. Genes Dev. 6, 991–1004 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stracke, R., Thiedig, K. & Kuhlmann, M. What have we learned about synthetic promoter construction? Plant Synth. Promot. 1482, 1–13 (2016).

  60. Rojo, F. Repression of transcription initiation in bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 181, 2987–2991 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Morgens, D. W. et al. Genome-scale measurement of off-target activity using Cas9 toxicity in high-throughput screens. Nat. Commun. 8, 15178 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Sanjana, N. E., Shalem, O. & Zhang, F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nat. Methods 11, 783–784 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hess, G. T. et al. Directed evolution using dCas9-targeted somatic hypermutation in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13, 1036–1042 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Tanenbaum, M. E., Gilbert, L. A., Qi, L. S., Weissman, J. S. & Vale, R. D. A protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159, 635–646 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Hsu, J. Y. et al. CRISPR-SURF: discovering regulatory elements by deconvolution of CRISPR tiling screen data. Nat. Methods 15, 992–993 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhang, Y. et al. Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 9, R137 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Machanick, P. & Bailey, T. L. MEME-ChIP: motif analysis of large DNA datasets. Bioinformatics 27, 1696–1697 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Quinlan, A. R. BEDTools: the Swiss-Army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 2014, 11.12.1–11.12.34 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Neph, S. et al. BEDOPS: high-performance genomic feature operations. Bioinformatics 28, 1919–1920 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Pique-Regi, R. et al. Accurate inference of transcription factor binding from DNA sequence and chromatin accessibility data. Genome Res. 21, 447–455 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Ramírez, F. et al. deepTools2: a next generation web server for deep-sequencing data analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W160–W165 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Brinkman, E. K. et al. Easy quantification of template-directed CRISPR/Cas9 editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e58 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Brinkman, E. K., Chen, T., Amendola, M. & van Steensel, B. Easy quantitative assessment of genome editing by sequence trace decomposition. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e168 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Feng, S. et al. Improved split fluorescent proteins for endogenous protein labeling. Nat. Commun. 8, 370 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Corces, M. R. et al. An improved ATAC-seq protocol reduces background and enables interrogation of frozen tissues. Nat. Methods 14, 959–962 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Elrod, N. D. et al. The integrator complex attenuates promoter-proximal transcription at protein-coding genes. Mol. Cell 76, 738–752 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Henikoff at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for pA-MNase, T. Muir at Princeton University Department of Chemistry for split-intein cDNA and B. Huang at UCSF Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry for split-mNG2 cDNA. We thank Y. Nakamura at the Cell Engineering Division of RIKEN BioResource Center for HUDEP-1 and HUDEP-2 cell lines. We thank Z. Herbert, M. Berkeley and A. Caruso at the Molecular Biology Core Facilities for high-throughput DNA sequencing, S. Goldman at the Nascent Transcriptomics Core for generation of PRO-seq libraries and performing analyses, and all members at the Hematologic Neoplasia Flow Cytometry core for sorting cells. We also thank M. Cole, M. Canver and C. Smith for critical input and experimental contributions, A. Bowker for technical assistance and members of the Orkin, Bauer and Yuan laboratories for input. D.E.B. was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and NHLBI (nos. DP2HL137300 and P01HL032262). S.H.O. is an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, supported by both NHLBI (nos. R01HL032259 and P01HL032262) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. G.-C.Y. was supported by NHGRI (no. R01HG009663). L.P. was supported by NHGRI Genomic Innovator Award (no. R35HG010717). N.L. was supported by NIDDK (no. K99DK120925).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guo-Cheng Yuan

    Present address: Department of Genetics and Genomic Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

  2. These authors contributed equally: Nan Liu, Shuqian Xu.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Nan Liu, Shuqian Xu, Qiuming Yao, Phraew Sakon, Daniel E. Bauer & Stuart H. Orkin

  2. Department of Hematology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China

    Shuqian Xu

  3. Molecular Pathology Unit & Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Qiuming Yao, Jonathan Y. Hsu & Luca Pinello

  4. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Qian Zhu, Yan Kai & Guo-Cheng Yuan

  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Stuart H. Orkin

Authors
  1. Nan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuqian Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiuming Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qian Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yan Kai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jonathan Y. Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Phraew Sakon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luca Pinello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guo-Cheng Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel E. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stuart H. Orkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.L. and S.H.O. conceived the study. N.L. designed and performed all experiments, except those detailed below. D.E.B. conceived the Cas9 and dCas9 dense perturbation screens. S.X. performed the screens. Q.Y. analyzed the screen data. J.Y.H. and L.P. performed CRISPR–SURF deconvolution. S.X., Q.Y. and N.L. performed dCas9 disruption validation. Q.Y. and N.L. analyzed PRO-seq data. N.L., Q.Z. and Y.K. analyzed CUT&RUN data under the supervision of G.-C.Y. P.S. assisted with immunoblotting and RT–qPCR. N.L. and S.H.O. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart H. Orkin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Genetics thanks Emery Bresnick, Douglas Higgs and Sjaak Philipsen for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Dense perturbation of the β-globin locus.

a, Flow chart of the dense perturbation experiment design. b, Zoomed in view of the dense perturbation results at HBB and HBD genes. gRNAs that target the exons are enriched in Cas9 experiment. HbF raw score is enrichment of individual gRNAs in HbF-high compared to unsorted population at end of erythroid maturation, plotted as log2 fold change. HbF score shows deconvoluted underlying genomic regulatory signal with corresponding p-values shown on -log10 scale. c, Zoomed in view of the dense perturbation results at HBG1 gene. Not that gRNAs that target the exons are depleted in Cas9 experiment. d, Zoomed in view of the dCas9 dense perturbation result at HS3 of the LCR aligned to PhastCons46way scores. The four regions highlighted in green contain GATA1 or GATA1-TAL1 composite motifs (CTG[N8-9]GATA), with the sequences shown below. e, RT-qPCR showing that dCas9/sgRNA binding at -115 of γ-globin promoters reduced γ-globin expression in HUDEP-2 cells. Note that the γ-globin is only expressed at a basal level in cells expressing AAVS1 control sgRNA. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates. Statistical tests of the beta coefficients were performed empirically through bootstrapping and two-tailed tests. Multiple hypothesis testing was accounted for with the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) procedure.

Extended Data Fig. 2 NFYA binds to γ-globin promoters and is required for LCR-γ-globin interaction.

a, Left, western blot gel showing validation of NFYA knockdown efficiency (cropped). All three shRNAs tested showed efficient depletion of NFYA. Right, validation of NFYA knockdown efficiency at mRNA level using RT-qPCR. shRNA3 exhibited efficient knockdown of NFYA mRNA in all three cells tested and was used thereafter. The result is shown as mean (SD) of two technical replicates. b, ChIP-seq tracks of NFYA in HUDEP-2, HUDEP-1, BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells with or without NFYA knockdown. c, ChIP-qPCR validation of NFYA binding at the γ-globin promoters in HUDEP-1 and BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells. No strong binding was detected in HUDEP-2 cells which does not express γ-globin. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates. d, Chromosome Conformation Capture qPCR in BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells with or without NFYA knockdown. EcoRI fragment encompassing HS2-4 of the LCR was used as anchor point to evaluate LCR-globin interaction. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 NF-Y binds to the proximal CCAAT in the γ-globin promoters.

a, Upper panel, heatmap comparison of NFYA ChIP-seq in HUDEP-2 cells, NFYA CUT&RUN in primary human CD34+ derived erythroid cells with or without NFYA knockdown. Lower panel, comparing the signal of the above three experiments at a representative genomic region. b, Venn diagram showing the overlap between NFYA CUT&RUN and ChIP-seq peaks. c, Motif analysis from 5000 random peaks of NFYA CUT&RUN identifies CCAAT as the highest ranked motif. E-value is reported by MEME. d, Zoomed in view of BCL11A CUT&RUN in HUDEP-2 and NFYA CUT&RUN in BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells at the γ-globin promoters. Distal (−118 to −113) indicates the distal TGACCA motif that BCL11A binds, and proximal (−88 to −84) indicates the proximal CCAAT motif. e, Single locus footprint of NF-Y at the CCNB1 promoter (upper) and CDK1 promoter (lower). Both CCAAT motifs show strong NF-Y footprints in the two promoters. f, Single locus footprint of NF-Y at the γ-globin promoters in HUDEP-1 (upper), BCL11A KO adult CD34+ derived erythroid cells (middle) and cord blood CD34+ derived erythroid cells. Only the proximal motif shows NF-Y footprint.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Base editing of the BCL11A and NF-Y motif.

a, Left, split-intein mediated ligation of Cas9NG-Intein-N and Intein-C-AID, producing full-length Target-AID-NG. Blue arrow indicates the ligation sites. Right, immunoblot validating the expression of each component and the ligation products. The ligation is incomplete, but the level of ligated product is much higher than the original vector (cropped). b, NFYA binding at the γ-promoters diminished in all the NF-Y motif-edited clones (red), and increased in all the BCL11A motif-edited clones (orange), as revealed by NFYA CUT&RUN. NF-Y motif editing was carried out in BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells while BCL11A motif editing was carried out in wild-type HUDEP-2 cells. c, Upper, RT-qPCR analysis of γ-globin expression after acute depletion of C/EBPβ, C/EBPγ, CDP, NFIA and NFIC. Lower, immunoblot validating protein depletion (cropped). BCL11A KO HUDEP-2 cells were differentiated for 3 days after nucleofection. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates. d, Flow cytometry analysis of HbF levels for BCL11A base-edited clones at day 7 and 10. Longer editing resulted in higher base editing rate (Fig. 3e) and higher percentage of HbF positive cells. e, A control base editing experiment in which a nucleotide 9 bp away from the BCL11A motif was edited. Sanger sequencing confirmed C-T conversion. f, Left, FACS of BCL11A motif base-edited bulk cells into high and low HbF populations. The C-T conversion rate of BCL11A motif in each population was measured by Sanger sequencing and quantified with TIDER. HbF high cells show 87% conversion and HbF low cells show only 7.4% conversion. g, Left, flow cytometry analysis of HbF level in individual clones derived from BCL11A motif base editing. Data is showed as mean (SD) of multiple independent clones. Nonedit: n = 23, base edited: n = 30. Right, gating strategy. h, Single locus footprint of NF-Y at the γ-promoters in clone A9d, a BCL11A motif-edited clone.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Acute depletion of BCL11A leads to rapid binding of NF-Y.

a, Schematic diagram of primary human CD34+ differentiation and acute depletion of BCL11A using CRISPR/Cas9. b, Pairwise correlation of PRO-seq experiments. All the experiments in each time point showed high degree of correlation, indicating very minor transcriptional fluctuation upon BCL11A depletion. c, Average PRO-seq signal at -200 to +600 bp relative to TSS exhibited promoter pausing of PolII. d, Quantification of PRO-seq reads on HBG1/2 and HBB genes after 32 or 72 hrs of BCL11A acute depletion. The y-axis shows Reads Per Million (RPM) for HBG1+HBG2 or HBB. The result is shown as mean (SD) of two biologically independent samples (independent cell cultures and CRISPR KO). e, CUT&RUN of TBP in CD34+ cells undergoing erythroid differentiation after 32 or 72 hrs of BCL11A acute depletion. The result shown is representative of two biological replicates. Quantification of KO/Ctrl and the corresponding p-values are reported by MAnorm. f, Western blot for BCL11A and NFYA in adult primary human CD34+ derived erythroid cells upon KO of NFYA, BCL11A or both (cropped). g, RT-qPCR analysis of γ-globin expression in adult primary human CD34+ derived erythroid cells upon KO of NFYA, BCL11A or both. Knockout of NFYA after 72 hours decreases γ-globin expression. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates. h, Chromosome Conformation Capture qPCR in adult primary human CD34+ derived erythroid cells, comparing BCL11A KO and BCL11A/NF-Y double KO. EcoRI fragment encompassing HS2-4 of the LCR was used as anchor point to evaluate LCR-globin interaction. The result is shown as mean (SD) of three technical replicates.

Source data

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 4

Unprocessed immunoblots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Unprocessed immunoblots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Unprocessed immunoblots.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Unprocessed immunoblots.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, N., Xu, S., Yao, Q. et al. Transcription factor competition at the γ-globin promoters controls hemoglobin switching. Nat Genet 53, 511–520 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00798-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00798-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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