A dual cis-regulatory code links IRF8 to constitutive and inducible gene expression in macrophages.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Mus musculus
PROVIDER: GSE56123 | GEO | 2015/01/30
SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PRJNA242506
REPOSITORIES: GEO
Similar Datasets
Project description:The transcription factor (TF) interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) controls both developmental and inflammatory stimulus-inducible genes in macrophages, but the mechanisms underlying these two different functions are largely unknown. One possibility is that these different roles are linked to the ability of IRF8 to bind alternative DNA sequences. We found that IRF8 is recruited to distinct sets of DNA consensus sequences before and after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. In resting cells, IRF8 was mainly bound to composite sites together with the master regulator of myeloid development PU.1. Basal IRF8-PU.1 binding maintained the expression of a broad panel of genes essential for macrophage functions (such as microbial recognition and response to purines) and contributed to basal expression of many LPS-inducible genes. After LPS stimulation, increased expression of IRF8, other IRFs, and AP-1 family TFs enabled IRF8 binding to thousands of additional regions containing low-affinity multimerized IRF sites and composite IRF-AP-1 sites, which were not premarked by PU.1 and did not contribute to the basal IRF8 cistrome. While constitutively expressed IRF8-dependent genes contained only sites mediating basal IRF8/PU.1 recruitment, inducible IRF8-dependent genes contained variable combinations of constitutive and inducible sites. Overall, these data show at the genome scale how the same TF can be linked to constitutive and inducible gene regulation via distinct combinations of alternative DNA-binding sites.
| S-EPMC4335295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below. Refer to individual Series
2015-01-30 | E-GEOD-56123 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:IThe transcription factor (TF) interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) controls both developmental and inflammatory stimulus-inducible genes in macrophages, but the mechanisms underlying these two different functions are largely unknown. One possibility is that these different roles are linked to the ability of IRF8 to bind alternative DNA sequences. We found that IRF8 is recruited to distinct sets of DNA consensus sequences before and after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. In resting cells, IRF8 was mainly bound to composite sites together with the master regulator of myeloid development PU.1. Basal IRF8M-bM-^@M-^SPU.1 binding maintained the expression of a broad panel of genes essential for macrophage functions (such as microbial recognition and response to purines) and contributed to basal expression of many LPS-inducible genes. After LPS stimulation, increased expression of IRF8, other IRFs, and AP-1 family TFs enabled IRF8 binding to thousands of additional regions containing low-affinity multimerized IRF sites and composite IRFM-bM-^@M-^SAP-1 sites, which were not premarked by PU.1 and did not contribute to the basal IRF8 cistrome. While constitutively expressed IRF8-dependent genes contained only sites mediating basal IRF8/PU.1 recruitment, inducible IRF8-dependent genes contained variable combinations of constitutive and inducible sites. Overall, these data show at the genome scale how the same TF can be linked to constitutive and inducible gene regulation via distinct combinations of alternative DNA-binding sites. Bone marrow cells isolated from C57BL/6 or BXH2/TyJ mice were plated in 10 cm plates in 5ml of BM-medium (high glucose DMEM supplemented with 20% low endotoxin fetal bovine serum, 30% L929-conditioned medium, 1% glutamine, 1%, Pen/Strep, 0.5% Sodium Pyruvate, 0.1% M-NM-2-mercaptoethanol). Cultures were fed with 2.5 ml of fresh medium every two days. Macrophages were subjected to different treatment (see individual samples for details). Total RNA was extracted from 5x106 cells using RNAeasy kit (Qiagen). Libraries were prepared from 1-2 M-BM-5g of RNA, after oligo-dT selection, using the TruSeq RNA sample preparation kit (Illumina).
2015-01-30 | E-GEOD-56122 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The transcription factor (TF) interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) controls both developmental and inflammatory stimulus-inducible genes in macrophages, but the mechanisms underlying these two different functions are largely unknown. One possibility is that these different roles are linked to the ability of IRF8 to bind alternative DNA sequences. We found that IRF8 is recruited to distinct sets of DNA consensus sequences before and after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. In resting cells, IRF8 was mainly bound to composite sites together with the master regulator of myeloid development PU.1. Basal IRF8M-bM-^@M-^SPU.1 binding maintained the expression of a broad panel of genes essential for macrophage functions (such as microbial recognition and response to purines) and contributed to basal expression of many LPS-inducible genes. After LPS stimulation, increased expression of IRF8, other IRFs, and AP-1 family TFs enabled IRF8 binding to thousands of additional regions containing low-affinity multimerized IRF sites and composite IRFM-bM-^@M-^SAP-1 sites, which were not premarked by PU.1 and did not contribute to the basal IRF8 cistrome. While constitutively expressed IRF8-dependent genes contained only sites mediating basal IRF8/PU.1 recruitment, inducible IRF8-dependent genes contained variable combinations of constitutive and inducible sites. Overall, these data show at the genome scale how the same TF can be linked to constitutive and inducible gene regulation via distinct combinations of alternative DNA-binding sites. Chromatin immuno-precipitations of transcription factors IRF8, IRF1, PU.1, STAT1, STAT2 and of H3 lysine 27 acetylated followed by multiparallel sequencing, performed in bone marrow-derived macrophages from wild type (WT) and BXH2/TyJ mice. Cells were treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) for 2 or 4 hours, or interferon b (IFNb) for 30 or 60 minutes, 2 or 4 hours, or left unstimulated.
2015-01-30 | E-GEOD-56121 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The transcription factor (TF) interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) controls both developmental and inflammatory stimulus-inducible genes in macrophages, but the mechanisms underlying these two different functions are largely unknown. One possibility is that these different roles are linked to the ability of IRF8 to bind alternative DNA sequences. We found that IRF8 is recruited to distinct sets of DNA consensus sequences before and after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. In resting cells, IRF8 was mainly bound to composite sites together with the master regulator of myeloid development PU.1. Basal IRF8–PU.1 binding maintained the expression of a broad panel of genes essential for macrophage functions (such as microbial recognition and response to purines) and contributed to basal expression of many LPS-inducible genes. After LPS stimulation, increased expression of IRF8, other IRFs, and AP-1 family TFs enabled IRF8 binding to thousands of additional regions containing low-affinity multimerized IRF sites and composite IRF–AP-1 sites, which were not premarked by PU.1 and did not contribute to the basal IRF8 cistrome. While constitutively expressed IRF8-dependent genes contained only sites mediating basal IRF8/PU.1 recruitment, inducible IRF8-dependent genes contained variable combinations of constitutive and inducible sites. Overall, these data show at the genome scale how the same TF can be linked to constitutive and inducible gene regulation via distinct combinations of alternative DNA-binding sites.
2015-01-30 | GSE56121 | GEO
Project description:IThe transcription factor (TF) interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) controls both developmental and inflammatory stimulus-inducible genes in macrophages, but the mechanisms underlying these two different functions are largely unknown. One possibility is that these different roles are linked to the ability of IRF8 to bind alternative DNA sequences. We found that IRF8 is recruited to distinct sets of DNA consensus sequences before and after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) stimulation. In resting cells, IRF8 was mainly bound to composite sites together with the master regulator of myeloid development PU.1. Basal IRF8–PU.1 binding maintained the expression of a broad panel of genes essential for macrophage functions (such as microbial recognition and response to purines) and contributed to basal expression of many LPS-inducible genes. After LPS stimulation, increased expression of IRF8, other IRFs, and AP-1 family TFs enabled IRF8 binding to thousands of additional regions containing low-affinity multimerized IRF sites and composite IRF–AP-1 sites, which were not premarked by PU.1 and did not contribute to the basal IRF8 cistrome. While constitutively expressed IRF8-dependent genes contained only sites mediating basal IRF8/PU.1 recruitment, inducible IRF8-dependent genes contained variable combinations of constitutive and inducible sites. Overall, these data show at the genome scale how the same TF can be linked to constitutive and inducible gene regulation via distinct combinations of alternative DNA-binding sites.
2015-01-30 | GSE56122 | GEO
Project description:A dual cis-regulatory code links IRF8 to constitutive and inducible gene expression in macrophages.
| PRJNA242506 | ENA
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4682644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Urochordates are the closest relatives of vertebrates and at the larval stage, possess a characteristic bilateral chordate body plan. In vertebrates, the genes that orchestrate embryonic patterning are in part regulated by highly conserved non-coding elements (CNEs), yet these elements have not been identified in urochordate genomes. Consequently the evolution of the cis-regulatory code for urochordate development remains largely uncharacterised. Here, we use genome-wide comparisons between C. intestinalis and C. savignyi to identify putative urochordate cis-regulatory sequences. Ciona conserved non-coding elements (ciCNEs) are associated with largely the same key regulatory genes as vertebrate CNEs. Furthermore, some of the tested ciCNEs are able to activate reporter gene expression in both zebrafish and Ciona embryos, in a pattern that at least partially overlaps that of the gene they associate with, despite the absence of sequence identity. We also show that the ability of a ciCNE to up-regulate gene expression in vertebrate embryos can in some cases be localised to short sub-sequences, suggesting that functional cross-talk may be defined by small regions of ancestral regulatory logic, although functional sub-sequences may also be dispersed across the whole element. We conclude that the structure and organisation of cis-regulatory modules is very different between vertebrates and urochordates, reflecting their separate evolutionary histories. However, functional cross-talk still exists because the same repertoire of transcription factors has likely guided their parallel evolution, exploiting similar sets of binding sites but in different combinations.
| S-EPMC3836708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Environmental stress leads to dramatic transcriptional reprogramming, which is central to plant survival. Although substantial knowledge has accumulated on how a few plant cis-regulatory elements (CREs) function in stress regulation, many more CREs remain to be discovered. In addition, the plant stress cis-regulatory code, i.e., how CREs work independently and/or in concert to specify stress-responsive transcription, is mostly unknown. On the basis of gene expression patterns under multiple stresses, we identified a large number of putative CREs (pCREs) in Arabidopsis thaliana with characteristics of authentic cis-elements. Surprisingly, biotic and abiotic responses are mostly mediated by two distinct pCRE superfamilies. In addition, we uncovered cis-regulatory codes specifying how pCRE presence and absence, combinatorial relationships, location, and copy number can be used to predict stress-responsive expression. Expression prediction models based on pCRE combinations perform significantly better than those based on simply pCRE presence and absence, location, and copy number. Furthermore, instead of a few master combinatorial rules for each stress condition, many rules were discovered, and each appears to control only a small subset of stress-responsive genes. Given there are very few documented interactions between plant CREs, the combinatorial rules we have uncovered significantly contribute to a better understanding of the cis-regulatory logic underlying plant stress response and provide prioritized targets for experimentation.
| S-EPMC3169165 | biostudies-literature