Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pax5 controls the identity and development of B cells by repressing lineage‐inappropriate genes and activating B‐cell‐specific genes. Here, we used genome‐wide approaches to identify Pax5 target genes in pro‐B and mature B cells. In these cell types, Pax5 bound to 40% of the cis ‐regulatory elements defined by mapping DNase I hypersensitive (DHS) sites, transcription start sites and histone modifications. Although Pax5 bound to 8000 target genes, it regulated only 4% of them in pro‐B and mature B cells by inducing enhancers at activated genes and eliminating DHS sites at repressed genes. Pax5‐regulated genes in pro‐B cells account for 23% of all expression changes occurring between common lymphoid progenitors and committed pro‐B cells, which identifies Pax5 as an important regulator of this developmental transition. Regulated Pax5 target genes minimally overlap in pro‐B and mature B cells, which reflects massive expression changes between these cell types. Hence, Pax5 controls B‐cell identity and function by regulating distinct target genes in early and late B lymphopoiesis. Genome‐wide sequencing approaches reveal that the transcription factor Pax5 controls the identity and function of B cells by regulating the expression of distinct target genes in pro‐B and mature B cells.

The functional engagement between an enhancer and its target promoter ensures precise gene transcription 1 . Understanding the basis of promoter choice by enhancers has important implications for health and disease. Here we report that functional loss of a preferred promoter can release its partner enhancer to loop to and activate an alternative promoter (or alternative promoters) in the neighbourhood. We refer to this target-switching process as ‘enhancer release and retargeting’. Genetic deletion, motif perturbation or mutation, and dCas9-mediated CTCF tethering reveal that promoter choice by an enhancer can be determined by the binding of CTCF at promoters, in a cohesin-dependent manner—consistent with a model of ‘enhancer scanning’ inside the contact domain. Promoter-associated CTCF shows a lower affinity than that at chromatin domain boundaries and often lacks a preferred motif orientation or a partnering CTCF at the cognate enhancer, suggesting properties distinct from boundary CTCF. Analyses of cancer mutations, data from the GTEx project and risk loci from genome-wide association studies, together with a focused CRISPR interference screen, reveal that enhancer release and retargeting represents an overlooked mechanism that underlies the activation of disease-susceptibility genes, as exemplified by a risk locus for Parkinson’s disease ( NUCKS1 – RAB7L1 ) and three loci associated with cancer ( CLPTM1L – TERT , ZCCHC7 – PAX5 and PVT1 – MYC ). Disruption of a promoter can release its partner enhancer to activate other promoters in the same contact domain, and this process, named ‘enhancer release and retargeting’, can often lead to gene alterations that cause disease.

Background To understand the changes of gene regulation in carcinogenesis, we explored signals of DNA methylation – a stable epigenetic mark of gene regulatory elements — and designed a computational model to profile loss and gain of regulatory elements (REs) during carcinogenesis. We also utilized sequencing data to analyze the allele frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detected the cancer-associated SNPs, i.e., the SNPs displaying the significant allele frequency difference between cancer and normal samples. Results After applying this model to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) data, we identified REs differentially activated (dREs) between normal and CLL cells, consisting of 6,802 dREs gained and 4,606 dREs lost in CLL. The identified regulatory perturbations coincide with changes in the expression of target genes. In particular, the genes encoding DNA methyltransferases harbor multiple lost-in-cancer dREs and zero gained-in-cancer dREs, indicating that the damaged regulation of these genes might be one of the key causes of tumor formation. dREs display a significantly elevated density of the genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs associated with CLL and CLL-related traits. We observed that most of dRE GWAS SNPs associated with CLL and CLL-related traits (83%) display a significant haplotype association among the identified cancer-associated alleles and the risk alleles that have been reported in GWAS. Also dREs are enriched for the binding sites of the well-established B-cell and CLL transcription factors (TFs) NF-kB, AP2, P53, E2F1, PAX5, and SP1. We also identified CLL-associated SNPs and demonstrated that the mutations at these SNPs change the binding sites of key TFs much more frequently than expected. Conclusions Through exploring sequencing data measuring DNA methylation, we identified the epigenetic alterations (more specifically, DNA methylation) and genetic mutations along non-coding genomic regions CLL, and demonstrated that these changes play a critical role in carcinogenesis through damaging the regulation of key genes and alternating the binding of key TFs in B and CLL cells.