- Open Access
Close encounters between active genes in the nucleus
© BioMed Central Ltd 2005
- Published: 19 October 2005
A recent paper demonstrates that coregulated genes on different chromosomes show surprisingly high frequencies of colocalization within the nucleus; this complements similar results found previously for genes localized tens of megabases apart on a single chromosome. Colocalization could be related to the earlier observation of active genes associating with foci where RNA polymerase II is concentrated.
- Locus Control Region
- Coregulated Gene
- Interchromatin Granule Cluster
- Interchromosomal Interaction
The nucleus is still not infrequently perceived as a microscopic test tube, in which activities such as transcription, replication, and recombination are performed on a template of randomly coiled chromatin bathed in a homogeneous nucleoplasm containing soluble enzymes and cofactors. Yet in recent years there has been a growing appreciation that the nucleus is in fact highly organized. In interphase chromosomes, DNA is compacted by varying amounts, from hundreds to thousands of times more compact than simple B-form DNA , and the chromosomes form distinct, largely non-overlapping 'territories'  that are non-randomly arranged within the nucleus. As well as chromosome territories, a plethora of other nuclear compartments and bodies have been identified, and many of the cofactors and enzymes mediating the processing of DNA and RNA are enriched in particular compartments or bodies . The functional significance of this considerable nuclear compartmentalization remains unclear given that most nuclear proteins are quite dynamic, equilibrating rapidly between specific compartments and a soluble nucleoplasmic pool. But a 2004 paper  that examined the colocalization of active genes on the same chromosome arm fueled speculation about the possible functional significance of nuclear compartmentalization. A new report  now ignites interest in nuclear compartmentalization by extending this work to coregulated foci on different chromosomes. Both papers break new ground by combining the recently developed 'chromosome conformation capture' (3C) method - a molecular method for assaying chromosome proximity - with more established fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunocytochemistry techniques.
The 3C technique provides a powerful tool for dissecting the spatial organization of chromosomes within nuclei . The 3C method identifies DNA sequences that are in close molecular proximity by detecting indirect linkage between them, mediated through formaldehyde-induced DNA-protein and protein-protein cross-links. Following treatment of intact cells with formaldehyde, isolated DNA-protein complexes are subjected to restriction-enzyme digestion. DNA fragments held together via cross-linked DNA-protein complexes have a higher probability than soluble DNA fragments of being ligated together at low DNA concentrations. Reversal of the formaldehyde cross-links is followed by detection using PCR of the relative cross-linking frequency of two DNA fragments, which is assumed to be proportional to their spatial proximity in the nucleus.
These results [4, 7, 8] suggest that gene regulation is tied to the localization of genes to specific nuclear bodies. A natural question is whether coregulated genes located on different chomosomes might colocalize within the nucleus, which would imply a still higher degree of nuclear spatial organization. Osborne et al.  reported a 7% colocalization between Hbb-b1 and the coregulated α-globin gene (Hba) located on a different chromosome. This percentage is much higher than the predicted 0.3-1% colocalization expected for a completely random intranuclear chromosome arrangement and the observed number of transcription factories.
The question has now been tackled further by Spilianakis et al. , who document interchromosomal interactions between two coordinately regulated gene loci. The genes encoding the interleukins (cytokines) 3, 4 and 5 (IL3, ILN4, and IL5) all lie within the approximately 100 kilobase-pair (kbp) T H 2 locus on mouse chromosome 11, and the gene encoding the cytokine interferon γ (IFNγ) is located on chromosome 10. In naive (uncommitted) T cells that bear the CD4 cell-surface marker (CD4+), both IL4 and IFNγ can be transcriptionally activated to low levels within several hours of exposure to activating conditions, causing differentiation into either of the two types of T helper cells, TH1 or TH2. After this activation, the naive CD4+ T cells then differentiate over several days into TH1 T-helper cells, which express IL3, IL4 and IL5 at high levels but do not express IFNγ, or - under different conditions - into TH2 T-helper cells, which express IFNγ but not IL3, IL4 or IL5.
Using the 3C method, Spilianakis et al.  found a striking colocalization of the IFNγ gene with the unlinked T H 2 cytokine locus in naive CD4+ T cells (Figure 1c). Three regulatory regions within the T H 2 locus showed several-fold higher cross-linking frequencies to the IFNγ gene compared with the cross-linking frequency between intrachromosomal fragments separated by several kilobase-pairs within the Gapd gene. The colocalization found using the 3C method was largely lost after differentiation into TH1 or TH2 cells. The authors  confirmed the colocalization results using FISH: at least one IFNγ allele colocalized with the T H 2 locus in 37% of naive CD4+ T cells but in only 10-13% of TH1 or TH2 cells.
Spilianakis et al.  propose that the potential of naive CD4+ T cells rapidly to induce both IFNγ and the TH2 cytokines at low levels within hours of activation is related to the close interchromosomal interactions between the two loci. To test the functional significance of this interaction, cells were examined from mice containing a homozygous deletion of a DNase I hypersensitive site (RHS7) within the locus control region of the T H 2 locus, an element that is essential for expression of TH2-specific cytokines. Previous work had shown that deletion of RHS7 resulted in loss of intrachromosomal interactions between another hypersensitive site - RHS6 - and other cis elements within the T H 2 locus. As anticipated, deletion of RHS7 also eliminated the interchromosomal interaction between RHS6 and the IFNγ gene and the T H 2 locus, as detected by 3C analysis. Moreover, the rapid induction of IFNγ on chromosome 10 was delayed from 3 to 12 hours in naive CD4+ T cells lacking RHS7.
A surprising twist to these experiments, however, was that the deletion of RHS7 nearly doubled the percentage of IFNγ and T H 2 loci that colocalized as measured by FISH. Despite this, however, the mean separation between the apparently colocalized loci increased from 1.9 pixels in wild-type cells to 4.5 pixels in cells with RHS7 deleted, and overlapping signals (indicating that the two loci are separated by less than one pixel) decreased from 41% to 13%. One way to reconcile the 3C and FISH results would be to postulate that the observed interchromosomal interactions between the IFNγ and T H 2 loci depend on two separate phenomena: a non-random positioning of chromosome 10 and 11 to the same nuclear subcompartment, together with a molecular interaction between specific DNA sequences within the two loci that is dependent on the locus control region. In this model the non-random chromosome positioning would be independent of the function of the locus control region, and perhaps even independent of the gene activity status of the T H 2 and IFNγ loci. By bringing these two loci into relatively close proximity, however, establishment of non-random chromosome positioning would then facilitate their close molecular interaction, which would be dependent on the IFNγ locus control region. Loss of the IFNγ locus control region and gene activity might paradoxically lead to increased percentages of chromosome colocalization, owing to a reduced association of the active IFNγ locus with other, competing nuclear structures - distant transcription factories for instance.
The intrachromosomal interactions demonstrated by Osborne et al.  appear to be established, at least in part, by the shared attachment of cis-linked active genes to large foci enriched in Pol II (transcription factories). The authors  propose the tantalizing hypothesis that gene activation requires association with these Pol II foci. What they have actually shown is that a very high fraction of active genes, as detected by RNA FISH, colocalize with these transcription factories in the mouse cell types examined. At the very least, these results show that in their study most of the genes examined become associated with these foci when transcription is on and disassociated when transcription is off. Formal testing of their hypothesis awaits experiments that directly measure a correlation between the onset or cessation of transcription with either the association or the disassociation of gene loci and transcription factories, respectively. Certainly, in fibroblast-like cell types such large transcription factories do not exist , and in engineered, artificial systems transcriptional activation is observed along the lengths of large-scale chromatin fibers [9, 10]. Yet it is striking that fibroblasts appear to be the exception among differentiated cell types in lacking large Pol II foci. Interestingly, in typical mammalian tissue-culture cell lines that do not show large Pol II foci, a significant fraction of active genes were previously found to be associated with interchromatin granule clusters (IGCs), with multiple active genes colocalizing to a single IGC . The relationship between the transcription factories described in the differentiated primary cells  with the interchromatin granule clusters described in other studies is not yet clear.
A major uncertainty involved in understanding the functional significance of the observed colocalization [4, 5] is intrinsic to the 3C methodology itself. Does an elevated cross-linking frequency reflect a stable, close molecular interaction between two DNA fragments in a significant fraction of cells? In this case the effects on gene regulation affected by colocalization of coregulated loci could resemble transvection effects in Drosophila. Transvection is a phenomenon in which gene regulation is altered by the interaction of two alleles in trans, for instance allowing complementation between two different mutations. Typically, transvection is dependent on the close pairing of homologous chromosomes present in Drosophila. Recent data have shown interactions in trans between regulatory regions on homologous chromosomes . In mammalian cells, where homologous pairing is generally not observed, similar interactions in trans might be facilitated through colocalization to a shared nuclear compartment. Alternatively, does the elevated cross-linking frequency instead reflect a transient molecular interaction, such as collision, that is present within a very small fraction of cells?
In summary, Spilianakis et al.  have demonstrated a compelling example of interactions between two coregulated gene loci located on different chromosomes. Colocalization was demonstrated both by cytological methods (FISH), demonstrating proximity over a scale of several hundred nanometers to a micrometer, and by the 3C method, demonstrating proximity at a molecular level in an undetermined fraction of cells. These results parallel to a certain extent the previous demonstration of interactions between active genes linked in cis on the same chromosome but distributed over a large 40 Mbp region .
Key questions for future investigation include the following. How general will the observation of interchromosomal interactions between coregulated genes prove to be? More specifically, will a large fraction of coregulated gene loci demonstrate such colocalization, or will it be restricted to a few select examples? Is interchromosomal interaction intrinsic to the interacting loci or does it require distant sequences on the two chromosomes? Experiments using transgene loci and/or chromosome translocations would address this issue. Is the interchromosomal interaction mediated by direct interactions in trans between the two loci, or is it facilitated by colocalization to a shared nuclear compartment, as discussed above and outlined in Figure 2? Finally, there is the fundamental question of the physiological consequences of these interactions. How transient or stable are they at both the cytological and the molecular level? What is the temporal correlation between the interchromosomal interactions and the initiation of transcription? What are the consequences of disrupting the interaction for transcriptional regulation in trans? Future advances in live-cell imaging should be invaluable in addressing the latter questions.
- Belmont AS, Dietzel S, Nye AC, Strukov YG, Tumbar T: Large-scale chromatin structure and function. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1999, 11: 307-311. 10.1016/S0955-0674(99)80041-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cremer T, Cremer C: Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. Nat Rev Genet. 2001, 2: 292-301. 10.1038/35066075.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spector DL: The dynamics of chromosome organization and gene regulation. Annu Rev Biochem. 2003, 72: 573-608. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161724.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osborne CS, Chakalova L, Brown KE, Carter D, Horton A, Debrand E, Goyenechea B, Mitchell JA, Lopes S, Reik W, Fraser P: Active genes dynamically colocalize to shared sites of ongoing transcription. Nat Genet. 2004, 36: 1065-1071. 10.1038/ng1423.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spilianakis CG, Lalioti MD, Town T, Lee GR, Flavell RA: Interchromosomal associations between alternatively expressed loci. Nature. 2005, 435: 637-645. 10.1038/nature03574.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dekker J, Rippe K, Dekker M, Kleckner N: Capturing chromosome conformation. Science. 2002, 295: 1306-1311. 10.1126/science.1067799.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Iborra FJ, Pombo A, Jackson DA, Cook PR: Active RNA polymerases are localized within discrete transcription 'factories' in human nuclei. J Cell Sci. 1996, 109: 1427-1436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jackson DA, Iborra FJ, Manders EM, Cook PR: Numbers and organization of RNA polymerases, nascent transcripts, and transcription units in HeLa nuclei. Mol Biol Cell. 1998, 9: 1523-1536.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tumbar T, Sudlow G, Belmont AS: Large-scale chromatin unfolding and remodeling induced by VP16 acidic activation domain. J Cell Biol. 1999, 145: 1341-1354. 10.1083/jcb.145.7.1341.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Janicki SM, Tsukamoto T, Salghetti SE, Tansey WP, Sachidanandam R, Prasanth KV, Ried T, Shav-Tal Y, Bertrand E, Singer RH, Spector DL: From silencing to gene expression: real-time analysis in single cells. Cell. 2004, 116: 683-698. 10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00171-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shopland LS, Johnson CV, Byron M, McNeil J, Lawrence JB: Clustering of multiple specific genes and gene-rich R-bands around SC-35 domains: evidence for local euchromatic neighborhoods. J Cell Biol. 2003, 162: 981-990. 10.1083/jcb.200303131.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ronshaugen M, Levine M: Visualization of trans-homolog enhancer-promoter interactions at the Abd-B Hox locus in the Drosophila embryo. Dev Cell. 2004, 7: 925-932. 10.1016/j.devcel.2004.11.001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar