1. Introduction
Rb1 is a transcriptional corepressor 1, and one of its primary functions is to regulate the cell cycle, preventing uncontrolled cell proliferation [
1,
2,
3]. Rb1 function is modulated by phosphorylation mediated by cyclin-dependent kinases and can be achieved through the use of a combination of phosphoacceptor sites, cyclin/cdk docking sites, and different cyclin/cdk complexes [
4]. pRb1 can exist in only three states: unphosphorylated, monophosphorylated, which is considered “hypophosphorylated” active pRb, and hyperphosphorylated inactive pRb, and each phosphorylation-dependent state has a unique cellular function [
5]. When pRb is in its active hypophosphorylated form, it inhibits the progression of the cell cycle from the G1 phase to the S phase by binding to and inhibiting E2F1, 2, and 3a transcription factors that serve as activators of many proteins involved in the S phase [
6]. This arrest of the cell cycle gives the cells time to begin their differentiation processes. In addition to its role in controlling the cell cycle, pRb is recognized as a relevant player in the differentiation of a wide range of cells. [
7,
8]. Calo et al. reported that pRb plays a key role in the fate choice of differentiating common mesenchymal precursors between osteoblasts and adipocytes [
9]. Although adipogenesis is orchestrated by the interaction of multiple transcription factors and epigenetic modifiers, encompassing multiple signaling pathways, two main transcription factors, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ2 (PPARγ2) and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha (C/EBPα), are essential to complete adipocyte differentiation process. It has been shown that the physical interaction between pRb1 and C/EBPα influences the transcriptional activity of C/EBPα [
10]. At the molecular level, pRb has been shown to contain a pocket motif containing two functionally essential domains, A and B, which are sufficient for transcriptional repressor activity [
11]. It has been shown that even a single amino acid substitution, Cys706Phe, in domain B of the Rb1 pocket can block Rb1 function, inhibiting repressor activity [
12]. Interestingly, overexpression of PPARγΔ5, a naturally occurring truncated isoform of
Pparγ, has been shown to modify the PPARγ-induced transcriptional network, significantly impairing the differentiation capacity of adipocyte progenitor cells by acting as a dominant-negative splice isoform that reduces PPARγ activity [
13].
The ΔS/N dominant-negative mutant (DN) of Rb1 used in the generation of the stably transfected 10T1/2 cell line was designed to eliminate 6 amino acids adjacent to the C-terminus of Rb1 (
Figure 1a). This mutant form loses the ability to bind the protein that interacts with Rb1 and is predominantly in an unphosphorylated state, while retaining the ability to interact nonspecifically [
14]. In the presence of an exogenously expressed ΔS/N DN Rb1 mutant in the nucleoplasm, this mutant interferes predominantly with the function of endogenous Rb1 such that it is able to abolish adipocyte differentiation through epigenetic silencing of PPARγ2. This silencing status, as we have previously shown, becomes heritable, representing the epigenetic reprogramming event of a key regulator of adipogenesis whose promoter is resistant to CpG demethylation in differentiated ΔS/N cells and is unable to express Pparγ2 [
15]. Given that Cebpa and Pparγ2 are considered key regulators of terminal adipocyte differentiation and that
Pparγ2 is constitutively suppressed by DNA methylation, we examined the epigenetic status of the
Cebpa 5′ flanking region and mRNA expression to investigate whether
Cebpa gene silencing also occurs in ΔS/N cells and whether gene-silent status is inherited. The methylation status of the promoters of the
Rb1, Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (
Ezh2), Ubiquitously Transcribed Tetratricopeptide Repeat on chromosome X (
Utx), Mixed-lineage leukemia 4 (
Mll4) and Ten-eleven translocation 2 (
Tet2) DNA dioxygenase genes associated with adipogenesis was also assessed to clarify the directional changes in the
Pparγ2 and
Cebpa genes in ΔS/N cells.
We found that the transient presence of a ΔS/N DN Rb1 mutant is able to elicit permanent silencing, in addition to Pparγ2, the proximal Cebpa promoter, thereby suppressing two major transcription factors responsible for the terminal phase of adipocyte differentiation and not affecting the methylation status of the Rb1, Ezh2, Utx, Mll4 and Tet2 genes involved in adipogenesis. Pparγ2 and Cebpa gene silencing status is heritable, as confirmed by recultivating cells over an extended period of time after they have lost ΔS/N DN Rb expression and rechecking their promoter methylation status. This is the first experimental evidence of apparently “targeted” epigenetic reprogramming through transient expression of a dominant-negative Rb1 mutant.
3. Discussion
In this study, we describe the phenomenon of “targeted” epigenetic reprogramming resulting from transient expression of the nonfunctional ΔS/N Rb1 mutant and confirm the maintenance of the reprogrammed epigenetic state in postexpression culture. Unlike mutations that prevent protein translation or disrupt protein structure, thereby causing loss of function, other mutations have alternative mechanisms, such as a dominant negative effect when the mutant protein directly or indirectly blocks the normal biological function of the wild-type protein [
33]. They can thus cause (>50%) loss of function, even though only half of the protein is mutated [
34]. This phenomenon is often observed for proteins that are able to coassemble into a complex with wild-type subjunints, in which mutant subunits can interfere with assembly/function [
35]. During the expression of the ΔS/N DN Rb1 mutant, until it is lost, we hypothesize that the following scenario may occur. Given that the deletion of 6 amino acids results in the dysfunction of exogenously expressed Rb1 as a transcriptional corepressor but renders Rb1 unphosphorylatable so that it is not inactivated by a natural mechanism and assuming that the binding activity of the protein is retained, we hypothesize that mutant Rb1 interferes with the function of wild-type Rb1 by assembling Rb1 multiprotein complexes that have a normal, mutant Rb1 chimera in which the mutant protein can disrapt the activity of this complex and cause a disproportionate loss of function. Some proteins, such as BRCA1, have been shown to have RB-binding sites in both the C- and N-termini [
36,
37]. According to the mechanism of competitive binding, if one of the Rb molecules is a DN mutant and the other is functional, this leads to the formation of a dysfunctional molecular complex and does not allow the hybrid complex to fulfill its natural role, reducing the efficiency of the processes carried out by Rb1 and the endogenous Rb1 context, resulting in an Rb1-null phenotype. Surprisingly, in the case of the ΔS/N Rb1 mutant, we observed the induction of Rb1 instead of a decrease in endogenous Rb1 (
Figure 1d).
Considering that Rb interacts with more than 300 proteins associated with multiple metabolic/signaling pathways, the existence of many Rb-nonproducing complexes may be stressful for cells. The ability of Rb to autoinduce its own expression is used to induce Rb1 overproduction in ΔS/N cells, resulting in a lack of loss of function because of the existence of faulty Rb1-containing complexes. It has been shown that Rb1 promoter activity is directly stimulated by its own gene product through the ATF-2 binding site [
17]. Analysis of the Rb1 promoter, as well as the Rb1 ATF-2 binding site, revealed that it does not contain CpG methylation in ΔS/N cells and that Rb1 transcription is not blocked (
Figure 1e,f). Since Rb1 is involved in the differentiation and fate of MSCs [
9], the alteration of endogenous Rb1pull caused by the formation of nonproductive complexes in which Rb1 participates dramatically affects the fate of the cell. Our results revealed that in the context of an insufficient background of functional Rb1, the expression of two major adipogenic factors, Cebpa and Pparγ2, is suppressed by CpG methylation (
Figure 3b,
Figure 6), whereas the methylation of the
Rb1,
Ezh2,
Mll4,
Utx and
Tet2 genes, which are required for adipocyte differentiation, does not occur (Supplementary Figures 3,4 ). The mRNA expression of Ezh2, Utx and Rb1 was detected to a certain degree in wild-type and ΔS/N cells (
Figure 2b,
Figure 3d), indicating that these epigenetic regulators are not targets for epigenetic silencing in DN Rb1 ΔS/N cells. This finding is consistent with data from other researchers on the role of Rb1 in cell differentiation and fate [
9].
The formation of H3K27me3 by EZH2 has been shown to be a powerful repressive mechanism to silence HIV-1 [
38]. EZH2 was also shown to interact with DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B in cancer cells and to result in hypermethylation of genes, leading to increased permanent silencing of target genes [
39]. The recruitment of DNMT3A to the 5’LTR CpG of HIV-1 upon the inhibition of UTX/JMJD3 by GSK-J4 likely results in the induction of DNA methylation. Demethylation of the repressive mark H3K27me3 on the Prdm16 promoter by UTX has been shown to result in high
Prdm16 expression. PRDM16 then recruits the DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 to
the Myod1 promoter, causing
Myod1 promoter hypermethylation and suppressing its expression [
40]. Since we observed strong induction of Dnmt1 and a moderate increase in Utx during the adipogenic differentiation of ΔS/N cells (
Figure 2a,b), we hypothesize that Dnmt1 may be recruited to the
Cebpa promoter to prolong the gene silencing state, similar to the hypermethylation of the Myod1 promoter mentioned above. In addition to its H3K27me2/3 demethylase-independent function, UTX has been shown to promote chromatin remodeling through the BRG1-containing SWI/SNF remodeling complex. UTX binds directly to multiple genes that encode proteins that interact physically with pRB, including the RB gene network implicated in cell fate control [
41]. Taken together, these findings suggest that altered expression of Rb1, Ezh2 and Dnmt3a represents a new epigenetically reprogrammed state of genes, the combined action of altered activities which results in the permanent silencing of
Cebpa and
Pparγ2 in ΔS/N cells. Interestingly, CEBPA is predicted to interact with the N-terminus of DNMT3a, reducing the accessibility of DNMT3a to DNA and thereby preventing promoter methylation at target genes, including those containing the CEBPA binding motif. This could be seen as a mechanism by which CEBPA helps avoid gene promoter methylation in addition to the enzymatic Tet DNA demethylation that can be assumed to occur in AD in wild-type 10T1/2 cells on the basis of successful cell differentiation and expression of Cebpa and Pparγ2.
Given that CpG methylation plays a repressive role through a variety of actions, from direct inhibition of TF binding and hromatin structure effects to repositioning of the nucleosome via the (CpG)3 methylation element [
43], we assume that unerased methylation of the CpG + (CpG)2 element in close proximity to the TSS may also contribute to
Cebpa silencing via nucleosome repositioning. Interestingly, based on nucleosome assembly experiments performed on various DNA substrates, researchers have shown that the long azidohexynyl group (ahyC, an analog of 5-mC) present at multiple CpG sites promotes nucleosome assembly. Furthermore, ahyC DNA nucleosomes can be efficiently repositioned by a Snf2H chromatin remodeler and display similar thermal stability [
44]. RB1 uses the ATPase activity of Brm or BRG1 to change nucleosome structure. This occurs in cooperation with histone deacetylases and/or histone demethylases to produce tight nucleosome structures and facilitate the formation of closed chromatin structures and RB1-mediated repression [
45].
Our results suggest that epigenetic reprogramming occurs through the resetting of epigenetic marks such as DNA methylation patterns and presumably histone modifications and nucleosome repositioning that control gene expression, allowing cells to change their differentiation status or potential fate following stress-related events owing to transient expression of the mutant form of Rb1. By nature, large-scale epigenetic reprogramming occurs early in embryonic development and during gametogenesis, as well as artificially when various in vitro reprogramming conditions are used [
46,
47]. The described findings may reveal new conditions of epigenetic reprogramming caused by the temporal exposure of MSCs to DN Rb1. The unique effect of DN Rb1 overexpression in ΔS/N cells is that it selectively downregulates two major adipogenic genes through promoter methylation, alters the expression of Rb1 and the chromatin modifiers Ezh2 and Dnmt3a (
Figure 2a,b;
Figure 3d), and to counteract the stress situation, the cells eliminate the inserted DNA fragment encoding the mutant form of Rb1 while maintaining the epigenetically reprogrammed state of ΔS/N cells. How the demand for cells to differentiate into adipocytes is disrupted under the influence of the ΔS/N DN Rb1 mutant in more detail and how new epigenetic memory is established in ΔS/N cells are questions that remain to be answered. Importantly, the exact consequences of a dominant-negative pRB mutant can vary depending on the specific mutations involved and the cell type in question. Furthermore, the context in which these mutations occur can also influence the overall effects on cell differentiation and proliferation.