Abstract
Transcriptionally inactive portions of genomic DNA, condensed with histones and architectural proteins, are known as heterochromatic regions, often positive C band. The advent of epigenetics and new methodological approaches, showed that these regions are extremely dynamic and responsive to different types of environmental stress. The relationship of the constitutive heterochromatin with the transposable elements inactivation, especially from the Rex family, seems to be a frequent condition in fish. In this manuscript we review the existing knowledge of the nature and function of these genomic regions, based on species-based studies, with a focus on species of fish from the Amazon region.
Keywords
- environmental stressors
- transposable elements
- adaptive response
- Colossoma
- Hypancistrus
1. Introduction
The genomic DNA of eukaryotic organisms combines with histone proteins to form chromatin. Chromatin is classified into two forms: euchromatin (de-condensed region, rich in genes and transcriptionally active) and heterochromatin (condensed, transcriptionally silent) [1, 2, 3]. This early classification was based on differing dye-responses and condensation profiles [4]. Heterochromatin, in turn, can be classified into constitutive heterochromatin and facultative heterochromatin, the former being preferably assembled in regions that house repetitive elements, such as satellite DNA and transposable elements [2, 5, 6]. The latter is preferentially assembled in genes related to the regulation of organismal development. The idea that the material is strongly related to the heterochromatinization of one of the X sex chromosomes in female mammals is known as the Lyon hypothesis [7].
Recent studies have shown that both constitutive and facultative heterochromatin are regulated dynamically and are responsive to various stressful stimuli. It is also known that while these changes in chromatin structure can potentially help organisms adapt to new environments, they can also produce aberrant phenotypes [8, 9] and diseases in humans [10, 11]. They are also related to the aging process [12]. In this review, we will discuss the dynamics of heterochromatin localization, obtained from different studies in fish from the Amazon region (Figure 1).
2. Molecular characteristics of heterochromatin
Facultative heterochromatin is traditionally considered to have a more plastic structure than constitutive heterochromatin.
At the molecular level, facultative heterochromatin is composed of transcriptionally silent chromatin regions, which condense or decondense, thus allowing transcription in temporal and spatial contexts [13]. Therefore, facultative heterochromatin formation appears to be directly linked to the different isoforms of histone H1. Here, under the facultative heterochromatin formation model proposed by [14], the different H1 isoforms can take on unique functions via specific changes in chromatin structure.
The concept of facultative heterochromatin was developed to explain the phenomenon of dose compensation in mammalian cells. The X chromosome, inactive in female mammalian cells, is subject to a monoallelic suppression of genes that depends on numerous chromatin modifiers, resulting in extensive condensation [15]. This process involves non-coding RNA (ncRNA) called Xist, which is exclusively expressed by the inactive X chromosome. This ncRNA is responsible for post-translational modifications of histones, among which the most common forms include H4 lysine 20 methylation (H4K20me), H3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3), and H3 lysine 9 methylation [16, 17]. Another important variation is the incorporation of the histone macro H2A, while Polycomb (PcG), Polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC2), and PRC1 are also involved in the process. It is generally considered that Polycomb (PcG) proteins play a central role in the formation of facultative heterochromatin, with the most powerful histone modification being the methylation of H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me) [13].
Hypoacetylation of histone tails, binding of the HP1 protein with H3K9me2/3, and ubiquitination of H2A lysine 119, as well as the presence of histone macro H2A, appear to provide a molecular signature for the composition of facultative heterochromatin [13]. The fact that facultative heterochromatin is maintained across cell generations, with PcG proteins, ncRNA, and trans- acting transcription factors as participants, shows that this form of heterochromatin may be largely responsible for phenotypic differences, which can be inherited or arise spontaneously in response to environmental challenges or ontogenetic development [13, 15].
Some studies have shown that the HP1 protein undergoes changes during the cell differentiation process [18]. Such changes are considered indicative of a highly conserved regulatory mechanism for the assembly of heterochromatin in response to environmental stress [12]. The phosphorylation function of HP1 is flexible, allowing responses to various stimuli and permitting more finessed cellular adaptation to environmental changes [12]. This suggests that epigenetic changes, mediated by heterochromatin, constitute a quick and efficient mechanism for generating flexible cell tolerance responses to environmental stress [12].
It has been established that the composition and formation of the constitutive heterochromatin are similar to that of the facultative heterochromatin regions, with these regions being hypoacetylated and containing histone H3 with hypermethylated lysine 9 (H3K9me) [19, 20]. The assembly of heterochromatic domains requires the joint action of a series of chromatin-modifying enzymes [12, 20].
In
Cytologically, facultative and constitutive heterochromatin regions were indistinguishable. Therefore, cytogenomic studies that use conventional C banding to detect heterochromatin lack the resolution required to determine which type of heterochromatin is contained in each genomic region. However, this technique remains important for demonstrating the considerable genomic plasticity shown by organisms in the face of different environmental stimuli. It is beyond the scope of this review to conduct a detailed survey of the composition of both types of heterochromatin, as our aim is to demonstrate how changes in the process of heterochromatin modulation, via retroelement inactivation or gene expression regulation, affect phenotypic plasticity of Amazon region fish when confronting different environmental stressors.
2.1 Epigenetic adaptation and environmental stress: focus on selected Amazonian fish
The link between epigenetic adaptation and response to environmental stimuli is a topic that has been studied extensively in recent years. Several studies have reported the emergence of epigenetic plasticity and the consequent assembly of heterochromatin in various organisms when exposed to stress [22, 23, 24, 25]. Such studies have shown a close relationship between gene silencing, via heterochromatin assembly or DNA methylation, and transcriptional regulation.
In Amazonian fish species, a large number of heterochromatic patterns have been reported following chromosome C banding treatments. These have been related to a wide variety of environmental stressors.
In the loricariid catfish
Heterochromatin-related PEV modifiers are called variegation suppressors [Su (var)], while those related to euchromatin are termed variegation enhancers [E (var)] [21]. Su (var) mutations weaken the formation and maintenance of heterochromatin, while E (var) mutations decrease euchromatin or allow heterochromatin expansion [5].
In
Heterochromatin formation is strongly linked to transposable element inactivation [5]. Several studies have shown that depletion of Su (var) 3–9 (variegation-suppressing enzyme 3–9), which is a methyltransferase promoting H3K9 trimethylation [28, 29], can lead to the formation of mutant phenotypes, including abnormal chromosomal segregation, interruption of spermatogenesis (with links to hypogonadism and infertility), and increased risk of tumorigenesis [16]. In
Identification of the molecular signature of heterochromatin, under assemblages in the genome of
In a conceptually linked study, Whitelaw and Martin [35] analyzed isogenic strains of mice and found morphological phenotypic variation related to the action of retrotransposons. According to these authors, the effects of the stochastic activity of retroelements on gene expression and the inactivation process of these elements indicate that somatic cells of individuals can be epigenetic mosaics, corresponding to the activity of each retrotransposon, and such activity can produce subtle phenotypic variations, even in genetically identical individuals.
In another study, using the corydoras catfish
Examining the relationship between retroelements and heterochromatin polymorphism, Silva et al. [36], found a significant increase in heterochromatin in
A study of the parental species and hybrid offspring (commonly known as
Ferreira et al. [39] exposed
The molecular composition of heterochromatin has not been elucidated in any of the aforementioned studies, although it has been correlated with Rex3 elements in
In this context, tambaqui (
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, the species of Amazonian fish studied for heterochromatin assembly and retroelement dispersion (especially Rex 3) seem to respond dynamically and with remarkable similarity to a range of stressing stimuli.
Acknowledgments
The current study was supported in part by INCT ADAPTA II funded by CNPq –Brazilian National Research Council (465540/2014-7), FAPEAM – Amazonas State Research Foundation (062.1187/2017) and FAPEAM/SEPLANCTI/Governo do Estado do Amazonas - POSGRAD Res. No. 002/2016, and CAPES - Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética, Conservação e Biologia Evolutiva (INPA/GCBEv), Laboratório de Genética Animal (LGA), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM/LABICA), FAPEAM/SEPLANCTI/Governo do Estado do Amazonas - POSGRAD Res. N° 310 002/2016. Adrian Barnett helped with English.
References
- 1.
Sumner AT. Chromosomes: Organization and function. Blackwell Science Ltda, 2003; 287p. - 2.
Grewal SI, Jia S. Heterochromatin revisited. Nat Rev Genet. 2007; 8 (1):35-46. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2008. PMID: 17173056. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2008 - 3.
Lucchesi JC. Epigenetics, Nuclear Organization and Gene Function: With Implications of Epigenetic Regulation and Genetic Architecture for Human Development and Health. Oxford University Press; 2019. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198831204.001.0001 - 4.
Heitz E. Das heterochromatin der moose. I Jahrb Wiss Botanik. 1928; 69 :762-818 - 5.
Allis C, Jenuwein T, Reinberg D, Caparros M. Epigenetics. Vol.2, 2nd ed. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories Press, 2015. 984p. - 6.
Biscotti MA, Olmo E, Heslop-Harrison JS. Repetitive DNA in eukaryotic genomes. Chromosome Research. 2015; 23 :415-420. DOI: 10.1007/S10577-015-9499-z - 7.
Lyon MF. Gene action in the X-chromosomes of the mouse. Nature, 1961, 190:372-373. - 8.
Wang J, Reddy BD, Jia S. Rapid epigenetic adaptation to uncontrolled heterochromatin spreading. eLife. 2015; 0 :1-17. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.06179 - 9.
Saksouk N, Simboeck E, Déjardin J. Constitutive heterochromatin formation and transcription in mammals. Epigenetics and Chromatin. 2015; 8 :1-17 - 10.
Quina AS, Buschbeck M, Di Croce L. Chromatin structure and epigenetics. Biochemical Pharmacology. 2006; 72 :1563-1569 - 11.
Hunter RG, McEwen BS, Pfaff DW. Environmental stress and transposon transcription in the mammalian brian. Mobile Genetic Elements, 2013; 3:e24555. DOI: 10.4161/mge.24555 - 12.
Wang J, Jia ST, Jia S. New insights into the regulation of heterochromatin. Trends in Genetics. 2016; 32 :284-294 - 13.
Trojer P, Reinberg D. Facultative heterochromatin: Is there a distinctive molecular signature. Molecular Cell. 2007; 28 :1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.02.005. - 14.
Harshman SW, Young NL, Parthun MR, Freitas MA. H1 histones: Current perspectives and challenges. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013; 41 :9593-9609. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt700 - 15.
Richards EJ, Elgin SCR. Epigenetic codes for heterochromatin formation and silencing: Rounding up the usual suspects. Cell. 2002; 108 :489-500 - 16.
Peters AHFM, Mermoud JE, O’Carroll D, Pagani M, Schweizer D, Brockdorff N, et al. Histone H3 lysine 9 methylation is an epigenetic imprint of facultative heterochromatin. Nature Genetics. 2002; 30 :77-80 - 17.
Jamieson K, Wiles ET, McNaught KJ, Sidoli S, Leggett N, Shao Y, et al. Loss of HP1 causes depletion of H3K27me3 from facultative heterochromatin and gain of H3K27me2 at constitutive heterochromatin. Genome Research. 2016; 26 :97-107. DOI: 10.1101/gr.194555.115 - 18.
Stunnenberg R, Shylini RK, Keller C, Kirschmann M, Gelman L, Buhler M. H3K9 methylation extends across natural boundaries of heterochromatin in the absence of an HP1 protein. The EMBO Journal. 2015; 34 :2789-2803. DOI: 10.15252/embj.201591320 - 19.
Allshire RC, Madhani HD. Ten principles of heterochromatin formation and function. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2017; 19 (4):229-244. DOI: 10.1038/nrm.2017.119 - 20.
Noma KI, Allis CD, Grewal SIS. Transitions in distinct histone H3 methylation patterns at the heterochromatin domain boundaries. Science. 2001; 293 :1150-1155 - 21.
Fodor BD, Shukeir N, Reuter G, Jenuwein T. Mammalian Su (var) genes in chromatin control. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology. 2010; 26 :471-501. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.042308113225 - 22.
Ayoub N, Goldshmidt I, Cohen A. Position effect variegation at the mating-type locus of fission yeast: A cis-acting element inhibits covariegated expression of genes in the silent and expressed domains. Genetics. 1999; 152 :495-508 - 23.
Hunter RG, McCarthy KJ, Milne TA, Pfaff DW, McEwen BS. Regulation of hippocampal H3 histone methylation by acute and chronic stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009; 106 :20912-20917. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911143106 - 24.
Seong KH, Li D, Shimizu H, Nakamura R, Ishii S. Inheritance of stress-induced, ATF-2-dependent epigenetic change. Cell. 2011; 145 :1049-1061. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.05.029 - 25.
Andrés F, Coupland G. The genetic basis of flowering responses to seasonal cues. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2012; 13 :627-639. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3291 - 26.
DaSilva M, Ribeiro ED, Matoso DA, Sousa LM, Hrbek T, Py-Daniel LR, et al. Chromosomal polymorphism in two species of Hypancistrus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae): An integrative approach for understanding their biodiversity. Genetica. 2014;142 :127-139. DOI: 10.1007/s10709-014-9760-y - 27.
Grunstein M, Gasser SM. Epigenetics in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2013;5 :1-28. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017491 - 28.
Schotta G, Ebert A, Krauss V, Fischer A, Hoffmann J, Rea S, et al. Central role of drosophila SU(VAR)3-9 in histone H3-K9 methylation and heterochromatic gene silencing. The EMBO Journal. 2002; 21 (5):1121-1131 - 29.
Schotta G, Ebert A, Dorn R, Reuter G. Position-effect variegation and the genetic dissection of chromatin regulation in drosophila. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2003; 14 (1):67-75 - 30.
Rosa RS. Lima FCT. Os peixes brasileiros ameaçados de extinção. In: Machado BM, Drummond GM, Paglia AP, editors. Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Brasília, MMA. 2008. pp. 9-285 - 31.
Gonçalves AP. Ecologia e etnoecologia de Hypancistrus zebra (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) no rio Xingu. Belém, PA: Amazônia brasileira. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Pará; 2011 137p - 32.
Giuliano-Caetano L. Polimorfismo cromossômico Robertsoniano em populações de Rineloricaria latirostris . Pisces: Loricariidae). PhD Thesis. Universidade Federal de São Carlos; 1998. p. 78 - 33.
Mendes-Neto EO, Vicari MR, Artoni RF, Moreira-Filho O. Description of karyotype in Hypostomus regani (Ihering, 1905) (Teleostei, Loricariidae) from the Piumhi river in Brazil with comments on karyotype variation found inHypostomus . Comparative Cytogenetics. 2011;5 :133-142. DOI: 10.3897/JHR.v5i2.964 - 34.
Ziemniczak K, Barros AV, Rosa KO, Nogaroto V, Almeida MC, Cestari MM, et al. Comparative cytogenetics of Loricariidae (Actinopterygii: Siluriformes): Emphasis in Neoplecostominae and Hypoptopomatinae. Italian Journal of Zoology. 2012; 79 :492-501. DOI: 10.1080/11250003.2012.676677 - 35.
Whitelaw E, Martin DIK. Retrotransposons as epigenetic mediators of phenotypic variation in mammals. Nature Genetics. 2001; 27 :361-365 - 36.
Silva FA, Schneider CH, Feldberg E, Baccaro FB, Carvalho NDM, Gross MC. Genomic organization under different environmental conditions: Hoplosternum littorale as a model. Zebrafish. 2016;13 (3):197-208. DOI: 10.1089/zeb.2015.1237 - 37.
Silva FA, Guimarães EMC, Carvalho NDM, Ferreira AMV, Schneider CH, Carvalho-Zilse GA, et al. Transposable DNA elements in Amazonian fish: From genome enlargement to genetic adaptation to stressful environments. Cytogenetic and Genome Research. 2020; 160 (3):148-155. DOI: 10.1159/000507104 - 38.
Ribeiro LB, Moraes-Neto A, Artoni RF, Matoso DA, Feldberg E. Chromosomal mapping of repetitive sequences (Rex3, Rex6, and rDNA genes) in hybrids between Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1818) andPiaractus mesopotamicus (Holmberg, 1887). Zebrafish. 2017;14 (2):155-160. DOI: 10.1089/zeb.2016.1378 - 39.
Ferreira AMV, Marajó L, Matoso DA, Ribeiro LB, Feldberg E. Chromosomal mapping of rex retrotransposons in Tambaqui ( Colossoma macropomum Cuvier, 1818) exposed to three climate change scenarios. Cytogenetic and Genome Research. 2019;159 :39-47. DOI: 10.1159/000502926 - 40.
Costa MS, Silva HCM, Soares SC, Favarato RM, Feldberg E, Gomes ALS, et al. Distribution of Heterocromatin and Retrotransposable Elements Rex 1, 3 and 6 in Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum ) in Captivity Exposed to the Parasiticide Trichlorfon. Manaus, Amazonas: Dissertação de Mestrado; 2020 40p - 41.
Silva HCM, da Silva AG, Idalino JJS, Sousa FB, Gomes ALS, Duncan WP, et al. Trichlorfon acute lethal toxicity to juvenile tambaqui ( Colossoma macropomum ). Aquaculture Research. 2020;51 :863-866. DOI: 10.1111/are.14412 - 42.
Duncan WP, Idalino JJS, da Silva AG, Moda RF, da Silva HCM, Matoso DA, et al. Acute toxicity of the pesticide trichlorfon and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase in Colossoma macropomum (Characiformes: Serrasalmidae). Aquaculture International. 2020;28 :815-830. DOI: 10.1007/s10499-019-00497-w