![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Epigenetic regulation of centromeric chromatin: old dogs, new tricks? 1 Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, Institute of Cell Biology, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, 6.34 Swann Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JR, UK. Email: robin.allshire/at/ed.ac.uk 2 Department of Genome and Computational Biology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Department of Molecular Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley, 1 Cyclotron Road, MS 84-171, Berkeley, California 94720, USA. Email: karpen/at/fruitfly.org The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Nat Rev Genet. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.Abstract The assembly of just a single kinetochore at the centromere of each sister chromatid is essential for accurate chromosome segregation during cell division. Surprisingly, despite their vital function, centromeres show considerable plasticity with respect to their chromosomal locations and activity. The establishment and maintenance of centromeric chromatin, and therefore the location of kinetochores, is epigenetically regulated. The histone H3 variant CENP-A is the key determinant of centromere identity and kinetochore assembly. Recent studies have identified many factors that affect CENP-A localization, but their precise roles in this process are unknown. We build on these advances and on new information about the timing of CENP-A assembly during the cell cycle to propose new models for how centromeric chromatin is established and propagated. Introduction The centromere, with its unique chromatin composition (Fig. 1a
Normally, centromeres are faithfully propagated at the same site from one cell and organismal generation to the next. The site chosen for centromere and kinetochore formation in some organisms, such as the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, seems to be specified by recruitment of specific proteins to a short DNA sequence of less than 200 bp4 (Fig. 1b The evidence for epigenetic regulation of most centromeres is compelling (reviewed in Refs 9,10,11,12,13). The presence of endogenous centromeric repeats does not guarantee kinetochore formation. For example, human and fly chromosomes that contain two separated blocks of centromeric DNA (structural dicentric chromosomes) segregate normally, because only one site is able to recruit centromere proteins and form a kinetochore, whereas the other is epigenetically inactivated14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Most strikingly, kinetochores can form in flies and humans at sites that lack any sequences that are homologous to those at normal centromeres; once established, these ‘neocentromeres’ propagate centromere function faithfully19, 20, 21, 22, 23. In the fission yeast, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, plasmids with minimal centromeric DNA establish functional centromeres stochastically, but once the functional state is attained it is propagated faithfully24. Remarkably, the engineered deletion of an endogenous fission yeast centromere allows the assembly and maintenance of a centromere at other novel chromosomal locations25. It is paradoxical that centromere function and many associated proteins are essential and conserved, yet centromere specification is not hard-wired to the DNA sequence and displays dramatic plasticity. One explanation arises from considering the speed with which satellite repeats change during evolution; centromere plasticity might be necessary for karyotype evolution and might ultimately contribute to speciation9, 10, 26, 27, 28. The key issues that centromere biologists are currently grappling with are determining the molecular mechanisms that specify and faithfully propagate centromere identity at a single site, how these events are coordinated with the cell cycle, and how the need for centromere stability is balanced with plasticity. We still lack a comprehensive mechanistic understanding of how centromere identity and propagation are accomplished and epigenetically regulated. However, there have been significant and exciting advances in our understanding of the unique composition and organization of centromeric chromatin, and in the identification of molecules that affect its formation and function. Here, we summarize this information, mainly from analyses in budding yeast, fission yeast, fruitflies and mammals, and propose models based on these findings. We will focus on a key determinant of centromere identity and kinetochore formation, the centromere-specific histone H3 variant, CENP-A (centromere protein A; also known as CenH3), and our current understanding of the molecules and mechanisms involved in CENP-A assembly into centromeric chromatin. Centromeric chromatin is unusual What determines the site of kinetochore assembly if DNA sequence is not the primary trigger? Epigenetic regulation of centromere formation suggests that chromatin composition or organization has a key role. In general, the packaging of chromosomal DNA in the nucleus in an organized manner allows for multiple levels of regulation of functions such as transcription and replication. Nucleosomes are inherently inhibitory to the transcription and replication machinery, and thus they need to be ‘opened’ to allow the passage of polymerases. In addition, a large number of post-translational modifications, including acetylation, methylation, ubquitylation, sumoylation and phosphorylation, act to attract or exclude factors that are correlated with different functional chromatin states29. In addition to the canonical histones (H2A, H2B, H3 and H4), histone variants such as H2AZ, H2AX or H2AV (depending on the organism) and H3.3 are associated with distinct regions of the genome. In general, H2A variants in yeast are found at promoters and might aid nucleosome disassembly during induction30, 31, and H2AZ is also associated with ‘boundary’ elements that demarcate chromosomal domains32. H2AZ has also been implicated in centromere structure in mice33. The H3.3 variant replaces H3 following transcriptional activation, and its deposition is coincident with elongation34, 35. The inclusion of H2AZ in nucleosomes containing H3.3 renders them highly unstable, but promotes the stability of nucleosomes containing H3 (Ref. 36). Unlike canonical histones, the deposition of which is coupled to DNA replication and requires the chromatin assembly factor (CAF) complex, histone variants are assembled into nucleosomes by a replication-independent exchange mechanism that relies on other protein complexes, such as HIRA for H3.3 and SWR1 for H2AZ37, 38. Replacement of H3 with H3.3 independently of replication allows histone modifications that repress transcription to be erased, and thereby aids transcriptional activation and propagation of the active state. In all eukaryotes, kinetochores are assembled on distinctive chromatin that contains CENP-A14, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 (Fig. 1b In S. cerevisiae, complete centromere function is specified by only 125 bp of DNA, which is composed of three centromere DNA elements (CDEs): CDEI, CDEII and CDEIII (reviewed in Ref. 4). The 15 bp of CDEIII is most important as it attracts a complex containing sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins (Ndc10, Cep3, Ctf13 and Skp1). This complex dictates the assembly of only a single nucleosome, containing the CENP-A homologue CENP-ACse4, over the middle AT-rich CDEII element39, 48(Fig. 1b Canonical histones are highly conserved and contain sites for a plethora of post-translational modifications, particularly in their N-terminal tails29. These modifications are correlated with different functional states, such as transcriptional activity or silencing, and are involved in chromatin assembly and disassembly. Surprisingly, although regional centromeres are universally embedded in pericentric heterochromatin, the interspersed H3 domains within centromeres themselves are modified in a pattern that is distinct from both euchromatin and heterochromatin50 (Fig. 1b,c The function of the interspersed H3 domains, with their distinct histone modifications, is not known. They might contribute to CENP-A recruitment, or participate in assembling the cylindrical three-dimensional structure of centromeric chromatin in mitotic chromosomes, in which CENP-A-containing nucleosomes are located on the poleward side of each chromatid and the interspersed H3 blocks reside in the interface between sister centromeres7 (Fig. 1c CENP-A structure and nucleosome organization Like all histones, H3 and CENP-A contain globular histone fold domains (HFDs) that are composed of three alpha helices separated by loops45, 55. The helices of H3 intertwine with those of H4 to form a tetrameric [H3–H4]2 structure — the kernel of the ‘canonical’ nucleosome. Given the high structural conservation observed for canonical histones, it is striking that the N-terminal tails of CENP-A from different organisms are highly divergent both in length and in amino-acid sequence9. For example, the tails are 120 and 130 amino acids in budding yeast and Drosophila CENP-A, respectively, but are only 45 amino acids in humans and 20 amino acids in fission yeast. This suggests that the tails evolve rapidly along with organism-specific CENP-A-interacting proteins, and that there might be distinct but overlapping mechanisms and proteins used to chaperone and incorporate CENP-A in different organisms27. Surprisingly little is known about post-translational modifications of CENP-A and whether they are functionally important. In fission yeast, micrococcal nuclease (MNase) digestion analysis showed that the central kinetochore domain at all three centromeres adopts an unusual chromatin structure56, 57. Centromeres display a smeared nucleosomal pattern, in contrast to the canonical 150 bp ladder seen in bulk chromatin, suggesting less regular spacing with respect to DNA sequences. Likewise, the smaller regional centromeres of the yeast Candida albicans also display an atypical nucleosomal pattern58. However, in vitro assembled CENP-A chromatin utilizing human CENP-A in place of H3 forms octamers with H4, H2A and H2B and does not generate an unusual MNase pattern59. The causes of the unusual nucleosome pattern in some organisms is currently unknown, but it is presumably a property conferred by the replacement of H3 with CENP-A; the DNA ends might be more accessible, and in some organisms might lead to less precise termini. Recent analyses show that CENP-A is structurally distinct from H3 in that it forms a more rigid and compact interface with H4 in both tetramers and nucleosomes55, 60. The region responsible for this difference is in the first loop (L1) and second alpha helix (2), which corresponds to CENP-A residues that are involved in centromere recruitment (see below) (Fig. 2a
Recent studies suggest that the composition of CENP-A nucleosomes is also unusual. The single CENP-ACse4 nucleosome in budding yeast seems to lack H2A–H2B, and instead contains a non-histone protein Scm3, that might form a hexamer with the [CENP-ACse4–H4]2 tetramers62 (Fig. 2b Despite these reports of unusual CENP-A nucleosomes, the affinity purification of CENP-A nucleosomes from human and fly cells suggest that they mainly exist as octamers that contain [CENP-A–H4–H2A–H2B]2 (Refs 7, 65), and that CENP-A octamers can form in vitro 59, although some hybrid or intermediate CENP-A–H3 nucleosomes might also exist (Fig. 2b Cell-cycle timing of CENP-A deposition Parental canonical H3 nucleosomes are distributed randomly to daughter strands67. Typically, assembly factors such as ASF1 and CAF collaborate to mediate deposition of new H3-containing nucleosomes along DNA as it is synthesized during S phase (reviewed in Refs 68 , 69). Nascent nucleosomes are thought to be deposited on both the leading and lagging strands, enabling the propagation of parental chromatin structures to both daughter cells70. Centromeric DNA replicates in mid to late S phase in Drosophila and human cells71, 72, and in very early S phase in S. pombe 73. Based on the behaviour of canonical H3 nucleosomes during replication, it was assumed that half of the pre-existing CENP-A nucleosomes are segregated to each chromatid. However, in S. cerevisiae all pre-existing CENP-A is evicted and replaced by new CENP-A during S phase, perhaps leading to temporary kinetochore disruption and orientation-switching74. Recent studies in human cells have shown that CENP-A nucleosomes are extremely stable, and segregate to daughter chromatids during each S phase75, providing a mechanism for continuity of CENP-A and centromere inheritance (Fig. 3a
CENP-A nucleosome assembly is replication-independent71, but until recently it was unclear whether new CENP-A nucleosomes are assembled during the S, G2, M or G1 phase of the cell cycle. In S. pombe, CENP-A levels reach a maximum before the canonical histones in early S phase, and newly synthesised CENP-A can be deposited both during S phase and in G2 (Ref. 76) (note that G1 is exceedingly short in fission yeast, with cells proceeding almost directly from mitosis into S phase). The simplest explanation is that CENP-A deposition in S phase is replication-coincident, rather than replication-coupled, so that one mechanism operates to allow incorporation of new CENP-A during both S and G2 (Ref. 51). However, the GATA-like Ams2 protein is required to boost histone levels in S phase but is also centromere-associated and affects CENP-A assembly at centromeres77, 78. The interplay between Ams2, canonical histone levels and CENP-A assembly at centromeres is complex; there might be both normal S phase and G2 ‘salvage’ pathways76. Elegant fluorescent CENP-A quench–pulse–chase approaches in human cells have been used to analyse the timing of centromere localization of newly synthesized CENP-A. Surprisingly, CENP-A assembly was shown to occur in late mitosis (telophase) and throughout G1 (Ref. 75) (Fig. 3b The assembly of nucleosomes during mitosis and the G1 phase is an unprecedented finding, and has a significant impact on our understanding of the mechanics of centromere propagation. First, these results suggest that the amount of CENP-A at centromeres is halved during most of the cell cycle, from the time of replication in S phase to the end of mitosis (Fig. 3b Regulators of CENP-A deposition The incorporation of histones into chromatin involves numerous events, including histone gene transcription and translation, protein modifications, import into the nucleus, and nucleosome assembly, remodelling or exchange (Fig. 4a
Many proteins have been identified by biochemical purifications as being physically associated with CENP-A, and factors required for centromere localization of CENP-A have been identified by genetic screens and subsequent analyses. An effect on CENP-A localization has been used to suggest that a factor has a direct role in assembly or loading of CENP-A nucleosomes. However, it is important to define the precise roles of the factors required for CENP-A localization with respect to the multiple steps and molecular processes involved in histone expression and transport, and in nucleosome assembly and maintenance (Box. 1; Fig. 4a The S. cerevisiae Ndc10 protein is a component of the CBF3 DNA complex that binds the 15 bp CDEIII centromere element and that is absolutely required to specify centromere function. The Scm3 protein has been shown to form a hexameric complex with a [CENP-ACse4–H4]2 tetramer62 (see Fig. 2b Progress has also been made in identifying trans-acting proteins that are required for CENP-A localization in eukaryotes which contain more complex and epigenetically determined centromeres. The S. pombe proteins Mis6 and Ams2 are required for CENP-ACnp1 localization77, 86, but it is not clear whether they directly mediate CENP-ACnp1 deposition at centromeres or act indirectly to maintain CENP-ACnp1 localization (Boxes 1 , 2). Additional proteins that affect CENP-ACnp1 localization have been isolated (Mis15–18)87, two of which have a conserved role in localizing human CENP-A. Components of the human MIS18 complex, consisting of MIS18A, MIS18B and MIS18-binding protein (MIS18BP; KNL-2 in worms), are particularly interesting factors required for centromere formation. The human MIS18 complex collaborates with the general histone H3–H4 chaperone RbAp46/48, which is also a component of the CAF complex (see below) and only localizes to centromeres in the period between late anaphase to telophase and through G1 in humans89. This is intriguing in light of recent evidence that human CENP-A assembly occurs between telophase and the following G1 phase (Refs 75 , 79). M18BP1 and KNL-2 depletion experiments suggest that the MIS18 complex might ‘license’ centromere formation, analogous to the way in which licensing factors permit replication-origin activation89. Similarly Mis16, a fission yeast RbAp46/48 homologue, and Mis18 dissociate from centromeres from early mitosis until late anaphase/telophase. The association of Mis18 might permit CENP-A assembly in all subsequent stages, but this might only normally occur when there is sufficient CENP-A and associated H4 in early S phase, which in fission yeast immediately follows telophase and is coincident with centromere replication51. In fission yeast the tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR)-domain protein Sim3, which is homologous to the histone-binding proteins NASP (human) and N1/N2 (Xenopus), has been shown to be distributed throughout the nucleus but also associates with CENP-ACnp1 and is required for its localization at centromeres. In Xenopus, N1/N2 is required to store free H3–H4 as tetramers in the cytoplasm; therefore, in fission yeast, Sim3 might act to escort CENP-A to centromeres and prevent its misincorporation at other sites90.
Recent biochemical purification studies in human and chicken cells have identified two major centromere-associated complexes65, 91. CENP-B, -C, -H, -M, -N, -T and -U were found to be associated with one or a few CENP-A nucleosomes, forming the nucleosome-associated complex (NAC)65 (Fig. 4b Factors required for centromere propagation were recently identified in Drosophila using an unbiased, genome-wide RNAi screen for defects in CENP-ACID localization92. A novel constitutive centromere protein (CAL1) and CENP-C were shown to be essential for the assembly of newly synthesized CENP-ACID. CENP-ACID, CAL1 and CENP-C co-immunoprecipitate and are mutually dependent for centromere localization and function. As observed for MIS18 and MIS18BP in humans, levels of CAL1 are reduced on metaphase centromeres and increase coincident with CENP-A loading in late anaphase to telophase. In addition, cyclin A and the anaphase-promoting complex (APC) inhibitor RCA1 (Emi1 in vertebrates) were identified as regulators of centromere propagation and CENP-ACID localization. Cyclin A is centromere-localized, and cyclin A and RCA1 couple centromere assembly to the cell cycle through regulation of the Fzr (also known as Cdh1) subunit of the APC. These findings identify essential components of the epigenetic machinery that ensures proper specification and propagation of the centromere, as well as components involved in coordinating centromere inheritance with cell division. A major gap in our understanding of centromere propagation is the identity of molecules that directly mediate CENP-A deposition into chromatin. Newly synthesized canonical H3 nucleosomes are assembled behind the replication fork by ATP-dependent activities that are mediated by complexes, such as CAF, and by ASF1 as a subunit of the replication coupling assembly factor (RCAF)68, 69. Although deposition of CENP-A can be replication-independent71, 75, 76, 90, 93, it is currently unclear whether CENP-A nucleosomes are assembled de novo on naked DNA, or by exchange–replacement mechanisms (Fig. 3 De novo establishment of CENP-A chromatin Although centromeres are normally propagated faithfully at the same site, new centromeres can be established de novo in the absence of pre-existing CENP-A or other guiding marks (Fig. 4b De novo establishment of centromeres has been demonstrated experimentally by introducing naked DNA templates containing sequences associated with centromere function in vivo into cells and assessing their ability to assemble a kinetochore. Active kinetochores can clearly be established on naive DNA transferred into budding yeast, fission yeast, and plant and mammalian cells95, 96, 97, 98, 99. However, in mammalian cells and fission yeast this process can be inefficient, perhaps owing to size requirements that are dictated by the need for sufficient sister-chromatid cohesion to resist pulling forces, and/or a lack of particular contextual cues provided by surrounding chromatin100. In addition, it seems that the establishment of centromeres on artificially introduced centromeric DNA is not possible in some organisms, such as the pathogenic yeast C. albicans58. The inefficiency or lack of de novo centromere assembly might be a consequence of the normal processes that restrict centromere propagation to one site per chromosome, or differences in organisms in their ability to assemble appropriate chromatin templates on naked DNA. Recent analyses in mammalian cells indicate that the CENP-B protein, which binds a specific 17-bp element within a subset of alpha-satellite monomers, promotes the assembly of CENP-A into chromatin and, therefore, kinetochore formation100. In addition, targeting of transcriptional repressing or activating complexes can inactivate centromeres101. In fission yeast, RNA interference (RNAi)-directed heterochromatin is important, as it allows CENP-ACnp1 chromatin to be established on adjacent central core DNA, but it is not required for its maintenance102 (Fig. 4b The specific properties of the central core that might aid CENP-A deposition are also unknown; for example, the GATA-like transcription factor Ams2 is enriched in the central core and might contribute to deposition, but central core DNA alone is not sufficient to attract CENP-A nucleosomes77. Intriguingly, the use of flanking lox sites and Cre recombinase to delete a fission yeast centromere results in the establishment of new functional centromeres in subtelomeric regions. DNA that is homologous to centromeric central core DNA cannot be detected in these regions, suggesting that chromatin structure or composition is the major determinant, rather than primary DNA sequence. Consistent with this model, telomeric regions are known to be assembled in heterochromatin, and depletion of RNAi or heterochromatin factors reduces the efficiency of neocentromere establishment25. Non-coding transcripts and centromere formation Small and large non-coding RNAs (for example, siRNAs, roX, Xist and NoRC) have roles in epigenetic regulation through the recruitment of chromatin-modifying activities103, 104, 105, 106. There are tantalizing observations that suggest that transcription of centromeric DNA or of other non-coding RNAs could similarly affect centromere formation: RNAase-sensitive electron-dense material is present at newt lung-cell kinetochores107; transcripts homologous to centromeric DNA have been detected in mammals108 and plants and are processed into siRNAs in plants109, 110; and active protein-coding genes can reside within centromeric chromatin111, 112. Strikingly, RNAs derived from centromeric retrotransposons and CentC centromeric repeats are enriched in CENP-A chromatin immunoprecipitates in maize113. Moreover, transcripts from human alpha-satellite DNA are associated with CENP-C and the inner centromere protein INCENP, and the addition of recombinant alpha satellite RNA to permeabilized human cells is required to target exogenous CENP-C to centromeres114. Finally, low levels of RNA polymerase II enrichment have been observed at the central domain in S. pombe 115. The relationship between RNAs derived from centromeric DNA and kinetochore assembly and/or architecture remains to be determined. Many chromatin modifications and nucleosome disassembly, reassembly and remodelling events are associated with transcription69, 116. Dimethylation or trimethylation of histone H3 on lysine 4 (H3K4me2 or H3K4me3) is associated with the 5′ regions of active genes and attracts chromatin factors such as NURF or Chd1, which reposition nucleosomes117. The H3K4me2 modification is found within the interspersed H3 blocks that are present in human, fly and plant centromeric chromatin50, 52. In S. pombe the central domain contains H3K4me2 (Ref. 52), and the Chd1 homologue, Hrp1, is required for normal CENP-A chromatin levels118. Thus, it is possible that transcription of centromeric DNA, rather than the RNA sequences, promotes CENP-A deposition (Fig. 5a
Alternatively, the RNAs produced from centromeric DNA might facilitate formation of CENP-A chromatin (see above). Centromeric RNAs might help to localize factors required for CENP-A deposition, analogous to the siRNA-mediated recruitment of histone-modifying enzymes103, 104 (Fig. 5b The presence of RNA at kinetochores and the association of RNAs that are homologous to centromeric DNA with centromeric chromatin proteins is intriguing. However, it remains to be determined whether the act of transcription or the non-coding transcripts themselves play a direct part in establishing or maintaining CENP-A chromatin. An important question to address is when centromeric transcription and transcripts are produced during the cell cycle with respect to the timing of CENP-A loading. Models for propagation of centromere identity What are the possible mechanisms responsible for propagating centromere identity? We believe that the central issue is to understand how new CENP-A is recruited to and incorporated into replicated centromeres. Without direct evidence for specific models, a range of molecules and mechanisms need to be considered. The basic facts described above that need to be accommodated into any model are: centromeric chromatin contains both CENP-A and H3 nucleosomes (Fig. 1 Deposition by CENP-A-specific proteins that recognize replicated CENP-A chromatin Although we do not know exactly what happens at CENP-A chromatin during replication (octamer or half-nucleosome segregation, H3 deposition, or nucleosome gaps), the end result is the same: some type of nucleosome that contains CENP-A (Fig. 2b If H3 nucleosomes are deposited during S phase in ‘gaps’ formed by CENP-A nucleosome segregation (Fig. 6a
Alternatively, if segregation of existing CENP-A nucleosomes to daughter strands during replication leaves ‘nucleosome gaps’, either segregated CENP-A or the gaps themselves could serve as a signal for new CENP-A assembly. This mechanism would require de novo assembly factors and/or activities, rather than those associated with H3 exchange (Fig. 6a CENP-A assembly or exchange mediated by the interspersed H3 domains A second model is suggested by the observation that the interspersed H3 nucleosomes display a modification pattern that is distinct from euchromatin and from the flanking heterochromatin50. The modifications that are present in the interspersed H3 domains could recruit specific CENP-A assembly proteins to the region (Fig. 6b Regulation by intrinsic properties of CENP-A nucleosomes A third model postulates that interactions between molecules in CENP-A nucleosomes provide the signal for new CENP-A recruitment. H3 dimers remain stably associated during segregation of nucleosomes to replicated daughter chromatids70. Although CENP-A is also segregated to daughter chromatids75, CENP-A nucleosomes might be processed differently from H3 nucleosomes, as suggested by evidence that CENP-ACID may be in a half-nucleosome during interphase in Drosophila 63, and that [CENP-A–H4]2 tetramers are less stable than [H3–H4]2 tetramers55. It is possible that CENP-A octamers are split during replication in S phase to form CENP-A–H4–H2A–H2B tetramers, or just CENP-A–H4 dimers, and that incorporation of new CENP-A during telophase and through G1 involves reconstitution of octamers (Fig. 6c Conclusions In the last few years many CENP-A-interacting proteins and factors that affect its localization have been identified. Some of these associate with CENP-A in complexes and are enriched at centromeres, whereas others are more broadly distributed. Some of these factors must influence the process of chromatin remodelling to ensure that CENP-A is replenished and propagated at the same location on a chromosome following replication. Surprisingly, in human cells new CENP-A is deposited at centromeres in late mitosis (that is, telophase) and in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. In addition, other proteins that are required for its deposition (RbAp46/48 and the MIS18 complex) show the same temporal pattern of localization. The challenge for the future is to understand the events and signals that permit the deposition of CENP-A during this period and prevent its incorporation at other times. What factors mediate CENP-A nucleosome transfer from in front of a replication fork to the nascent strands behind? Are CENP-A nucleosomes split so that both daughter strands receive a CENP-A half-nucleosome in S phase? Is H3 initially deposited in centromeric chromatin in S phase and subsequently replaced with CENP-A, or are gaps created that are subsequently filled with CENP-A nucleosomes? What are the key CENP-A assembly and exchange factors? How are broadly distributed generic CAFs adapted to provide specificity to CENP-A deposition: by temporal regulation (for example, only CENP-A is deposited during mitosis or G1) or by formation of complexes with unique, CENP-A-specific components? Further dissection is also required to unravel the mechanism by which flanking centromeric heterochromatin influences the establishment of CENP-A chromatin and kinetochore assembly. It is also possible that the function of a centromere in mediating successful bipolar orientation and segregation influences the site of CENP-A deposition. Determining how the assembly of centromeric chromatin is integrated with cell-cycle progression is key to elucidating the regulatory signals. The next decade should allow a more complete understanding of how this unique form of chromatin is assembled and propagated at centromeres. Acknowledgements The authors thanks members of their laboratories for comments and suggestions. R.C.A. is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and his research is supported by the Wellcome Trust (065061/Z). G.H.K.'s work on centromeres is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 GM066272). Biographies
References 1. Weaver BA, Cleveland DW. Aneuploidy: instigator and inhibitor of tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 2007;67:10103–10105. [PubMed] 2. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nature Rev. Genet. 2001;2:280–291. [PubMed] 3. Monaco ZL, Moralli D. Progress in artificial chromosome technology. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2006;34:324–327. [PubMed] 4. Westermann S, Drubin DG, Barnes G. Structures and functions of yeast kinetochore complexes. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2007;76:563–591. [PubMed] 5. Spence JM, et al. Co-localization of centromere activity, proteins and topoisomerase II within a subdomain of the major human X alpha-satellite array. EMBO J. 2002;21:5269–5280. [PubMed] 6. Mitchell AR, Jeppesen P, Nicol L, Morrison H, Kipling D. Epigenetic control of mammalian centromere protein binding: does DNA methylation have a role? J. Cell Sci. 1996;109:2199–2206. [PubMed] 7. Blower MD, Sullivan BA, Karpen GH. Conserved organization of centromeric chromatin in flies and humans. Dev. Cell. 2002;2:319–330. [PubMed] 8. Lam AL, Boivin CD, Bonney CF, Rudd MK, Sullivan BA. Human centromeric chromatin is a dynamic chromosomal domain that can spread over noncentromeric DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:4186–4191. [PubMed] 9. Henikoff S, Dalal Y. Centromeric chromatin: what makes it unique? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2005;15:177–184. [PubMed] 10. Dawe RK, Henikoff S. Centromeres put epigenetics in the driver's seat. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2006;31:662–669. [PubMed] 11. Sullivan BA, Blower MD, Karpen GH. Determining centromere identity: cyclical stories and forking paths. Nature Rev. Genet. 2001;2:584–596. [PubMed] 12. Mellone BG, Allshire RC. Stretching it: putting the CEN(P-A) in centromere. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2003;13:191–198. [PubMed] 13. Karpen GH, Allshire RC. The case for epigenetic effects on centromere identity and function. Trends Genet. 1997;13:489–496. [PubMed] 14. Earnshaw WC, Migeon BR. Three related centromere proteins are absent from the inactive centromere of a stable isodicentric chromosome. Chromosoma. 1985;92:290–296. [PubMed] 15. Warburton PE, et al. Immunolocalization of CENP-A suggests a distinct nucleosome structure at the inner kinetochore plate of active centromeres. Curr. Biol. 1997;7:901–904. [PubMed] 16. Sullivan BA, Schwartz S. Identification of centromeric antigens in dicentric Robertsonian translocations: CENP-C and CENP-E are necessary components of functional centromeres. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1995;4:2189–2197. [PubMed] 17. Sullivan BA, Willard HF. Stable dicentric X chromosomes with two functional centromeres. Nature Genet. 1998;20:227–228. [PubMed] 18. Agudo M, et al. A dicentric chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster showing alternate centromere inactivation. Chromosoma. 2000;109:190–196. [PubMed] 19. Alonso A, et al. Co-localization of CENP-C and CENP-H to discontinuous domains of CENP-A chromatin at human neocentromeres. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R148. [PubMed] 20. Warburton PE. Chromosomal dynamics of human neocentromere formation. Chromosome Res. 2004;12:617–626. [PubMed] 21. Choo KH. Domain organization at the centromere and neocentromere. Dev. Cell. 2001;1:165–177. [PubMed] 22. Lo AW, et al. A novel chromatin immunoprecipitation and array (CIA) analysis identifies a 460-kb CENP-A-binding neocentromere DNA. Genome Res. 2001;11:448–457. [PubMed] 23. Williams BC, Murphy TD, Goldberg ML, Karpen GH. Neocentromere activity of structurally acentric mini-chromosomes in Drosophila. Nature Genet. 1998;18:30–37. [PubMed] 24. Steiner NC, Clarke L. A novel epigenetic effect can alter centromere function in fission yeast. Cell. 1994;79:865–874. [PubMed] 25. Ishii K, et al. Heterochromatin integrity affects chromosome reorganization after centromere dysfunction. Science. 2008;321:1088–1091. [PubMed] 26. Bulazel KV, Ferreri GC, Eldridge MD, O'Neill RJ. Species-specific shifts in centromere sequence composition are coincident with breakpoint reuse in karyotypically divergent lineages. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R170. [PubMed] 27. Malik HS, Henikoff S. Conflict begets complexity: the evolution of centromeres. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2002;12:711–718. [PubMed] 28. Murphy TD, Karpen GH. Centromeres take flight: alpha satellite and the quest for the human centromere. Cell. 1998;93:317–320. [PubMed] 29. Kouzarides T. Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell. 2007;128:693–705. [PubMed] 30. Li B, et al. Preferential occupancy of histone variant H2AZ at inactive promoters influences local histone modifications and chromatin remodeling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:18385–18390. [PubMed] 31. Raisner RM, et al. Histone variant H2A.Z. marks the 5′ ends of both active and inactive genes in euchromatin. Cell. 2005;123:233–248. [PubMed] 32. Meneghini MD, Wu M, Madhani HD. Conserved histone variant H2A.Z protects euchromatin from the ectopic spread of silent heterochromatin. Cell. 2003;112:725–736. [PubMed] 33. Greaves IK, Rangasamy D, Ridgway P, Tremethick DJ. H2A.Z contributes to the unique 3D structure of the centromere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:525–530. [PubMed] 34. Ahmad K, Henikoff S. The histone variant H3.3 marks active chromatin by replication-independent nucleosome assembly. Mol. Cell. 2002;9:1191–1200. [PubMed] 35. Mito Y, Henikoff JG, Henikoff S. Genome-scale profiling of histone H3.3 replacement patterns. Nature Genet. 2005;37:1090–1097. [PubMed] 36. Henikoff S. Nucleosome destabilization in the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. Nature Rev. Genet. 2008;9:15–26. [PubMed] 37. Mizuguchi G, et al. ATP-driven exchange of histone H2AZ variant catalyzed by SWR1 chromatin remodeling complex. Science. 2004;303:343–348. [PubMed] 38. Tagami H, Ray-Gallet D, Almouzni G, Nakatani Y. Histone H3.1 and H3.3 complexes mediate nucleosome assembly pathways dependent or independent of DNA synthesis. Cell. 2004;116:51–61. [PubMed] 39. Meluh PB, Yang P, Glowczewski L, Koshland D, Smith MM. Cse4p is a component of the core centromere of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell. 1998;94:607–613. [PubMed] 40. Buchwitz BJ, Ahmad K, Moore LL, Roth MB, Henikoff S. A histone-H3-like protein in C. elegans. Nature. 1999;401:547–548. [PubMed] 41. Blower MD, Karpen GH. The role of Drosophila CID in kinetochore formation, cell-cycle progression and heterochromatin interactions. Nature Cell Biol. 2001;3:730–739. [PubMed] 42. Henikoff S, Ahmad K, Platero JS, van Steensel B. Heterochromatic deposition of centromeric histone H3-like proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2000;97:716–721. [PubMed] 43. Stoler S, Keith KC, Curnick KE, Fitzgerald-Hayes M. A mutation in CSE4, an essential gene encoding a novel chromatin-associated protein in yeast, causes chromosome nondisjunction and cell cycle arrest at mitosis. Genes Dev. 1995;9:573–586. [PubMed] 44. Takahashi K, Chen ES, Yanagida M. Requirement of Mis6 centromere connector for localizing a CENP-Alike protein in fission yeast. Science. 2000;288:2215–2219. [PubMed] 45. Sullivan KF, Hechenberger M, Masri K. Human CENP-A contains a histone H3 related histone fold domain that is required for targeting to the centromere. J. Cell Biol. 1994;127:581–592. [PubMed] 46. Palmer DK, O'Day K, Wener MH, Andrews BS, Margolis RL. A 17-kD centromere protein (CENP-A) copurifies with nucleosome core particles and with histones. J. Cell Biol. 1987;104:805–815. [PubMed] 47. Heun P, et al. Mislocalization of the Drosophila centromere-specific histone CID promotes formation of functional ectopic kinetochores. Dev. Cell. 2006;10:303–315. [PubMed] 48. Furuyama S, Biggins S. Centromere identity is specified by a single centromeric nucleosome in budding yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:14706–14711. [PubMed] 49. Yan H, Jiang J. Rice as a model for centromere and heterochromatin research. Chromosome Res. 2007;15:77–84. [PubMed] 50. Sullivan BA, Karpen GH. Centromeric chromatin exhibits a histone modification pattern that is distinct from both euchromatin and heterochromatin. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004;11:1076–1083. [PubMed] 51. Castillo AG, et al. Plasticity of fission yeast CENP-A chromatin driven by relative levels of histone H3 and H4. PLoS Genet. 2007;3:e121. [PubMed] 52. Cam HP, et al. Comprehensive analysis of heterochromatin- and RNAi-mediated epigenetic control of the fission yeast genome. Nature Genet. 2005;37:809–819. [PubMed] 53. Yeh E, et al. Pericentric chromatin is organized into an intramolecular loop in mitosis. Curr. Biol. 2008;18:81–90. [PubMed] 54. Gregan J, et al. The kinetochore proteins Pcs1 and Mde4 and heterochromatin are required to prevent merotelic orientation. Curr. Biol. 2007;17:1190–1200. [PubMed] 55. Black BE, et al. Structural determinants for generating centromeric chromatin. Nature. 2004;430:578–582. [PubMed] 56. Polizzi C, Clarke L. The chromatin structure of centromeres from fission yeast: differentiation of the central core that correlates with function. J. Cell Biol. 1991;112:191–201. [PubMed] 57. Takahashi K, et al. A low copy number central sequence with strict symmetry and unusual chromatin structure in fission yeast centromere. Mol. Biol. Cell. 1992;3:819–835. [PubMed] 58. Baum M, Sanyal K, Mishra PK, Thaler N, Carbon J. Formation of functional centromeric chromatin is specified epigenetically in Candida albicans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:14877–14882. [PubMed] 59. Yoda K, et al. Human centromere protein A (CENP-A) can replace histone H3 in nucleosome reconstitution in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2000;97:7266–7271. [PubMed] 60. Black BE, Brock MA, Bedard S, Woods VL, Jr, Cleveland DW. An epigenetic mark generated by the incorporation of CENP-A into centromeric nucleosomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:5008–5013. [PubMed] 61. Conde e Silva N, et al. CENP-A-containing nucleosomes: easier disassembly versus exclusive centromeric localization. J. Mol. Biol. 2007;370:555–573. [PubMed] 62. Mizuguchi G, Xiao H, Wisniewski J, Smith MM, Wu C. Nonhistone Scm3 and histones CenH3–H4 assemble the core of centromere-specific nucleosomes. Cell. 2007;129:1153–1164. [PubMed] 63. Dalal Y, Wang H, Lindsay S, Henikoff S. Tetrameric structure of centromeric nucleosomes in interphase Drosophila cells. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e218. [PubMed] 64. Black BE, Bassett EA. The histone variant CENP-A and centromere specification. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2008;20:91–100. [PubMed] 65. Foltz DR, et al. The human CENP-A centromeric nucleosome-associated complex. Nature Cell Biol. 2006;8:458–469. [PubMed] 66. Maruyama T, Nakamura T, Hayashi T, Yanagida M. Histone H2B mutations in inner region affect ubiquitination, centromere function, silencing and chromosome segregation. EMBO J. 2006;25:2420–2431. [PubMed] 67. Sogo JM, Stahl H, Koller T, Knippers R. Structure of replicating simian virus 40 minichromosomes. The replication fork, core histone segregation and terminal structures. J. Mol. Biol. 1986;189:189–204. [PubMed] 68. Mello JA, Almouzni G. The ins and outs of nucleosome assembly. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2001;11:136–141. [PubMed] 69. Rocha W, Verreault A. Clothing up DNA for all seasons: histone chaperones and nucleosome assembly pathways. FEBS Lett. 2008;582:1938–1949. [PubMed] 70. Sugasawa K, et al. Nonconservative segregation of parental nucleosomes during simian virus 40 chromosome replication in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1992;89:1055–1059. [PubMed] 71. Shelby RD, Monier K, Sullivan KF. Chromatin assembly at kinetochores is uncoupled from DNA replication. J. Cell Biol. 2000;151:1113–1118. [PubMed] 72. Sullivan B, Karpen G. Centromere identity in Drosophila is not determined in vivo by replication timing. J. Cell Biol. 2001;154:683–690. [PubMed] 73. Kim SM, Dubey DD, Huberman JA. Early-replicating heterochromatin. Genes Dev. 2003;17:330–335. [PubMed] 74. Pearson CG, et al. Stable kinetochore–microtubule attachment constrains centromere positioning in metaphase. Curr. Biol. 2004;14:1962–1967. [PubMed] 75. Jansen LE, Black BE, Foltz DR, Cleveland DW. Propagation of centromeric chromatin requires exit from mitosis. J. Cell Biol. 2007;176:795–805. [PubMed] 76. Takayama Y, et al. Biphasic incorporation of centromeric histone CENP-A in fission yeast. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2008;19:682–690. [PubMed] 77. Chen ES, Saitoh S, Yanagida M, Takahashi K. A cell cycle-regulated GATA factor promotes centromeric localization of CENP-A in fission yeast. Mol. Cell. 2003;11:175–187. [PubMed] 78. Takayama Y, Takahashi K. Differential regulation of repeated histone genes during the fission yeast cell cycle. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:3223–3237. [PubMed] 79. Schuh M, Lehner CF, Heidmann S. Incorporation of Drosophila CID/CENP-A and CENP-C into centromeres during early embryonic anaphase. Curr. Biol. 2007;17:237–243. [PubMed] 80. Carroll CW, Straight AF. Centromere formation: from epigenetics to self-assembly. Trends Cell Biol. 2006;16:70–78. [PubMed] 81. Keith KC, et al. Analysis of primary structural determinants that distinguish the centromere-specific function of histone variant Cse4p from histone H3. Mol. Cell Biol. 1999;19:6130–6139. [PubMed] 82. Shelby RD, Vafa O, Sullivan KF. Assembly of CENP-A into centromeric chromatin requires a cooperative array of nucleosomal DNA contact sites. J. Cell Biol. 1997;136:501–513. [PubMed] 83. Vermaak D, Hayden HS, Henikoff S. Centromere targeting element within the histone fold domain of Cid. Mol. Cell Biol. 2002;22:7553–7561. [PubMed] 84. Camahort R, et al. Scm3 is essential to recruit the histone H3 variant Cse4 to centromeres and to maintain a functional kinetochore. Mol. Cell. 2007;26:853–865. [PubMed] 85. Stoler S, et al. Scm3, an essential Saccharomyces cerevisiae centromere protein required for G2/M progression and Cse4 localization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:10571–10576. [PubMed] 86. Saitoh S, Takahashi K, Yanagida M. Mis6, a fission yeast inner centromere protein, acts during G1/S and forms specialized chromatin required for equal segregation. Cell. 1997;90:131–143. [PubMed] 87. Hayashi T, et al. Mis16 and Mis18 are required for CENP-A loading and histone deacetylation at centromeres. Cell. 2004;118:715–729. [PubMed] 88. Maddox PS, Hyndman F, Monen J, Oegema K, Desai A. Functional genomics identifies a Myb domain-containing protein family required for assembly of CENP-A chromatin. J. Cell Biol. 2007;176:757–763. [PubMed] 89. Fujita Y, et al. Priming of centromere for CENP-A recruitment by human hMis18alpha, hMis18beta, and M18BP1. Dev. Cell. 2007;12:17–30. [PubMed] 90. Dunleavy EM, et al. A NASP (N1/N2)-related protein, Sim3, binds CENP-A and is required for its deposition at fission yeast centromeres. Mol. Cell. 2007;28:1029–1044. [PubMed] 91. Okada M, et al. The CENP-H-I complex is required for the efficient incorporation of newly synthesized CENP-A into centromeres. Nature Cell Biol. 2006;8:446–457. [PubMed] 92. Erhardt S, Mellone BG, Betts CM, Zhang W, Karpen GH, Straight AF. Genome-wide analysis reveals a cell-cycle-dependent mechanism controlling centromere propagation. J. Cell Biol. in the press. 93. Ahmad K, Henikoff S. Centromeres are specialized replication domains in heterochromatin. J. Cell Biol. 2001;153:101–110. [PubMed] 94. Furuyama T, Dalal Y, Henikoff S. Chaperone-mediated assembly of centromeric chromatin in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:6172–6177. [PubMed] 95. Carlson SR, et al. Meiotic transmission of an in vitro-assembled autonomous maize minichromosome. PLoS Genet. 2007;3:1965–1974. [PubMed] 96. Harrington JJ, Van Bokkelen G, Mays RW, Gustashaw K, Willard HF. Formation of de novo centromeres and construction of first-generation human artificial microchromosomes. Nature Genet. 1997;15:345–355. [PubMed] 97. Ikeno M, et al. Construction of YAC-based mammalian artificial chromosomes. Nature Biotechnol. 1998;16:431–439. [PubMed] 98. Hahnenberger KM, Baum MP, Polizzi CM, Carbon J, Clarke L. Construction of functional artificial minichromosomes in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1989;86:577–581. [PubMed] 99. Clarke L, Carbon J. Isolation of a yeast centromere and construction of functional small circular chromosomes. Nature. 1980;287:504–509. [PubMed] 100. Okada T, et al. CENP-B controls centromere formation depending on the chromatin context. Cell. 2007;131:1287–1300. [PubMed] 101. Nakano M, et al. Inactivation of a human kinetochore by specific targeting of chromatin modifiers. Dev. Cell. 2008;14:507–522. [PubMed] 102. Folco HD, Pidoux AL, Urano T, Allshire RC. Heterochromatin and RNAi are required to establish CENPA chromatin at centromeres. Science. 2008;319:94–97. [PubMed] 103. Buhler M, Moazed D. Transcription and RNAi in heterochromatic gene silencing. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 2007;14:1041–1048. [PubMed] 104. Grewal SI, Elgin SC. Transcription and RNA interference in the formation of heterochromatin. Nature. 2007;447:399–406. [PubMed] 105. Grummt I. Different epigenetic layers engage in complex crosstalk to define the epigenetic state of mammalian rRNA genes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2007;16:R21–R27. [PubMed] 106. Rea S, Akhtar A. MSL proteins and the regulation of gene expression. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2006;310:117–140. [PubMed] 107. Rieder CL. Ribonucleoprotein staining of centrioles and kinetochores in newt lung cell spindles. J. Cell Biol. 1979;80:1–9. [PubMed] 108. Bouzinba-Segard H, Guais A, Francastel C. Accumulation of small murine minor satellite transcripts leads to impaired centromeric architecture and function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:8709–8714. [PubMed] 109. May BP, Lippman ZB, Fang Y, Spector DL, Martienssen RA. Differential regulation of strand-specific transcripts from Arabidopsis centromeric satellite repeats. PLoS Genet. 2005;1:e79. [PubMed] 110. Neumann P, Yan H, Jiang J. The centromeric retrotransposons of rice are transcribed and differentially processed by RNA interference. Genetics. 2007;176:749–761. [PubMed] 111. Yan H, et al. Genomic and genetic characterization of rice Cen3 reveals extensive transcription and evolutionary implications of a complex centromere. Plant Cell. 2006;18:2123–2133. [PubMed] 112. Saffery R, et al. Transcription within a functional human centromere. Mol. Cell. 2003;12:509–516. [PubMed] 113. Topp CN, Zhong CX, Dawe RK. Centromere-encoded RNAs are integral components of the maize kinetochore. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:15986–15991. [PubMed] 114. Wong LH, et al. Centromere RNA is a key component for the assembly of nucleoproteins at the nucleolus and centromere. Genome Res. 2007;17:1146–1160. [PubMed] 115. Chen ES, et al. Cell cycle control of centromeric repeat transcription and heterochromatin assembly. Nature. 2008;451:734–737. [PubMed] 116. Williams SK, Tyler JK. Transcriptional regulation by chromatin disassembly and reassembly. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2007;17:88–93. [PubMed] 117. Reinberg D, Sims RJ. 3rd de FACTo nucleosome dynamics. J. Biol. Chem. 2006;281:23297–23301. [PubMed] 118. Walfridsson J, et al. The CHD remodeling factor Hrp1 stimulates CENP-A loading to centromeres. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:2868–2879. [PubMed] 119. Izuta H, et al. Comprehensive analysis of the ICEN (Interphase Centromere Complex) components enriched in the CENP-A chromatin of human cells. Genes Cells. 2006;11:673–684. [PubMed] 120. Aguilera A. mRNA processing and genomic instability. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 2005;12:737–738. [PubMed] 121. Zeitlin SG, Patel S, Kavli B, Slupphaug G. Xenopus CENP-A assembly into chromatin requires base excision repair proteins. DNA Repair (Amst.). 2005;4:760–772. [PubMed] 122. Maggert KA, Karpen GH. The activation of a neocentromere in Drosophila requires proximity to an endogenous centromere. Genetics. 2001;158:1615–1628. [PubMed] 123. Saffery R, et al. Human centromeres and neocentromeres show identical distribution patterns of >20 functionally important kinetochore-associated proteins. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2000;9:175–185. [PubMed] 124. Jenuwein T, Allis CD. Translating the histone code. Science. 2001;293:1074–1080. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Cancer Res. 2007 Nov 1; 67(21):10103-5.
[Cancer Res. 2007]Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Apr; 2(4):280-91.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2001]Biochem Soc Trans. 2006 Apr; 34(Pt 2):324-7.
[Biochem Soc Trans. 2006]Annu Rev Biochem. 2007; 76():563-91.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 2007]EMBO J. 2002 Oct 1; 21(19):5269-80.
[EMBO J. 2002]J Cell Sci. 1996 Sep; 109 ( Pt 9)():2199-206.
[J Cell Sci. 1996]Dev Cell. 2002 Mar; 2(3):319-30.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 14; 103(11):4186-91.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005 Apr; 15(2):177-84.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005]Trends Biochem Sci. 2006 Dec; 31(12):662-9.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2006]Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Aug; 2(8):584-96.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2001]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003 Apr; 13(2):191-8.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003]Trends Genet. 1997 Dec; 13(12):489-96.
[Trends Genet. 1997]Cell. 2007 Feb 23; 128(4):693-705.
[Cell. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 20; 102(51):18385-90.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Cell. 2005 Oct 21; 123(2):233-48.
[Cell. 2005]Cell. 2003 Mar 7; 112(5):725-36.
[Cell. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jan 9; 104(2):525-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Mol Cell. 2002 Jun; 9(6):1191-200.
[Mol Cell. 2002]Chromosoma. 1985; 92(4):290-6.
[Chromosoma. 1985]Cell. 1998 Sep 4; 94(5):607-13.
[Cell. 1998]Nature. 1999 Oct 7; 401(6753):547-8.
[Nature. 1999]Nat Cell Biol. 2001 Aug; 3(8):730-9.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 18; 97(2):716-21.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Annu Rev Biochem. 2007; 76():563-91.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 2007]Cell. 1998 Sep 4; 94(5):607-13.
[Cell. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 11; 104(37):14706-11.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Dev Cell. 2002 Mar; 2(3):319-30.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Chromosome Res. 2007; 15(1):77-84.
[Chromosome Res. 2007]Cell. 2007 Feb 23; 128(4):693-705.
[Cell. 2007]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004 Nov; 11(11):1076-83.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jan 9; 104(2):525-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]PLoS Genet. 2007 Jul; 3(7):e121.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Nat Genet. 2005 Aug; 37(8):809-19.
[Nat Genet. 2005]Dev Cell. 2002 Mar; 2(3):319-30.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Curr Biol. 2008 Jan 22; 18(2):81-90.
[Curr Biol. 2008]Curr Biol. 2007 Jul 17; 17(14):1190-200.
[Curr Biol. 2007]J Cell Biol. 1994 Nov; 127(3):581-92.
[J Cell Biol. 1994]Nature. 2004 Jul 29; 430(6999):578-82.
[Nature. 2004]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005 Apr; 15(2):177-84.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Dec; 12(6):711-8.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002]J Cell Biol. 1991 Jan; 112(2):191-201.
[J Cell Biol. 1991]Mol Biol Cell. 1992 Jul; 3(7):819-35.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1992]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 3; 103(40):14877-82.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20; 97(13):7266-71.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]Nature. 2004 Jul 29; 430(6999):578-82.
[Nature. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20; 104(12):5008-13.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]J Mol Biol. 2007 Jul 13; 370(3):555-73.
[J Mol Biol. 2007]Cell. 2007 Jun 15; 129(6):1153-64.
[Cell. 2007]PLoS Biol. 2007 Aug; 5(8):e218.
[PLoS Biol. 2007]J Mol Biol. 2007 Jul 13; 370(3):555-73.
[J Mol Biol. 2007]Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2008 Feb; 20(1):91-100.
[Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2008]Dev Cell. 2002 Mar; 2(3):319-30.
[Dev Cell. 2002]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20; 97(13):7266-71.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000]EMBO J. 2006 Jun 7; 25(11):2420-31.
[EMBO J. 2006]J Mol Biol. 1986 May 5; 189(1):189-204.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001 Apr; 11(2):136-41.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001]FEBS Lett. 2008 Jun 18; 582(14):1938-49.
[FEBS Lett. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Feb 1; 89(3):1055-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992]J Cell Biol. 2000 Nov 27; 151(5):1113-8.
[J Cell Biol. 2000]J Cell Biol. 2001 Aug 20; 154(4):683-90.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]Genes Dev. 2003 Feb 1; 17(3):330-5.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Curr Biol. 2004 Nov 9; 14(21):1962-7.
[Curr Biol. 2004]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]J Cell Biol. 2000 Nov 27; 151(5):1113-8.
[J Cell Biol. 2000]Mol Biol Cell. 2008 Feb; 19(2):682-90.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2008]PLoS Genet. 2007 Jul; 3(7):e121.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Mol Cell. 2003 Jan; 11(1):175-87.
[Mol Cell. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 2007; 35(10):3223-37.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2007]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003 Apr; 13(2):191-8.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Dec; 12(6):711-8.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002]Trends Cell Biol. 2006 Feb; 16(2):70-8.
[Trends Cell Biol. 2006]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]Nature. 2004 Jul 29; 430(6999):578-82.
[Nature. 2004]Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Nov; 22(21):7553-61.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2002]Cell. 2007 Jun 15; 129(6):1153-64.
[Cell. 2007]Mol Cell. 2007 Jun 22; 26(6):853-65.
[Mol Cell. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 19; 104(25):10571-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Mol Cell. 2003 Jan; 11(1):175-87.
[Mol Cell. 2003]Cell. 1997 Jul 11; 90(1):131-43.
[Cell. 1997]Cell. 2004 Sep 17; 118(6):715-29.
[Cell. 2004]Dev Cell. 2007 Jan; 12(1):17-30.
[Dev Cell. 2007]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):458-69.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2006 May; 8(5):446-57.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2006]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001 Apr; 11(2):136-41.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001]FEBS Lett. 2008 Jun 18; 582(14):1938-49.
[FEBS Lett. 2008]J Cell Biol. 2000 Nov 27; 151(5):1113-8.
[J Cell Biol. 2000]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]Mol Biol Cell. 2008 Feb; 19(2):682-90.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2008]Chromosome Res. 2004; 12(6):617-26.
[Chromosome Res. 2004]Dev Cell. 2001 Aug; 1(2):165-77.
[Dev Cell. 2001]Dev Cell. 2006 Mar; 10(3):303-15.
[Dev Cell. 2006]PLoS Genet. 2007 Oct; 3(10):1965-74.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Nat Genet. 1997 Apr; 15(4):345-55.
[Nat Genet. 1997]Nat Biotechnol. 1998 May; 16(5):431-9.
[Nat Biotechnol. 1998]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Jan; 86(2):577-81.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989]Nature. 1980 Oct 9; 287(5782):504-9.
[Nature. 1980]Cell. 2007 Dec 28; 131(7):1287-300.
[Cell. 2007]Dev Cell. 2008 Apr; 14(4):507-22.
[Dev Cell. 2008]Science. 2008 Jan 4; 319(5859):94-7.
[Science. 2008]Mol Cell. 2003 Jan; 11(1):175-87.
[Mol Cell. 2003]Science. 2008 Aug 22; 321(5892):1088-91.
[Science. 2008]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Nov 5; 14(11):1041-1048.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007]Nature. 2007 May 24; 447(7143):399-406.
[Nature. 2007]Hum Mol Genet. 2007 Apr 15; 16 Spec No 1():R21-7.
[Hum Mol Genet. 2007]Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006; 310():117-40.
[Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006]J Cell Biol. 1979 Jan; 80(1):1-9.
[J Cell Biol. 1979]FEBS Lett. 2008 Jun 18; 582(14):1938-49.
[FEBS Lett. 2008]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2007 Apr; 17(2):88-93.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2007]J Biol Chem. 2006 Aug 18; 281(33):23297-301.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004 Nov; 11(11):1076-83.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004]Nat Genet. 2005 Aug; 37(8):809-19.
[Nat Genet. 2005]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Nov 5; 14(11):1041-1048.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007]Nature. 2007 May 24; 447(7143):399-406.
[Nature. 2007]Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006; 310():117-40.
[Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005 Sep; 12(9):737-8.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005]DNA Repair (Amst). 2005 Jul 12; 4(7):760-72.
[DNA Repair (Amst). 2005]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Aug; 2(8):584-96.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2001]J Cell Biol. 2001 Aug 20; 154(4):683-90.
[J Cell Biol. 2001]Nat Genet. 1998 Jan; 18(1):30-7.
[Nat Genet. 1998]Genetics. 2001 Aug; 158(4):1615-28.
[Genetics. 2001]PLoS Genet. 2007 Jul; 3(7):e121.
[PLoS Genet. 2007]Mol Biol Cell. 2008 Feb; 19(2):682-90.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2008]Mol Cell. 2002 Jun; 9(6):1191-200.
[Mol Cell. 2002]Nat Genet. 2005 Oct; 37(10):1090-7.
[Nat Genet. 2005]Nat Rev Genet. 2008 Jan; 9(1):15-26.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2008]Science. 2001 Aug 10; 293(5532):1074-80.
[Science. 2001]Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004 Nov; 11(11):1076-83.
[Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Feb 1; 89(3):1055-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992]J Cell Biol. 2007 Mar 12; 176(6):795-805.
[J Cell Biol. 2007]PLoS Biol. 2007 Aug; 5(8):e218.
[PLoS Biol. 2007]Nature. 2004 Jul 29; 430(6999):578-82.
[Nature. 2004]