The community site for and by
developmental and stem cell biologists

BSDB Gurdon/The Company of Biologists 2019 Summer Studentship Report – Jake Cornwall Scoones

Posted by , on 29 January 2020

Established by the British Society for Developmental Biology in 2014, The Gurdon/The Company of Biologists Summer Studentship scheme provides financial support to allow highly motivated undergraduate students an opportunity to engage in practical research during their summer vacation. Each year, ten successful applicants spend eight weeks in the research laboratories of their choices, and the feedback we receive is outstanding. You can read accounts from previous years here. If you’re interested in applying or hosting a student in 2020, applications need to be in by the end of March.

Our tenth and final report from the class of 2019 comes from Jake Cornwall Scoones who studied developmental mechanics in the fly embryo in Bénédicte Sanson’s lab at Cambridge.

 

Developing force inference strategies to analyse tissue-wide stress in the Drosophila germband

Morphogenesis is an integral aspect of embryonic development, shaping collections of cells into functional tissues. Developmental mechanics aims to unravel how forces across spatial scales, from cytoskeletal processes, to junctional dynamics and inter-tissue interactions, facilitate emergent transformations in embryonic form. Analysing mechanics across scales requires a systems-level approach, where quantifying tissue-wide stress and material properties is essential. Current methods for directly measuring forces in vivo have major short-comings: methods (e.g. laser ablation) are invasive, perturbing the stress field and prohibiting extensive sampling. Non-invasive force inference approaches are useful alternatives, using segmented images of fluorescently-labelled cells to infer relative tension across each cell membrane and pressure in every cell. They do this by fitting tissue-wide tension and pressure nets to these data via the assumption of force-balance.

Focusing on Drosophila germ-band extension, a well-studied example of axis extension, I developed computational tools for non-invasive inference of stress distributions from microscopy data. These algorithms consider an epithelial sheet as a 2D curved-polygonal lattice, with edges demarcating cell membranes, and vertices defined where three cells meet (Fig. 1a). Using some simplifying physical assumptions, they use the geometries of edges at each vertex, as well as the curvatures at each edge, to infer relative pressures in every cell and relative tensions at every edge.

 

Figure 1

 

Despite the variation in computational implementation strategy, many existing force inference methods have a common underpinning logic. Specifically, they assume that the tensions at every vertex are balanced; in other words, that the system is in mechanical equilibrium (Fig. 1b). Thus given the angles that edges of a given vertex make with each other, as inferred from microscopy data, one can infer ratios of relative tensions (Fig. 1c). Further, they assume that tension is continuous across an edge, meaning relative tensions can be inferred tissue-wide (Fig. 1d). Cellular pressures can also be inferred. When edges are curved, it is assumed that the cell for which the edge is convex shows higher pressure. In fact, one can infer the pressure differential in terms of the inferred tension and the radius of curvature of that edge using the Young-Laplace law (Fig. 1e).

During my stay with the Sanson lab, I developed a pipeline in Python for force inference. The pipeline takes the many frames of segmented germband movies curated by the lab, uses one of several possible force inference strategies, and outputs the inferred tensions and pressures back to the lab’s wider computational workflow (Fig. 2). Given the wealth of data collected by the lab, these strategies now have immediate use in analysing global patterns of stress (indeed without the need for additional experiments), for example in characterising non-intuitive changes to stress distributions in key morphogenetic mutants (e.g. sidekick mutants, see Finegan et al 2019, PloS Biology, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522). Besides direct analyses of stress distributions, these inferences can now be used to parameterise physical models of the germband, across spatial scales. Beyond this, I have compared the various implementation strategies with regards to their concordance in predictions, and tested their relative capacities of dealing with noise in segmentation. I have also surveyed both the practical and conceptual challenges of these strategies with an intention of refining existing methodologies for faster and more accurate inference.

 

Figure 2

 

This project has allowed me to refine skills in programming, especially in visualisation, data processing and algorithm optimisation. I am now putting the algorithms together into a coherent and user-friendly package for use in the lab internally, but also, excitingly, to be released as an open-access resource. Further, working in Dr. Sanson’s lab also introduced me to key concepts in mechanics, situated in this biological context.

Given the highly interdisciplinary makeup of this project, supervised by Dr. Alex Nestor Bergmann (mathematician and physicist), Dr. Guy Blanchard (computational biologist), and Dr. Bénédicte Sanson (developmental biologist), I enjoyed how divergent perspectives and methodologies are brought together to solve this multi-scale problem. I endeavour to pursue similar interdisciplinary research in a PhD and beyond, carrying out both dry and wet components.

I would like to thank Dr. Alex Nestor Bergmann and Dr. Guy Blanchard for their fantastic supervision and the Sanson lab as a whole for their support and their fascinating and diverse lab meetings. I finally want to thank the BSDB for providing me the opportunity to carry out this research, and urge other undergraduates to apply to the Gurdon Studentship.

 

 

Thumbs up (1 votes)
Loading...

Tags: , ,
Categories: Funding, Research

Navigate the archive

Use our Advanced Search tool to search and filter posts by date, category, tags and authors.

PhD Position in Receptor-kinase-mediated Cell Wall Integrity Signaling

Posted by , on 29 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

A Ph.D. position in molecular plant cell biology is available in the lab of Prof. Kay Schneitz, Dept. of Plant Developmental Biology, Technical University of Munich in Freising/Germany.

Plant cells are encapsulated by a semi-rigid and biochemically complex cell wall. Cell wall remodeling is central to cell growth as well as the response to biotic or abiotic stresses. The molecular mechanism monitoring cell wall integrity in plants is poorly understood. Recent data from our lab revealed that signaling mediated by the Arabidopsis receptor kinase STRUBBELIG (SUB), previously known for its function in controlling morphogenesis, plays a central role in this process (1-5). The successful candidate will investigate how SUB signaling controls the response to cell wall damage. Preferred starting date is spring/early summer 2020 but is negotiable. The lab is part of the Collaborative Research Centre SFB924 (sfb924.wzw.tum.de) and thus funding is at the usual TV-L E13/2 level. Requirements are e.g. a German masters (with a mark of 2.5 or better), a French DEA (a final average of 13 or more), or a masters thesis.

We are looking for a highly motivated scientist well-trained in molecular and cell biology with a strong interest in interdisciplinary work at the interface of plant cell and developmental biology and the response to stress. The person should have excellent problem-solving skills and be able to work independently. Fluency in English is a must. Freising is located about 35 km to the north of Munich. Munich is a lively, cosmopolitan city close to beautiful lakes and the Alps. For further information please contact Kay Schneitz (kay.schneitz@tum.de) and visit the webpage (plantdev.wzw.tum.de).

(1) Chevalier et.al. 2005 PNAS 103: 9074-9079.
(2) Vaddepalli et.al. 2014 Development 141: 4139-4148
(3) Vaddepalli et.al. 2017 Development 144: 2259-2269
(4) Gao et.al. 2019 J Exp Bot 70:3881-3894
(5) Chaudhary et.al. 2020 PLoS Genetics 16: e1008433

Please submit your application as a single PDF file by email to office.plantdev@wzw.tum.de. TUM is an equal opportunity employer. Applicants with disabilities are treated with preference given comparable qualifications. Position is open until filled.

For further information please contact:
Prof. Dr. Kay Schneitz
Plant Developmental Biology, School of Life Sciences, TUM, D-85354 Freising
Email: kay.schneitz@tum.de
URL: http://plantdev.wzw.tum.de

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

The people behind the papers – Roman Szabo and Thomas Bugge

Posted by , on 29 January 2020

This interview, the 74th in our series, was recently published in Development


Dysregulated activity of cell surface proteolytic enzymes has a wide range of developmental and pathological consequences, but the underlying mechanisms are often poorly understood. A new Development paper uses mice to model a severe inherited form of enteropathy and the role of the serine protease matriptase in the disease’s progression. We caught up with first author Roman Szabo and his supervisor Thomas Bugge, Senior Investigator at the NIH National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research in Bethesda, Maryland, to find out more about the story.

 

Thomas (L) and Roman (R)

 

Thomas, can you give us your scientific biography and the questions your lab is trying to answer?

TB I did my PhD research at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg working on nuclear receptors, and my postdoc at the University of Cincinnati studying fibrinolytic enzymes. I have been a Senior Investigator at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the National Institutes of Health, since 1999. Our laboratory studies how extracellular/pericellular proteases – a group of enzymes several hundred strong – signal to enable vertebrate embryonic development and maintain postnatal tissue homeostasis. We also study how these enzymes, when misregulated, cause human disease. This is a distinctly understudied area, and a fun research space to be in.

 

Roman, how did you come to work with Thomas, and what drives your research today?

RS As a graduate student I worked with yeasts and how they regulate their cell morphology based on environmental conditions. As the particular species of yeast I was working with typically thrives in a lipid- and protein-rich environment, its behaviour is in part regulated by a battery of proteolytic enzymes that it secretes into the medium in order to digest the proteins to use them as a source of nutrients. After defending my PhD, I was looking for a lab that would allow me to use at least some of that knowledge in experimental systems more related to human physiology. Attracted by both the reputation of the NIH as a leading research institution and Thomas’ impressive prior work in the field of extracellular proteolysis using genetically modified mouse models, I contacted him and it turned out he was just looking for a new postdoc. As I had never worked with mice before, it was probably a bit of a risk, on both our parts, but it was actually quite interesting, and in the end it seemed to have worked out well. And I was lucky that the lab had just started to work on a previously unknown family of proteolytic enzymes that turned out to be quite important for mammalian development and physiology. Learning about different ways in which these enzymes contribute to regulation of various biological processes has been really exciting and, I expect, will keep us busy for the foreseeable future.

 

How much do we understand about the role of cell-surface proteolytic enzymes in development?

RS & TB Still far too little. These are not the easiest enzymes to work with, at least biochemically. Insights into their developmental functions have been obtained predominantly through the use of reverse genetics in mice and fish, or through the clinical phenotyping of humans and animals with autosomal recessive mutations in their corresponding genes. These efforts have been successful in teasing out a diverse array of functions for individual cell-surface proteolytic enzymes, ranging from sperm maturation to placental development, formation of the feto-maternal interface, auditory system development, tight junction formation, epidermal barrier acquisition, hair growth and skin pigmentation. However, why cell-surface proteolytic enzymes are crucial for so many developmental processes is in large part waiting to be discovered.

 

And how did you come to work specifically on HAI-2 and matriptase?

RS & TB We came to work with matriptase quite accidentally while performing a screen for novel proteases putatively involved in skin wound healing. As it turned out, one of matriptase’s many developmental functions proved to be skin formation. Alas, we never got round to testing the function of matriptase in skin wound healing, but we have stayed with this fascinating and frustrating enzyme ever since. HAI-2 is structurally quite similar to the well-established matriptase inhibitor HAI-1, so it was an obvious candidate for a second matriptase inhibitor, and, indeed, turned out to be so.

 

Can you give us the key results of the paper in a paragraph?

RS & TB We provide evidence that intestinal failure in the syndromic form of the human disease congenital tufting enteropathy (CTE), which is caused by loss of HAI-2, may be due to matriptase hyperactivity. Specifically, we show that conditional ablation of matriptase from the mouse intestine prevents key features of the disease from developing. These include villous atrophy, luminal bleeding, loss of mucin-producing goblet cells, loss of defined crypt architecture and intestinal inflammation. The loss of the cell-cell junction proteins EpCAM and claudin 7 – a hallmark of CTE – was also prevented by the elimination of matriptase from the intestine. Consequently, the mice were able to gain weight and showed extended life-span. The study thus uncovers a potential therapeutic target for this devastating disease.

 

What do you think HAI-2 is doing, independently of matriptase, in later intestinal development?

RS & TB That is a very good question. HAI-2 is a serine protease inhibitor, so it is only natural to assume that it may need to regulate another serine protease expressed later in intestinal development. Unfortunately, HAI-2 is quite promiscuous, at least in the test tube, where it can inhibit a large number of serine proteases. So it may take a while to track down the culprit.

 

Staining for CD45-positive immune cells (brown) recruited to the site of matriptase-driven intestinal tissue damage.

 

How might matriptase be targeted therapeutically for CTE?

RS & TB Small molecule active-site inhibitors with selectivity for matriptase would be an obvious choice. Especially inhibitors with poor intestinal absorption that are less likely to affect important functions of matriptase in other parts of the body.

 

When doing the research, did you have any particular result or eureka moment that has stuck with you?

RS In our research, we rely heavily on designing new genetically modified mouse strains. It can take many months, even years, just to generate animals with the desired gene combination. So after all that work, it is always very exciting for me to see a new phenotype, to be the first person who knows that a certain gene does something really important. In this particular project, it was generating the first HAI-2-deficient mouse, in which elimination of matriptase dramatically increased life-span, and then when the analysis of the tissues from these mice showed that we have indeed prevented the intestinal damage caused by loss of the inhibitor.

 

It is always very exciting for me to see a new phenotype, to be the first person who knows that a certain gene does something really important

 

And what about the flipside: any moments of frustration or despair?

RS Not that much on this project, which turned out to be very straightforward. But we did have our share of frustration in the past. Before the invention of new gene targeting technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas, generation of genetically modified mice relied on introducing desired mutations into mouse embryonic stem cells, a process that was inherently ineffective, while at the same time slow and labour intensive. We once spent close to 2 years trying to generate one specific mouse strain, using every tool available to us at the time, before finally having to admit defeat. Similarly, we still lack tools to properly analyse many of the molecules we work with, including matriptase and HAI-2, in living tissues. It can be quite frustrating to have a promising hypothesis and not being able to find a way of testing it.

 

So what next for you after this paper?

RS Now that we have shown a connection between matriptase activity and intestinal failure in our mice, we would like to understand exactly how matriptase is causing all that damage. There is some evidence that it may do so by cleaving an important structural protein called EpCAM that is frequently lost in patients with CTE. We have already initiated experiments that would help us test whether that is indeed the case. In addition, the function of matriptase and HAI-2 in development is not limited to intestines, and we would like to develop new tools that would help us better analyse both physiological and pathological roles of these two important proteins. And besides my own projects I also have the privilege of organising the next meeting focusing on proteolytic enzymes, the class of proteins matriptase belongs to, which traditionally brings together leading scientists from all over the world to discuss latest advances in the field. It should be an exciting experience.

 

Where will this work take the Bugge lab?

TB Hopefully one small step further towards understanding the good and the bad side of an enigmatic enzyme, matriptase.

 

Finally, let’s move outside the lab – what do you like to do in your spare time in Bethesda?

TB Spend time with my wife and enjoy the beautiful nature we are surrounded by.

RS I am a very outdoorsy person so whenever time and weather permit, I like to go hiking, bird watching, wildlife photographing or fossil hunting. Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities for all that here in the state of Maryland, from the Appalachian mountains to the Atlantic coastline. After a week of work at the bench and behind a computer, it is great to unwind and spend some time with my family going to a park or a beach. My daughter enjoys everything from nature to history and arts, so having a unique collection of national museums in nearby Washington, D.C., also helps.

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Interview

5 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Ph.D Fellowships in Cell, Developmental and Cancer Biology

Posted by , on 28 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

NEUcrest is a four-year project, funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 Programme. The neural crest is an essential stem cell population of the vertebrate embryos. The project focuses on integrating academic, clinical and industrial research for a better understanding of neural crest development and neural crest related diseases. The NEUcrest network comprises 20 partners in academia, industry and hospitals from seven European countries.

Projects are available in the following labs and companies.

Applicants are encouraged to apply to more than one project if they are interested. Please note some different deadlines apply:

ESR 5, ESR 6 supervised by Grant Wheeler (University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

ESR 5: Modelling Neurocristopathies in Xenopus, mechanisms and drug screening

ESR 6: miRNA regulation of neural crest development

 

ESR 7, ESR 8 supervised by Gerhard Schlosser (University of Galway, Ireland)

ESR 7: Neural crest specification: elucidating the early origin of neural crest hypoplasia

ESR 8: Role of Sox9/Sox10 in syndromic neurocristopathies

 

ESR 13 supervised by Carmit Levy (Tel Aviv University, Israel)

ESR13: Tissue environment and melanocyte differentiation: role of the adipocytes

Training for transverse skills in outreach and industrial managements are deeply embedded in the programme. The NEUcrest ITN and PhD project is due to start in January 2020. Studentships can start anytime from 1 January to 1 April 2020. Candidate Specification: First degree or Masters in Biological Sciences, Cell Biology, Genetics and Molecular Biology. Mobility requirement: EU applicants are eligible to apply to all positions, non-EU applicants are eligible to a subset of the positions. Applicants must not have been based in the country of desired Ph.D. position for more than 12 months in the last 3 years prior to recruitment.

NEUcrest Partners_____________________________________________________________________

Please note that in order to demonstrate fair equal recruitment and to provide statistical data on the recruitment for MSCA program NEUcrest management team may retain the following personal data of all applicants: full name, gender, nationality, copy of the CV.

The data will be preserved in the internal repository of Institut Curie till maximum up to 5 years after the termination of the NEUcrest grant. The security of the data is provided and guaranteed by the centre for information processing of Institut Curie.

By applying for the advertised positions the applicant automatically gives the authorization to store his/her personal data. The NEUcrest consortium will not share personal data with third parties outside the consortium; however, data may be transmitted to bodies responsible for monitoring, inspection or regulatory tasks under EU law, e.g. the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) or the teams performing administrative investigations.

The applicant may refuse, without having to give any explanations, the preservation of the data. In this case he/she needs to inform about it the management team of NEUcrest consortium upon submitting the application or sending a request at daria.barsuk@curie.fr or neucrest@gmail.com.

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

A Symposium to Honor Dr. Drew Noden’s Contribution to Science

Posted by , on 27 January 2020

50 Years of Head Developmental Research – A Symposium to Honor Dr. Drew Noden’s Contribution to Science

WHERE? NYU College of Dentistry (345 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10010)
WHEN? May 18, 2020; 8.30am – 5pm
Registration: FREE; contact Rui.Diogo@howard.edu

Organizers: Rui Diogo;Jean-Pierre N Saint-Jeannet; Richard A Schneider;Janine M. Ziermann

 

Thumbs up (1 votes)
Loading...

Categories: News

Postdoc position to study bacteria-neuron interactions in Drosophila – Royet team, IBDM, Marseille, France

Posted by , on 27 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

A postdoctoral position is opened in the laboratory of Dr. Julien Royet, at Aix- Marseille University, France. The lab is part of the IBDM Institute, providing a highly rich and international scientific environment, and is integrated into the Centuri excellence network.

Our team is interested in understanding the mechanisms by which bacteria are interacting with the nervous system of their eukaryotic host and how this interaction affects their behavior. We have recently shown that some neurons of the Drosophila central nervous system are expressing proteins that sense some bacteria metabolites. Using genetics and imaging techniques we have demonstrated that the direct sensing of gut-bacteria derived metabolites can directly impact the activity of theses neurons and, as a consequence, of that of their host (Kurz et al, eLife, 2017; Charroux et al, Cell Host and Microbes, 2018, Masuzzo et al, eLife, 2019). The postdoctoral project will aim at further dissecting the molecular and functional picture of these bacteria-neuron interactions.

Applicants must have completed a PhD thesis in the neurobiology field using the Drosophila model. They should be highly motivated, with good interpersonal and communication skills. Fluency in English is mandatory but ability to speak French is not required. Projects are funded by a grant from the FRM (Equipe FRM) for 2 years. Salary will depend on previous experience.

Applications should contain a CV, a letter of motivation with a description of research accomplishments and the contact information of two references to Julien.royet@univ-amu.fr.

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Post-doctoral positions in the Bray lab: Notch regulatory dynamics.

Posted by , on 27 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

The Bray lab has an opening for two Research Associates. Our collaborative, multidisciplinary team is investigating Notch regulatory networks in development and their relevance to disease.  One project will focus on epigenetic mechanisms that remodel enhancers during cell fate transitions to programme the correct response to signalling (for example to maintain stem cells or promote differentiation depending on the context) and that enable enhancers to select the correct promoter.   The other project will investigate how Notch signals are decoded in real time in vivo and will involve live-imaging of transcription and of nuclear complexes, including single molecule tracking of transcription factors in living tissues.  The projects build on exciting assays we have recently developed (Falo Sanjuan et al., 2019, Dev Cell 50:411-425.e8; Gomez-Lamarca et al., 2018, Dev Cell 44:611-623.e7) and will involve generating new tools, including optogenetics, through genome editing and other approaches.

We are looking to recruit highly motivated scientists with strong investigative skills.  You should have a PhD (or soon to be awarded your PhD) and experience in one or more of the following, molecular biology, epigenetics, developmental biology, cell biology, Drosophila genetics. Experience of genome-wide transcriptional analysis would be an advantage for one position and of advanced imaging and image analysis for the other.

For more information and link to the on line application: http://www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/24821/

Further information about our research can be found at: http://www.pdn.cam.ac.uk/staff/bray_s/index.shtml.  For informal enquiries, please email Prof Bray at: sjb32@cam.ac.uk.

 

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Postdoc at the University of Vienna: evolution of animal body axes

Posted by , on 24 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

A 2-year postdoctoral position in developmental biology is available in the group of Grigory Genikhovich at the Department of Neurosciences and Developmental Biology of the University of Vienna. The successful candidate will work on an Austrian Science Foundation-supported project “BMP shuttling and the evolution of animal bilaterality” performed in collaboration with the group of Prof. Dr. Siegfried Roth at the University of Cologne. The work will involve comparing the shuttling capacity of a range of cnidarian and bilaterian chordin proteins using Drosophila S2 cell line as well as Drosophila embryos as test models. The goal is to evaluate the role of Chordin-dependent shuttling of BMP ligands in the evolution of bilateral body symmetry in animals.

The successful candidate must hold a PhD in biology or a related field and be first or co-first author on at least two peer-reviewed publications. The position requires experience in Drosophila genetics and knowledge of the standard molecular biology techniques, as well as excellent oral and written English skills. The postdoc is expected to perform part of the project in the Roth lab at the University of Cologne.

 

How to apply:

Please send a single pdf file containing a cover letter, CV and contact information of three referees to grigory.genikhovich@univie.ac.at before 20.02.2002

 

For further information, contact:

grigory.genikhovich@univie.ac.at

twitter: @genikhovich

Thumbs up (1 votes)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Off and On: it’s more complicated than we thought.

Posted by , on 23 January 2020

We learn fairly early on when becoming biologists that both development and an organism’s response to environmental stressors require turning the right set of genes on in the right cells, at the right time. Clearly, for “on” to be meaningful, other genes have to be “off,” and many disordered conditions are associated with misexpression of genes, from the classic Antennapedia fly to oncogenes in cancer. It’s natural to think of “off” as the default state, but we know it’s more complicated than that. For one thing, transcription factors, the proteins that orchestrate the transcriptional program in a given cell state, are highly pleiotropic. Pax6 in vertebrates is expressed in the developing eye and pancreas, and is necessary for specific gene expression in both contexts, and yet digestive enzymes are not secreted into the lens. There is another layer of regulation that can turn genes off, specifically, in cellular contexts where they are not supposed to be expressed.

 

In the decades that we (as a community) have been studying gene regulation, we have identified and dissected sequences that act as enhancers, turning on nearby genes in some element of their correct expression pattern, and others that act as silencers, turning them off. There have even been a handful identified, in eukaryotes as distantly related as plants and people, that have both activities, in different contexts. Enhancer studies are a pretty mature field: reporter assays, in which a piece of DNA is cloned near an exogenous gene under the control of a minimal promoter and any resulting expression examined in vivo, have been a workhorse of the field for decades. In Drosophila, my own model organism of choice, a single overnight collection of embryos from such a reporter strain can reveal the entire spatiotemporal pattern of activity of an enhancer across all stages of embryogenesis. This method has enabled the characterization of many thousands of Drosphila enhancers, and been extended to create Massively Parallel Reporter Assays (MPRAs), in which enhancer activity can be quantitatively measured up to genome-wide, at the expense of pattern information. Moreover, the combination of this wealth of enhancer information with the introduction of chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-based methods for assaying genomic occupancy of histone marks and regulatory proteins has enabled us to predict enhancers with reasonable accuracy, when a sufficiently large sample of the relevant cell type is available for ChIP experiments.

 

By contrast, the study of silencers has lagged. I believe that this is in large part just because it’s more technically challenging. The whole-embryo enhancer-reporter assay, for all that it can be fiddly and time-consuming, is in principle quite simple: put the DNA into flies, see where the reporter gene is expressed. If you want to see silencing, you have to test the candidate silencer in the context of an element that would otherwise drive expression. There are for instance beautiful classic studies1 in the fly embryo that used a silencer that acts in a stripe and an enhancer that acts in an orthogonal stripe, but this requires having some idea about the activity pattern of the silencer before you start making your flies. Or, as in MPRAs for enhancers, you can look at an enhancer that acts in a single cell type, and then look genome-wide. But there is a problem: other promoters in your reporter construct can compete for the attention of an enhancer and reduce its activity on the reporter promoter. While interesting, this phenomenon is not silencing per se, and it creates artifacts in a silencer-reporter assay that can swamp your genuine signal, as we rediscovered to our chagrin. For all these reasons, silencers represent a relatively juicy target for discovery and characterization.

 

My PI, Martha Bulyk, likes to think of our research program as a virtuous cycle, where biological questions motivate technology development and new technologies open up new questions. So when we published a paper describing a moderately parallel reporter assay for in vivo use in defined cell populations derived from developing embryos2, and coincidentally found a VERY strong, nearly ubiquitous enhancer, she realized that we could adapt this to look for silencers. Our method is based on fluorescence-activated cell sorting with a GFP reporter, and this enhancer is strong enough that cells that got the transgene are completely separate from those that didn’t. Thus we can sort the cells that fall in between these two populations, and these are the ones in which GFP expression is active but silenced. Sorting on a separate marker gives us cell-type specificity; PCR recovery of the inserts and high-throughput sequencing are the readout. (see Figure)

 

The throughput of this method is limited by the fly-transformation step to hundreds of sequences tested in parallel, so it’s not suitable for a genome-wide experiment. We had a few specific hypotheses about potential silencers and questions we wanted to test. One of the most reliable sources of enhancer predictions for in vivo testing has been ChIP for the coactivator proteins that transcription factors work by recruiting, particularly the p300/CBP histone acetyltransferases. So we thought the best possible source of silencers would be ChIP data for corepressors, and some of these datasets were already available in the fly embryo. I was particularly interested in comparing binding sites for the Groucho and CtBP corepressors, because they had canonically been (tentatively) associated with long-range and short-range repression, respectively. Short-range repressors had been characterized as acting within an enhancer to limit its activity, and careful studies of designed mutations of individual elements (such as 3) had shown that even moving a short-range repressor’s binding site from 50 bases away to 150 bases away from an enhancer would eliminate its activity. Since our cloning strategy pads all tested elements and then adds an additional 100 bases between them, we thought that short-range repressors would not be active in our assay. Long-range repressors, by contrast, act on distant promoters, even when far away from otherwise active enhancers. For these reasons, we hypothesized that Groucho-occupied sites would be a much richer source of silencers than CtBP-occupied sites.

 

Another good source of enhancer predictions has been ChIP for the modified histones that define an “enhancer chromatin state,” first observed as enrichment in the wealth of known enhancers and then confirmed by testing of additional elements so predicted. But there is no similarly defined “silencer state” yet known. There are histone marks (H3K9me3 and H3K27me3 in particular) that are associated with inactive chromatin, but conceptually this can represent the end product of silencer activity, i.e. its target, and not necessarily the region that contains the regulatory information for silencing. We hypothesized that where marks of active regulatory regions (like H3K4me1 or DNase accessibility) coincided with repressive marks, this might be another source of candidate silencers, so we tested some of these regions mined from published genome-wide data.

 

Finally, several of the silencers that have been studied and reported previously were sequence elements that could silence in one cell type but were enhancers in another. I myself was most interested in the question of how widespread a phenomenon this would prove to be: how often is a silencer also an enhancer, and conversely how often is an enhancer also a silencer? Since we were looking for silencer activity in the embryonic mesoderm, we could use the tremendous genetic resources available in flies—in this case, the REDfly database of published enhancers and the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project database of gene expression patterns—to identify hundreds of enhancers for genes that are not expressed in the mesoderm.

 

As I foreshadowed a few paragraphs ago, we neglected to account for promoter competition when designing our library. Like any decent experimentalists, we included controls, and some of our negative controls were enhancers that drive widespread mesodermal expression, since we reasoned that they cannot also be mesodermal silencers at the same time. Yet some of these scored positive in our assay, and these turned out to overlap promoters. In fact, promoter overlap was the most enriched feature in our first set of positives. Promoter competition undoubtedly has a role in establishing the regulatory logic of the genome, but it’s not the same as the silencing activity we were looking for, and the ability of these elements to inhibit reporter gene expression in an integrated plasmid does not reflect their ability to silence their endogenous target genes. In subsequent experiments, we simply excluded promoters from our library of tested elements.

 

At last we could address the questions we designed our libraries to ask4, and (unusually, in my experience) the main answer was pretty clear: silencers are enhancers. Like, pretty much all of them. The only class of input sequences enriched for mesodermal silencers was non-mesodermal enhancers. A few were also enhancers active in just a small subset of the mesoderm, and thus presumably silencers in one or more other mesodermal cell types. Very few of the corepressor binding sites scored positive in our assay—just three CtBP peaks and only one Groucho peak, which certainly doesn’t support the short range / long range distinction we had expected to see—and three of those four elements were embryonic enhancers when we tested them for that activity. You can’t prove a negative this way, of course. We did not, after all, test all the DNA. But we went looking for a class of silencers that are not also enhancers and, with one possible exception, we didn’t find them. What’s more, over 10% of all the enhancers we tested were also silencers. Now, I want to emphasize again that this bifunctionality was a known phenomenon. We did not discover this. But I wanted to find out how common a phenomenon it is, and with a sample size of 200 enhancers tested, the answer was: pretty common!

 

Another thing we did not find—and believe me, we looked—was some kind of “silencer state” defined by a combination of chromatin marks that would predict silencer activity. When we scored all the tested elements for occupancy in a range of published histone modification ChIP signal and clustered on these scores, we did see enrichment of silencers in clusters with higher levels of the canonical repressive marks. But membership in these clusters was neither sensitive (lots of silencers fell outside them) nor specific (lots of elements clustered with silencers that showed no evidence of silencer activity, even when tested individually). Groucho enrichment at silencers is modest and not statistically significant. CtBP is depleted at silencers, though again not significantly. Histone deacetylases are modestly depleted, too. We are not ready to start predicting silencers genome-wide. One caveat there is that there are antibodies commercially available (that claim to be ChIP-grade) for about 60 more chromatin marks than we had access to ChIP data for. There could still be a silencer state; we just didn’t find it.

 

One thing we did see enriched at mesodermal silencers is the transcription factor Snail. By one view this is unsurprising: Snail is the well-studied master repressor of non-mesodermal gene expression in the mesoderm. But it’s also one of the best-studied examples of a short-range repressor. We validated its involvement by mutating Snail binding sites in a few silencers and showing it reduced their activity, at a much longer distance (over 400 bp) than previously associated with short-range repression. We also generated Hi-C data from embryonic cells and saw that silencers that Snail does not bind to are enriched for contacts to promoters. (The Snail-bound silencers are depleted in promoter contacts, but not significantly.) So perhaps we see tentative support for a distinction between short-range and long-range repressor activity, but (as is so often the case in biology) it’s more complicated than we thought.

 

As biologists, we’ve had a lot of luck with taxonomy over the years, so it makes sense that genomics would start with an attempt to classify the different kinds of sequences in a genome. But we are finding that the distinctions we draw in our minds are a lot sharper than the ones we observe in nature. While we were working on this project, another paper came out5 (and damn near gave me a heart attack) with a title that mentions “Dual functionality of cis-regulatory elements.” This work showed that many enhancers are also Polycomb response elements. Throw in other data blurring the function of insulators with enhancers, and I feel like a picture is emerging where we have to think very carefully about “cis-regulatory elements” with various overlapping subsets of a spectrum of possible regulatory activities.

 

REFERENCES:

 

  1. Jiang, J. et al. Conversion of a dorsal-dependent silencer into an enhancer: evidence for dorsal corepressors. EMBO J. 12, 3201-3209 (1993).
  2. Gisselbrecht, S. et al. Highly parallel assays of tissue-specific enhancers in whole Drosophila embryos. Nat. Methods 10, 774-780 (2013).
  3. Gray, S. et al. Short-range repression permits multiple enhancers to function autonomously within a complex promoter. Genes & Dev. 8, 1829-1838 (1994).
  4. Gisselbrecht, S. et al. Transcriptional silencers in Drosophila serve a dual role as transcriptional enhancers in alternate cellular contexts. Mol. Cell 77, 324-337 (2020).
  5. Erceg, J. et al. Dual functionality of cis-regulatory elements as developmental enhancers and Polycomb response elements. Genes & Dev. 31, 1-13 (2017).
Thumbs up (4 votes)
Loading...

Tags: , , , ,
Categories: Highlights, Research

Regeneration Next (@Duke University) Postdoctoral Fellowship

Posted by , on 23 January 2020

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

2020 Regeneration Next Postdoctoral Fellowships

RNI is pleased to announce availability of funding to support up to four fellowships to help recruit and fund new (or recently hired) postdoctoral researchers at Duke. To this end, we invite letters of intent from faculty members who are recruiting or have very recently hired a new postdoctoral trainees, and who proposes research in the broad field of tissue regeneration. Letters of intent do not need to be formal.

Important Dates:

  • March 15, 2020 – Letters of Intent expected to regeneration@duke.edu from PI
  • March 31, 2020 – Full applications due from trainee
  • July 1, 2020 – Funding begins

Our goal is to grow the community of postdoctoral trainees who will make significant short-term and long-term contributions to research in the broad field of tissue regeneration. RNI Fellows will receive support for two years and participate as a cohort in mentored laboratory research, the annual Community Retreat, seminar series, and career development activities.

This fellowship provides two-year total funds of up to $115,000toward the trainee’s salary and benefits, with an anticipated start date of July 1, 2020. No other expenses will be supported.

Eligibility requirements:

  • RNI Fellows should hold at minimum the Ph.D. or M.D. (or equivalent degree) at the time of appointment (July 1, 2020). This fellowship is not intended for those of faculty rank. This fellowship is intended for those considered Postdoctoral Fellows by NIH standards throughout the term of the funding.  Therefore, preference will be given to applicants in their first postdoctoral experience after obtaining their doctoral degree.
  • Applicants who have committed to perform research in a Duke lab but have not started at Duke, or those who started their postdoctoral training at Duke on July 1, 2019 or later, are eligible for this award.
  • The level of funding available to the proposed mentor will be considered in award decisions, in particular regarding laboratories with very high levels of external funding
  • RNI Fellows can be mentored by Duke faculty in any department, provided there is a broadly defined regenerative biology or medicine component to the Fellow’s research proposal.
  • RNI Fellows need not be US citizens or permanent residents.
  • RNI Fellows may not simultaneously hold any other fellowship that covers salary and benefits.

The trainee (or prospective trainee committed to a Duke lab) should submit a research proposal and application upon acceptance of a postdoctoral position at Duke, no later than March 31, 2020. We encourage Duke PI’s to inform postdoctoral candidates of this potential RNI funding opportunity during recruitment.

 Required application materials and instructions are below. Questions about this announcement may be directed to RNI Programs Director, Amy Dickson (regeneration@duke.edu).

REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR THE RNI POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP

To be submitted by the postdoctoral trainee (or prospective trainee committed to a lab at Duke)

Regeneration Next invites creative, risk-taking proposals that will significantly advance the broad field of regenerative biology and/or regenerative medicine. To that end, the submitted research plan should clearly describe the relevance or possible relevance to regenerative biology, the gap in knowledge addressed by the proposed research, and how the expected outcomes may significantly impact the field. Well-articulated, “out-of-the-box” proposals for advancing regenerative biology are welcomed. The RNI Fellows will join and help to grow a dynamic, creative regenerative biology and medicine community at Duke.

To be considered for an RNI fellowship, please submit the information in sections A-D as a single PDF file by email to regeneration@duke.edu. In the Subject, please write RNI Fellows application – your name. The deadline for the receipt of applications for this callout is March 31, 2020.  Funding will begin July 1, 2020.

Required materials for the RNI Fellowship application:

  1. Cover Page – include name of applicant, name of PI, and title of proposal.
  2. A three-page proposal, which should include
    1. A brief description of the applicant’s research accomplishments,
    2. A description of research plans at Duke as mentioned above,
    3. A paragraph describing the applicant’s career goals.

Figures and references are included in the three-page limit. To ensure readability we recommend font size of Arial 11 point, and margins no less than 0.5 inch.

  1. Current standard NIH Biosketch of the applicant.
  2. Current standard NIH Biosketch of your Duke mentor.
  3. Three letters of recommendation to be emailed directly to the Committee at regeneration@duke.edu. In the Subject line, please include “RNI Fellows LOR – Applicant name”. One of the three letters should be from your Duke mentor.

Questions about the callout or application process may be directed to RNI Programs Director, Amy Dickson (regeneration@duke.edu).

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs