The effect of trisomic chromosomes on spatial genome organization and global transcription in embryonic stem cells

Abstract

Aneuploidy frequently occurs in cancer and developmental diseases such as Down syndrome, with its functional consequences implicated in dosage effects on gene expression and global perturbation of stress response and cell proliferation pathways. However, how aneuploidy affects spatial genome organization remains less understood. In this study, we addressed this question by utilizing the previously established isogenic wild-type (WT) and trisomic mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). We employed a combination of Hi-C, RNA-seq, chromosome painting and nascent RNA imaging technologies to compare the spatial genome structures and gene transcription among these cells. We found that trisomy has little effect on spatial genome organization at the level of A/B compartment or topologically associating domain (TAD). Inter-chromosomal interactions are associated with chromosome regions with high gene density, active histone modifications and high transcription levels, which are confirmed by imaging. Imaging also revealed contracted chromosome volume and weakened transcriptional activity for trisomic chromosomes, suggesting potential implications for the transcriptional output of these chromosomes. Our data resources and findings may contribute to a better understanding of the consequences of aneuploidy from the angle of spatial genome organization.

References

[1] ComaiL. The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:836-846.

[2] GordonDJ, ResioB, PellmanD. Causes and consequences of aneuploidy in cancer. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:189-203.

[3] HusseinSM, BatadaNN, VuoristoS, et al. Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature. 2011;471:58-62.

[4] BakerDE, Harrison NJ, MaltbyE, et al. Adaptation to culture of human embryonic stem cells and oncogenesis in vivo. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:207-215.

[5] TaylorAM, ShihJ, HaG, et al. Genomic and functional approaches to understanding cancer aneuploidy. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:676-689.e3. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.007

[6] LiuB, Filippi S, RoyA, RobertsI. Stem and progenitor cell dysfunction in human trisomies. EMBO Rep. 2015;16:44-62.

[7] SheltzerJM, TorresEM, DunhamMJ, Amon A. Transcriptional consequences of aneuploidy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:12644-12649.

[8] VeitiaRA, Bottani S, BirchlerJA. Gene dosage effects: nonlinearities, genetic interactions, and dosage compensation. Trends Genet. 2013;29:385-393.

[9] VasudevanA, Schukken KM, SausvilleEL, GirishV, Adebambo OA, SheltzerJM. Aneuploidy as a promoter and suppressor of malignant growth. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021;21:89-103.

[10] LiR, ZhuJ. Effects of aneuploidy on cell behaviour and function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2022;23:250-265.

[11] VavouriT, SempleJI, Garcia-VerdugoR, LehnerB. Intrinsic protein disorder and interaction promiscuity are widely associated with dosage sensitivity. Cell. 2009;138:198-208.

[12] KirkIK, Weinhold N, BellingK, et al. Chromosome-wise protein interaction patterns and their impact on functional implications of large-scale genomic aberrations. Cell Syst. 2017;4:357-364.

[13] KimTH, LeslieP, ZhangY. Ribosomal proteins as unrevealed caretakers for cellular stress and genomic instability. Oncotarget. 2014;5:860-871.

[14] BrennanCM, VaitesLP, WellsJN, et al. Protein aggregation mediates stoichiometry of protein complexes in aneuploid cells. Genes Dev. 2019;33:1031-1047.

[15] XueW, Kitzing T, RoesslerS, et al. A cluster of cooperating tumor-suppressor gene candidates in chromosomal deletions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:8212-8217.

[16] DavoliT, XuAW, MengwasserKE, et al. Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome. Cell. 2013;155:948-962.

[17] SheltzerJM, KoJH, ReplogleJM, et al. Single-chromosome gains commonly function as tumor suppressors. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:240-255.

[18] WilliamsBR, PrabhuVR, HunterKE, et al. Aneuploidy affects proliferation and spontaneous immortalization in mammalian cells. Science. 2008;322:703-709.

[19] TorresEM, Sokolsky T, TuckerCM, et al. Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast. Science. 2007;317:916-924.

[20] DephoureN, HwangS, O’SullivanC, et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis reveals posttranslational responses to aneuploidy in yeast. eLife. 2014;3:e03023.

[21] Cohen-SharirY, McFarland JM, AbdusamadM, et al. Aneuploidy renders cancer cells vulnerable to mitotic checkpoint inhibition. Nature. 2021;590:486-491.

[22] QuintonRJ, DiDomizio A, VittoriaMA, et al. Whole-genome doubling confers unique genetic vulnerabilities on tumour cells. Nature. 2021;590:492-497.

[23] MuskensIS, LiS, JacksonT, et al. The genome-wide impact of trisomy 21 on DNA methylation and its implications for hematopoiesis. Nat Commun. 2021;12:821.

[24] DoC, XingZ, YuYE, TyckoB. Trans-acting epigenetic effects of chromosomal aneuploidies: lessons from down syndrome and mouse models. Epigenomics. 2017;9:189-207.

[25] Lieberman-AidenE, van Berkum NL, WilliamsL, et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science. 2009;326:289-293.

[26] JerkovicI, Cavalli G. Understanding 3D genome organization by multidisciplinary methods. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021;22(8):511-528.

[27] DixonJR, Selvaraj S, YueF, et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature. 2012;485:376-380.

[28] RaoSS, Huntley MH, DurandNC, et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell. 2014;159:1665-1680.

[29] BonevB, Cavalli G. Organization and function of the 3D genome. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:661-678.

[30] LiR, LiuY, HouY, GanJ, WuP, LiC. 3D genome and its disorganization in diseases. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2018;34:351-365.

[31] StadhoudersR, VidalE, SerraF, et al. Transcription factors orchestrate dynamic interplay between genome topology and gene regulation during cell reprogramming. Nat Genet. 2018;50:238-249.

[32] SuJH, ZhengP, KinrotSS, Bintu B, ZhuangX. Genome-scale imaging of the 3D organization and transcriptional activity of chromatin. Cell. 2020;182:1641-1659.e26.

[33] LiuZ, ChenY, XiaQ, et al. Linking genome structures to functions by simultaneous single-cell hi-C and RNA-seq. Science. 2023;380:1070-1076.

[34] HerveB, Coussement A, GilbertT, et al. Aneuploidy: the impact of chromosome imbalance on nuclear organization and overall genome expression. Clin Genet. 2016;90:35-48.

[35] MeharenaHS, MarcoA, DileepV, et al. Down-syndrome-induced senescence disrupts the nuclear architecture of neural progenitors. Cell Stem Cell. 2022;29:116-130.e7.

[36] BarutcuAR, LajoieBR, McCordRP, et al. Chromatin interaction analysis reveals changes in small chromosome and telomere clustering between epithelial and breast cancer cells. Genome Biol. 2015;16:214.

[37] TaberlayPC, Achinger-Kawecka J, LunAT, et al. Three-dimensional disorganization of the cancer genome occurs coincident with long-range genetic and epigenetic alterations. Genome Res. 2016;26:719-731.

[38] WuP, LiT, LiR, et al. 3D genome of multiple myeloma reveals spatial genome disorganization associated with copy number variations. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1937.

[39] IyyankiT, ZhangB, WangQ, et al. Subtype-associated epigenomic landscape and 3D genome structure in bladder cancer. Genome Biol. 2021;22:105.

[40] Vilarrasa-BlasiR, Soler-Vila P, Verdaguer-DotN, et al. Dynamics of genome architecture and chromatin function during human B cell differentiation and neoplastic transformation. Nat Commun. 2021;12:651.

[41] SeamanL, ChenH, BrownM, et al. Nucleome analysis reveals structure-function relationships for colon cancer. Mol Cancer Res. 2017;15:821-830.

[42] YangM, Vesterlund M, SiavelisI, et al. Proteogenomics and hi-C reveal transcriptional dysregulation in high hyperdiploid childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1519.

[43] BraunR, Ronquist S, WangsaD, et al. Single chromosome aneuploidy induces genome-wide perturbation of nuclear organization and gene expression. Neoplasia. 2019;21:401-412.

[44] ZhangM, ChengL, JiaY, et al. Aneuploid embryonic stem cells exhibit impaired differentiation and increased neoplastic potential. EMBO J. 2016;35:2285-2300.

[45] ImakaevM, Fudenberg G, McCordRP, et al. Iterative correction of hi-C data reveals hallmarks of chromosome organization. Nat Methods. 2012;9:999-1003.

[46] WuHJ, MichorF. A computational strategy to adjust for copy number in tumor hi-C data. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:3695-3701.

[47] CraneE, BianQ, McCordRP, et al. Condensin-driven remodelling of X chromosome topology during dosage compensation. Nature. 2015;523:240-244.

[48] QuinodozSA, Ollikainen N, TabakB, et al. Higher-order inter-chromosomal hubs shape 3D genome organization in the nucleus. Cell. 2018;174:744-757.

[49] BashkirovaE, Lomvardas S. Olfactory receptor genes make the case for inter-chromosomal interactions. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2019;55:106-113.

[50] BrancoMR, PomboA. Intermingling of chromosome territories in interphase suggests role in translocations and transcription-dependent associations. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e138.

[51] ZhangY, McCordRP, HoYJ, et al. Spatial organization of the mouse genome and its role in recurrent chromosomal translocations. Cell. 2012;148:908-921.

[52] MaassPG, WeiseA, RittscherK, et al. Reorganization of inter-chromosomal interactions in the 2q37-deletion syndrome. EMBO J. 2018;37:e96257.

[53] PatelB, KangY, CuiK, et al. Aberrant TAL1 activation is mediated by an interchromosomal interaction in human T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia. 2014;28:349-361.

[54] SenguptaK, CampsJ, MathewsP, et al. Position of human chromosomes is conserved in mouse nuclei indicating a species-independent mechanism for maintaining genome organization. Chromosoma. 2008;117:499-509.

[55] ShacharS, Misteli T. Causes and consequences of nuclear gene positioning. J Cell Sci. 2017;130:1501-1508.

[56] BoyleS, Gilchrist S, BridgerJM, MahyNL, EllisJA, BickmoreWA. The spatial organization of human chromosomes within the nuclei of normal and emerin-mutant cells. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10:211-219.

[57] BelyaevaA, Venkatachalapathy S, NagarajanM, ShivashankarGV, UhlerC. Network analysis identifies chromosome intermingling regions as regulatory hotspots for transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:13714-13719.

[58] BortnickA, HeZ, AubreyM, et al. Plasma cell fate is orchestrated by elaborate changes in genome compartmentalization and inter-chromosomal hubs. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107470.

[59] ErnstJ, KellisM. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat Methods. 2012;9:215-216.

[60] JoshiO, WangSY, KuznetsovaT, et al. Dynamic reorganization of extremely long-range promoter-promoter interactions between two states of pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17:748-757.

[61] BonevB, Mendelson Cohen N, SzaboQ, et al. Multiscale 3D genome rewiring during mouse neural development. Cell. 2017;171:557-572.e24.

[62] MaharanaS, IyerKV, JainN, Nagarajan M, WangY, ShivashankarGV. Chromosome intermingling-the physical basis of chromosome organization in differentiated cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:5148-5160.

[63] CremerT, CremerC. Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:292-301.

[64] CremerT, CremerC, SchneiderT, Baumann H, HensL, Kirsch-VoldersM. Analysis of chromosome positions in the interphase nucleus of Chinese hamster cells by laser-UV-microirradiation experiments. Hum Genet. 1982;62:201-209.

[65] KemenyS, TatoutC, SalaunG, et al. Spatial organization of chromosome territories in the interphase nucleus of trisomy 21 cells. Chromosoma. 2018;127:247-259.

[66] ChangL, LiM, ShaoS, et al. Nuclear peripheral chromatin-lamin B1 interaction is required for global integrity of chromatin architecture and dynamics in human cells. Protein Cell. 2022;13:258-280.

[67] RanadeD, KoulS, ThompsonJ, Prasad KB, SenguptaK. Chromosomal aneuploidies induced upon Lamin B2 depletion are mislocalized in the interphase nucleus. Chromosoma. 2017;126:223-244.

[68] HoseJ, YongCM, SardiM, Wang Z, NewtonMA, GaschAP. Dosage compensation can buffer copy-number variation in wild yeast. eLife. 2015;4:e05462.

[69] KojimaS, CiminiD. Aneuploidy and gene expression: is there dosage compensation? Epigenomics. 2019;11:1827-1837.

[70] HwangS, Cavaliere P, LiR, ZhuLJ, Dephoure N, TorresEM. Consequences of aneuploidy in human fibroblasts with trisomy 21. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118:e2014723118.

[71] AhlforsH, Anyanwu N, PakanaviciusE, et al. Gene expression dysregulation domains are not a specific feature of Down syndrome. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2489.

[72] Ben-DavidU, AmonA. Context is everything: aneuploidy in cancer. Nat Rev Genet. 2020;21:44-62.

[73] FitzPatrickDR. Transcriptional consequences of autosomal trisomy: primary gene dosage with complex downstream effects. Trends Genet. 2005;21:249-253.

[74] StamoulisG, Garieri M, MakrythanasisP, et al. Single cell transcriptome in aneuploidies reveals mechanisms of gene dosage imbalance. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4495.

[75] HuettelB, KreilDP, MatzkeM, Matzke AJ. Effects of aneuploidy on genome structure, expression, and interphase organization in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e1000226.

[76] OmoriS, TanabeH, BannoK, et al. A pair of maternal chromosomes derived from meiotic nondisjunction in trisomy 21 affects nuclear architecture and transcriptional regulation. Sci Rep. 2017;7:764.

[77] MaoR, WangX, SpitznagelEL Jr, et al. Primary and secondary transcriptional effects in the developing human Down syndrome brain and heart. Genome Biol. 2005;6:R107.

[78] StingeleS, StoehrG, PeplowskaK, Cox J, MannM, StorchovaZ. Global analysis of genome, transcriptome and proteome reveals the response to aneuploidy in human cells. Mol Syst Biol. 2012;8:608.

[79] ShahS, TakeiY, ZhouW, et al. Dynamics and spatial genomics of the nascent transcriptome by intron seqFISH. Cell. 2018;174:363-376.e16.

[80] SchoenfelderS, SextonT, ChakalovaL, et al. Preferential associations between co-regulated genes reveal a transcriptional interactome in erythroid cells. Nat Genet. 2010;42:53-61.

[81] FerrariF, Alekseyenko AA, ParkPJ, KurodaMI. Transcriptional control of a whole chromosome: emerging models for dosage compensation. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2014;21:118-125.

[82] WeiM, FanX, DingM, et al. Nuclear actin regulates inducible transcription by enhancing RNA polymerase II clustering. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaay6515.

[83] BerteroA. RNA biogenesis instructs functional inter-chromosomal genome architecture. Front Genet. 2021;12:645863.

[84] KimD, Langmead B, SalzbergSL. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat Methods. 2015;12:357-360.

[85] LawrenceM, HuberW, PagèsH, et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9:e1003118.

[86] MortazaviA, Williams BA, McCueK, SchaefferL, WoldB. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-seq. Nat Methods. 2008;5:621-628.

[87] LoveMI, HuberW, AndersS. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15:550.

[88] KuleshovMV, JonesMR, RouillardAD, et al. Enrichr: a comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W90-W97.

[89] ServantN, Varoquaux N, LajoieBR, et al. HiC-Pro: an optimized and flexible pipeline for hi-C data processing. Genome Biol. 2015;16:259.

[90] TalevichE, ShainAH, BottonT, Bastian BC. CNVkit: genome-wide copy number detection and visualization from targeted DNA sequencing. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1004873.

[91] ServantN, LajoieBR, NoraEP, et al. HiTC: exploration of high-throughput ‘C’ experiments. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2843-2844.

[92] DuZ, ZhengH, HuangB, et al. Allelic reprogramming of 3D chromatin architecture during early mammalian development. Nature. 2017;547:232-235.

[93] ZhangY, LiuT, MeyerCA, et al. Model-based analysis of ChIP-seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 2008;9:R137.

[94] JaoCY, SalicA. Exploring RNA transcription and turnover in vivo by using click chemistry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:15779-15784.

[95] PrustyAB, MeduriR, PrustyBK, et al. Impaired spliceosomal UsnRNP assembly leads to Sm mRNA down-regulation and Sm protein degradation. J Cell Biol. 2017;216:2391-2407.

[96] LiYZ, XueB, ZhangM, et al. Transcription-coupled structural dynamics of topologically associating domains regulate replication origin efficiency. Genome Biol. 2021;22:206.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Cell Proliferation published by Beijing Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.