Myt1l safeguards neuronal identity by actively repressing many non-neuronal fates

The neuron-specific transcription factor Myt1l represses many somatic lineage programs, but not the neuronal lineage program, to both induce and maintain neuronal identity. Myt1L represses non-neuronal fates Lineage reprogramming by expression of transcription factors that modulate target cell fate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNature (London) Vol. 544; no. 7649; pp. 245 - 249
Main Authors Mall, Moritz, Kareta, Michael S., Chanda, Soham, Ahlenius, Henrik, Perotti, Nicholas, Zhou, Bo, Grieder, Sarah D., Ge, Xuecai, Drake, Sienna, Euong Ang, Cheen, Walker, Brandon M., Vierbuchen, Thomas, Fuentes, Daniel R., Brennecke, Philip, Nitta, Kazuhiro R., Jolma, Arttu, Steinmetz, Lars M., Taipale, Jussi, Südhof, Thomas C., Wernig, Marius
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Nature Publishing Group UK 13.04.2017
Nature Publishing Group
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0028-0836
1476-4687
1476-4687
DOI10.1038/nature21722

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The neuron-specific transcription factor Myt1l represses many somatic lineage programs, but not the neuronal lineage program, to both induce and maintain neuronal identity. Myt1L represses non-neuronal fates Lineage reprogramming by expression of transcription factors that modulate target cell fate program requires gene expression of the donor cell to be silenced. Given our current knowledge, we would expect that each reprogramming cocktail would need to differ for distinct cells of origin, but intriguingly this has not been the case experimentally so far. Marius Wernig and colleagues have found that the neuronal reprogramming factor Myt1l, which is expressed in all neurons, promotes neuronal fate in mice by repressing all other lineages during reprogramming from other cell types as well as during neurogenesis and in primary neurons. Their data suggests that changing epigenetic marks would not be sufficient to maintain a particular cell fate, and alternative lineages are actively repressed to confer neuronal identity. Normal differentiation and induced reprogramming require the activation of target cell programs and silencing of donor cell programs 1 , 2 . In reprogramming, the same factors are often used to reprogram many different donor cell types 3 . As most developmental repressors, such as RE1-silencing transcription factor (REST) and Groucho (also known as TLE), are considered lineage-specific repressors 4 , 5 , it remains unclear how identical combinations of transcription factors can silence so many different donor programs. Distinct lineage repressors would have to be induced in different donor cell types. Here, by studying the reprogramming of mouse fibroblasts to neurons, we found that the pan neuron-specific transcription factor Myt1-like (Myt1l) 6 exerts its pro-neuronal function by direct repression of many different somatic lineage programs except the neuronal program. The repressive function of Myt1l is mediated via recruitment of a complex containing Sin3b by binding to a previously uncharacterized N-terminal domain. In agreement with its repressive function, the genomic binding sites of Myt1l are similar in neurons and fibroblasts and are preferentially in an open chromatin configuration. The Notch signalling pathway is repressed by Myt1l through silencing of several members, including Hes1. Acute knockdown of Myt1l in the developing mouse brain mimicked a Notch gain-of-function phenotype, suggesting that Myt1l allows newborn neurons to escape Notch activation during normal development. Depletion of Myt1l in primary postmitotic neurons de-repressed non-neuronal programs and impaired neuronal gene expression and function, indicating that many somatic lineage programs are actively and persistently repressed by Myt1l to maintain neuronal identity. It is now tempting to speculate that similar ‘many-but-one’ lineage repressors exist for other cell fates; such repressors, in combination with lineage-specific activators, would be prime candidates for use in reprogramming additional cell types.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
M.M. was responsible for research design, execution, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. M.S.K. performed and designed the bioinformatics analysis and aided in manuscript preparation. S.C. and B.Z. performed the electrophysiological analysis. H.A. performed the NSC experiments and advised on research design and manuscript preparation. X.G., C.E.A. and S.D. performed in utero electroporations. N.P. aided in the biochemical interaction studies. S.G. performed the FACS analysis. T.V., B.M.W. and D.R.F. generated constructs. P.B. and L.S. performed the sequencing. K.R.N., A.J., and J.T. performed the SELEX. T.C.S. supported the research. M.W. was responsible for supervision and design of research, data interpretation, and manuscript preparation.
Author Contributions
ISSN:0028-0836
1476-4687
1476-4687
DOI:10.1038/nature21722