4.7 Article

Cohesin Members Stag1 and Stag2 Display Distinct Roles in Chromatin Accessibility and Topological Control of HSC Self-Renewal and Differentiation

期刊

CELL STEM CELL
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 682-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.08.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. MSKCC [NIH P30 CA008748]
  2. Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology
  3. National Cancer Institute [R35 CA197594-01A1, R01 CA216421, PS-OC U54 CA143869-05]
  4. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Translational Research Foundation [6499-17]
  5. National Cancer Institute career development grant [K08 CA215317]
  6. William Raveis Charitable Fund Fellowship of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation [DRG 117-15]
  7. EvansMDS Young Investigator grant from the Edward P. Evans Foundation
  8. Sohn Foundation Fellowship of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation [DRG 22-17]
  9. William C. and Joyce C. O'Neil Charitable Trust, MSKCC Single Cell Sequencing Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcriptional regulators, including the cohesin complex member STAG2, are recurrently mutated in cancer. The role of STAG2 in gene regulation, hematopoiesis, and tumor suppression remains unresolved. We show that Stag2 deletion in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) results in altered hematopoietic function, increased self-renewal, and impaired differentiation. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) sequencing revealed that, although Stag2 and Stag1 bind a shared set of genomic loci, a component of Stag2 binding sites is unoccupied by Stag1, even in Stag2-deficient HSPCs. Although concurrent loss of Stag2 and Stag1 abrogated hematopoiesis, Stag2 loss alone decreased chromatin accessibility and transcription of lineage-specification genes, including Ebf1 and Pax5, leading to increased self-renewal and reduced HSPC commitment to the B cell lineage. Our data illustrate a role for Stag2 in transformation and transcriptional dysregulation distinct from its shared role with Stag1 in chromosomal segregation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据