Published: Vol 9, Iss 23, Dec 5, 2019 DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.3444 Views: 4938
Reviewed by: Alka MehraAswad KhadilkarManasi K. Mayekar
Protocol Collections
Comprehensive collections of detailed, peer-reviewed protocols focusing on specific topics
Related protocols
ATAC-Seq of a Single Myofiber from Mus musculus
Korin Sahinyan [...] Vahab D. Soleimani
Jun 20, 2022 3832 Views
OxiDIP-Seq for Genome-wide Mapping of Damaged DNA Containing 8-Oxo-2'-Deoxyguanosine
Francesca Gorini [...] Stefano Amente
Nov 5, 2022 1834 Views
Amplification and Quantitation of Telomeric Extrachromosomal Circles
Nathaniel J. Robinson and William P. Schiemann
Mar 5, 2023 1116 Views
Abstract
Chromatin consists of compacted DNA in complex with proteins and contributes to the organization of DNA and its stability. Furthermore, chromatin plays key roles in regulating cellular processes such as DNA replication, transcription, DNA repair, and mitosis. Chromatin assumes more compact (inaccessible) or decondensed (accessible) conformations depending on the function that is being supported in the genome, either locally or globally. The activity of nucleases has been used previously to assess the accessibility of specific genomic regions in vitro, such as origins of replication at varying points in the cell cycle. Here, we provide an assay to determine the accessibility of specific human genomic regions (example used herein: Lamin B2 origin of DNA replication) by measuring the effect of DNase I nuclease on qPCR signal from the studied site. This assay provides a powerful method to interrogate the molecular mechanisms that regulate chromatin accessibility, and how these processes affect various cellular functions involving the human genome that require manipulation of chromatin conformation.
Keywords: Chromatin accessBackground
Studies aiming to elucidate the molecular underpinnings of genomic processes influenced by chromatin have utilized nuclease sensitivity to assess the accessibility of chromatin. This is a powerful concept for interrogating the regulation and timing of chromatin conformational changes that contribute to cellular processes such as DNA replication and transcription. For example, it has been shown that chromatin is more sensitive to micrococcal nuclease at two distinct sites within the regions encompassing origins of DNA replication in Chinese hamster ovary cells during G1 versus S-phase, suggesting that chromatin is more accessible at these origins in G1 phase (Pemov et al., 1998). However, the approach used in this latter study required laborious techniques, Southern blotting, large-scale and complex genomic DNA collections and restriction digests, and cumbersome gel-electrophoresis and membrane-transfer methods. In addition, the ability to interpret the results was limited, and only allowed one to observe changes to a single site in a larger locus, with no other changes in nuclease (chromatin) accessibility being detectable throughout the region. Older more classical techniques, such as nuclease-protection footprinting assays, can give more insight into specific loci in terms of chromatin changes. For example, the positioning or rearranging of nucleosomes can be detected by such techniques in a small region. However, these footprinting techniques also require laborious methods by the investigator, and are not amenable to asking questions regarding large-scale changes to chromatin accessibility in specific regions of interest in the genome.
To overcome many of the limitations of older techniques, our group developed a more simple and efficient method of detecting differences in large-scale chromatin accessibility for any site in the genome that an investigator wishes to assess. Our approach relies on the accessibility of DNase I to perform an initial limited digestion of genomic DNA in the context of chromatin prior to using such DNA as a substrate for an efficient quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) analysis. No radioactivity or cumbersome gel-electrophoretic methods are required, and isolation of chromatin/DNA for nuclease digestion is straightforward. Analysis is not complicated, and the results are obtained using the rationale that the more DNase I can pre-digest the chromatin/DNA sample, the less substrate DNA there will be for qPCR relative to chromatin/DNA not exposed to DNase I (total uncut DNA). Less substrate DNA due to DNAse I digestion will require more PCR cycles to amplify, and this will be interpreted as indicating that the chromatin was more accessible for nuclease digestion. The investigator can manipulate the cells using various methods prior to isolating chromatin, allowing quick and efficient quantitative comparisons of chromatin accessibility changes to a specific region under different experimental conditions. The main limitations of our approach are knowing the genomic DNA sequences of the region under investigation, for primer design, and access to a real-time PCR machine.
In practice, our group has used this DNase I chromatin accessibility technique to assess changes at the human Lamin B2 origin of DNA replication in multiple studies. We demonstrated that chromatin at this origin was less accessible to DNase I (more condensed) in S phase (Wong et al., 2010) or in the absence of endogenous Myc protein specifically in late-G1 (Nepon-Sixt et al., 2019), since the qPCR signal from the Lamin B2 origin increased (required fewer cycles) under both of these conditions. While this assay has been utilized to determine chromatin accessibility at a specific origin of mammalian DNA replication under various conditions, chromatin accessibility at other genomic sites (e.g., promoters) can be evaluated by using suitable primers during qPCR designed against other sites of interest.
Materials and Reagents
Equipment
Software
Procedure
Data analysis
For each experimental condition, analyze results according to the formula: 100/2Ct(DNase I)−Ct(no DNase I), which normalizes the data to input DNA (‘no DNase I’). This is performed separately for each experimental condition that the investigator chooses to study. The changes in the ability of DNase I to digest DNA contained in chromatin are then plotted on graphs to determine if a tested experimental condition rendered a locus more sensitive to DNase I digestion (and is therefore interpreted as being more open in chromatin accessibility). Examples of how the final data will appear in a graph can be seen Figure 8c&d in Nepon-Sixt et al., (2019). Using our experiment from Figure 8c in ref. 1 as an example, we next describe how to mathematically analyze the data obtained using our tested experimental conditions, allowing graphical plotting of the final results.
As an example for comparing a single locus for two experimental conditions [e.g., with normal Myc expression (si-Control; e.g., Luciferase control, si-Luc), and with Myc si-RNA suppression; see ref. 1, Figure 8c, left pair of bars]: If one obtains Ct values of 24 for ‘no DNase I’ and 26 for the ‘DNase I’ sample, then the calculation would be 100/226-24 = 25 [note, the whole numbers chosen here are not the exact same as what we obtained for Figure 8c in ref. 1, but are used here for simplicity in illustrating how to perform the mathematics needed]. This means that using the substrate with DNase I treatment gave 25% of the signal relative to the sample without DNase I under the one experimental condition (e.g., with normal Myc; si-Luc/Control). This is also referred to as ‘25% untreated input chromatin/DNA’ as shown on the Y-axis in Fig 8c in ref. 1. This is then performed on the samples from the other experimental condition (e.g., with Myc si-RNA exposure and loss of Myc expression; si-Myc in Figure 8c from ref. 1). If for example the latter gives Ct values of 24 for ‘no DNase I’ and 25 for the ‘DNase I’ sample, then the calculation would be 100/225-24 = 50. This means that using the substrate with DNase I treatment gave 50% of the signal relative to the sample without DNase I for this experimental condition (e.g., loss of Myc, si-Myc). The interpretation would be that loss of Myc expression by si-RNA renders the locus tested to be less sensitive to DNase I digestion (relative to si-Luc control), and therefore more compact from a chromatin standpoint (less accessible to the added DNase I enzyme). Thus, loss of Myc expression caused the locus to become more condensed in its chromatin state. Such data are then plotted on graphs after analyzing technical replicates (separate samples analyzed from same day and plating of cells). Further validity to the interpretations will need to be achieved with biological replicates giving the same results (samples analyzed from different plating of cells collected on a different day).
Notes
Recipes
Acknowledgments
This protocol was adapted from Nepon-Sixt et al. (2019). The Alexandrow lab was supported by NIH grants R01-CA130865 and R21-CA155393.
Competing interests
All authors acknowledge that they have no competing financial or non-financial interests in the development of this manuscript.
References
Article Information
Copyright
© 2019 The Authors; exclusive licensee Bio-protocol LLC.
How to cite
Nepon-Sixt, B. S. and Alexandrow, M. G. (2019). DNase I Chromatin Accessibility Analysis. Bio-protocol 9(23): e3444. DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.3444.
Category
Cancer Biology > Oncogenesis > Ex vivo tissue culture model
Molecular Biology > DNA > Chromatin accessibility
Molecular Biology > DNA > DNA quantification
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.
Tips for asking effective questions
+ Description
Write a detailed description. Include all information that will help others answer your question including experimental processes, conditions, and relevant images.
Share
Bluesky
X
Copy link