Trimethylation of histone H3 lysine 4 impairs methylation of histone H3 lysine 9
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromatin is broadly compartmentalized in two defined states: euchromatin and heterochromatin. Generally, euchromatin is trimethylated on histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4(me3)) while heterochromatin contains the H3K9(me3) marks. The H3K9(me3) modification is added by lysine methyltransferases (KMTs) such as SETDB1. Herein, we show that SETDB1 interacts with its substrate H3, but only in the absence of the euchromatic mark H3K4(me3). In addition, we show that SETDB1 fails to methylate substrates containing the H3K4(me3) mark. Likewise, the functionally related H3K9 KMTs G9A, GLP, and SUV39H1 also fail to bind and to methylate H3K4(me3) substrates. Accordingly, we provide in vivo evidence that H3K9(me2)-enriched histones are devoid of H3K4(me2/3) and that histones depleted of H3K4(me2/3) have elevated H3K9(me2/3). The correlation between the loss of interaction of these KMTs with H3K4 (me3) and concomitant methylation impairment leads to the postulate that, at least these four KMTs, require stable interaction with their respective substrates for optimal activity. Thus, novel substrates could be discovered via the identification of KMT interacting proteins. Indeed, we find that SETDB1 binds to and methylates a novel substrate, the inhibitor of growth protein ING2, while SUV39H1 binds to and methylates the heterochromatin protein HP1α. Thus, our observations suggest a mechanism of post-translational regulation of lysine methylation and propose a potential mechanism for the segregation of the biologically opposing marks, H3K4(me3) and H3K9(me3). Furthermore, the correlation between H3-KMTs interaction and substrate methylation highlights that the identification of novel KMT substrates may be facilitated by the identification of interaction partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".