Binding of different histone marks differentially regulates the activity and specificity of polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is the major methyltransferase for H3K27 methylation, a modification critical for maintaining repressed gene expression programs throughout development. It has been previously shown that PRC2 maintains histone methylation patterns during DNA replication in part through its ability to bind to H3K27me3. However, the mechanism by which PRC2 recognizes H3K27me3 is unclear. Here we show that the WD40 domain of EED, a PRC2 component, is a methyllysine histone-binding domain. The crystal structures of apo-EED and EED in complex respectively with five different trimethyllysine histone peptides reveal that EED binds these peptides via the top face of its β-propeller architecture. The ammonium group of the trimethyllysine is accommodated by an aromatic cage formed by three aromatic residues, while its aliphatic chain is flanked by a fourth aromatic residue. Our structural data provide an explanation for the preferential recognition of the Ala-Arg-Lys-Ser motif-containing trimethylated H3K27, H3K9, and H1K26 marks by EED over lower methylation states and other histone methyllysine marks. More importantly, we found that binding of different histone marks by EED differentially regulates the activity and specificity of PRC2. Whereas the H3K27me3 mark stimulates the histone methyltransferase activity of PRC2, the H1K26me3 mark inhibits PRC2 methyltransferase activity on the nucleosome. Moreover, H1K26me3 binding switches the specificity of PRC2 from methylating H3K27 to EED. In addition to determining the molecular basis of EED-methyllysine recognition, our work provides the biochemical characterization of how the activity of a histone methyltransferase is oppositely regulated by two histone marks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".