Search Results (2)

Cohesin organizes the genome into spatially segregated loops and topologically associated domains by loop extrusion. In addition, it ensures cohesion of sister chromatids after replication. Thus, cohesin is expected to limit chromatin dynamics by ensuring cohesion and compacting chromatin in the interphase. Nonetheless, loop extrusion is an example of chromatin dynamics; thus, cohesin could promote the dynamics of genomic loci at the scale of individual loops and contact domains. Moreover, given that the extruding activity of cohesin after replication is supplemented by its cohesive activity, the impact of cohesin on chromatin dynamics in different phases of the cell cycle may vary. Of particular interest is the cohesin’s role in the regulation of the dynamics of damaged chromatin, which remains insufficiently studied. Here, we visualized a genomic locus using the CRISPR-Sirius system in human cells with auxin-induced depletion of the cohesin subunit RAD21. Cohesin depletion increased the local spatial dynamics of the visualized locus on a time scale of fractions of a second to one minute. This effect was observed in both replicated and unreplicated chromatin. However, the increase in the mobility of the visualized locus upon cohesin depletion was more pronounced in the former. In addition, we showed that cohesin depletion did not affect the local mobility of double-strand break repair foci visualized using a fluorescent fragment of the repair factor 53BP1. Cohesin depletion did not affect the local mobility of repair foci in either replicated or unreplicated chromatin. The results indicate that cohesin constrains local spatial dynamics of genomic loci. At the same time, cohesive activity of cohesin is not indispensable for restricting chromatin dynamics, although it enhances the confinement effect. On the other hand, repair foci are less mobile structures than point chromatin loci, and cohesin does not affect their dynamics on the studied time scales. Full article

In recent years, various technologies have emerged for the imaging of chromatin loci in living cells via catalytically inactive Cas9 (dCas9). These technologies facilitate a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind the chromatin dynamics and provide valuable kinetic data that could not have previously been obtained via FISH applied to fixed cells. However, such technologies are relatively complicated, as they involve the expression of several chimeric proteins as well as sgRNAs targeting the visualized loci, a process that entails many technical subtleties. Therefore, the effectiveness in visualizing a specific target locus may be quite low. In this study, we directly compared two versions of a previously published CRISPR-Sirius method based on the use of sgRNAs containing eight MS2 or PP7 stem loops and the expression of MCP or PCP fused to fluorescent proteins. We assessed the visualization efficiency for several unique genomic loci by comparing the two approaches in delivering sgRNA genes (transient transfection and lentiviral transduction), as well as two CRISPR-Sirius versions (with PCP and with MCP). The efficiency of visualization varied among the loci, and not all loci could be visualized. However, the MCP-sfGFP version provided more efficient visualization in terms of the number of cells with signals than PCP-sfGFP for all tested loci. We also showed that lentiviral transduction was more efficient in locus imaging than transient transfection for both CRISPR-Sirius systems. Most of the target loci in our study were located at the borders of topologically associating domains, and we defined a set of TAD borders that could be effectively visualized using the MCP-sfGFP version of the CRISPR-Sirius system. Altogether, our study validates the use of the CRISPR-Sirius technology for live-cell visualization and highlights various technical details that should be considered when using this method. Full article