Professional Documents
Culture Documents
npg
Mouse
Zebrafish
WGD
A
Vertebrate ancestor
2 WGDs
Anterior and
posterior TADs
Hox
Step 2
Amphioxus
A
Chordate ancestor
Hox
npg
Single TAD
Step 1
Beetle
No TAD
Sea star
Bilaterian ancestor
Figure 1 Schematic phylogenetic tree of bilaterian evolution showing the position of chordates, including the
cephalochordate amphioxus. The mouse and zebrafish represent the branches leading from the vertebrate ancestor
to tetrapods and teleosts, respectively. The beetle and sea star represent the branches leading from the bilaterian
ancestor to protostomes and deuterostomes, respectively. The single TAD in amphioxus and the two vertebrate
anterior (A) and posterior (P) Hox TADs are represented by pink triangles resembling Hi-C data1, and their stepwise
emergence is indicated along the tree. WGD, whole-genome duplication. The phylogenetic tree is not to scale.
the organizations of the genomic surroundings of the Hox clusters in a number of invertebrates and chordates, and in the vertebrates
mouse and zebrafish. They found synteny conservation exclusively between vertebrates and
the cephalochordate amphioxus, which still
exhibits many ancestral features of the nonvertebrate chordates. These results imply that
an interacting set of distant cis-acting elements
of the type involved in productive contacts
with the Hox genes in vertebrates can only be
expected to be present in chordates.
A single chordate Hox TAD
The authors investigated the existence of chromatin topological domains in the amphioxus
Hox neighborhood by mapping and quantifying the three-dimensional interactions between
Hox genes and their flanking territories using a
method called circularized chromosome conformation capture (4C) in this organism and
in zebrafish. Whereas their zebrafish data for
HoxD reproduced the bipartite chromosomal
228
amphioxus Hox TAD being a regulatory compartment. A number of long-distance enhancers within this TAD conferred Hox-like activity
to reporter constructs in transgenic zebrafish
embryos. These findings suggest that the
amphioxus TAD is a unit of coordinated regulation as it is in vertebrates8.
Future perspective
Acemel et al. are the first to have questioned
the existence in distantly related species of large
regulatory structures of the type found to control the key patterning Hox genes in vertebrates.
Their pioneering study adds a unique chapter to
the information on partitioning of the genome
into TADs as functional regulatory compartments. Their experimental work opens the way
to a deeper molecular analysis of a primitive
TAD. It suggests that a nucleus for the more
sophisticated anterior TAD of vertebrate Hox
clusters existed at the root of the chordates. The
boundaries of the amphioxus Hox TAD must
have changed along the way in evolution to vertebrates, and it will be of interest to examine the
chromatin architecture corresponding to the
anterior TAD of an intermediate species at the
base of vertebrates such as the lamprey, a jawless
fish that exhibits regulatory conservation within
the anterior part of the Hox clusters with jawed
vertebrates9. Another intriguing question is
whether molecular players underlying the functioning of vertebrate TADs, such as enrichment
of CTCF-binding sites at TAD boundaries10
and intervention of cohesin11,12, were already
involved in amphioxus and in the lamprey. The
posterior TAD of mouse and zebrafish, which is
not yet foreshadowed in amphioxus, must have
arisen later but before the double whole-genome
duplication at the root of vertebrates (Fig. 1).
This posterior TAD is thought to have formed a
favorable architecture, allowing recruitment of
Hox patterning information for the emergence
of evolutionary novelties such as digits and
external genital organs in tetrapods5,13.
COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Dixon, J.R. et al. Nature 485, 376380 (2012).
Nora, E.P. et al. Nature 485, 381385 (2012).
de Laat, W. & Duboule, D. Nature 502, 499506 (2013).
Acemel, R.D. et al. Nat. Genet. 48, 336341 (2016).
Andrey, G. et al. Science 340, 1234167 (2013).
Montavon, T. et al. Cell 147, 11321145 (2011).
Woltering, J.M., Noordermeer, D., Leleu, M. & Duboule, D.
PLoS Biol. 12, e1001773 (2014).
8. Schwarzer, W. & Spitz, F. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 27,
7482 (2014).
9. Parker, H.J., Bronner, M.E. & Krumlauf, R. Nature 514,
490493 (2014).
10. Vietri Rudan, M. et al. Cell Rep. 10, 12971309 (2015).
11. Sofueva, S. et al. EMBO J. 32, 31193129 (2013).
12. Merkenschlager, M. & Odom, D.T. Cell 152, 12851297
(2013).
13. Lonfat, N., Montavon, T., Darbellay, F., Gitto, S. &
Duboule, D. Science 346, 10041006 (2014).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.