Cited by 267Epigenetics and DNA MethylationGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

Synergy between Variant PRC1 Complexes Defines Polycomb-Mediated Gene Repression

Open access
Fursova, Nadezda A., Blackledge, Neil P., Nakayama, Manabu, Ito, Shinsuke, Koseki, Yoko, Farcas, Anca M., King, Hamish W., Koseki, Haruhiko +1 more·2019·Molecular Cell

Abstract

The Polycomb system modifies chromatin and plays an essential role in repressing gene expression to control normal mammalian development. However, the components and mechanisms that define how Polycomb protein complexes achieve this remain enigmatic. Here, we use combinatorial genetic perturbation coupled with quantitative genomics to discover the central determinants of Polycomb-mediated gene repression in mouse embryonic stem cells. We demonstrate that canonical Polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1), which mediates higher-order chromatin structures, contributes little to gene repression. Instead, we uncover an unexpectedly high degree of synergy between variant PRC1 complexes, which is fundamental to gene repression. We further demonstrate that variant PRC1 complexes are responsible for distinct pools of H2A monoubiquitylation that are associated with repression of Polycomb target genes and silencing during X chromosome inactivation. Together, these discoveries reveal a new variant PRC1-dependent logic for Polycomb-mediated gene repression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.03.024

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ChIP-seq bigwigs were generated with scaling factors calculated using the formula (human reads in input) / (mouse reads in input) / (human reads in ChIP) x 15,000,000 to calibrate between mouse ESCs and human HEK spike-in.

    “Bigwigs were generated with the bamCoverage function from deepTools (82) with scaling factors calculated using the formula (human reads in input) / (mouse reads in input) / (human reads in ChIP) x 15000000 (83, 84).”

    From Synergy between regulatory elements can render cohesin dispensable for distal enhancer function (2026) · cites this paper as [84]

    The STAR Methods (Quantification and Statistical Analysis; page unavailable) give the same spike-in-to-mouse input read ratio divided by spike-in ChIP reads, and the Method Details identify human HEK293T cells as the spike-in for cross-linked ChIP-seq in mouse ESCs. However, the source uses a coefficient α chosen so the largest downsampling factor equals 1, not a fixed multiplier of 15,000,000; it also describes subsampling reads rather than generating bigWigs with bamCoverage. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fursova, N. A., Blackledge, N. P., Nakayama, M., Ito, S., Koseki, Y., Farcas, A. M., King, H. W., Koseki, H., & Klose, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Kazusa DNA Research Institute (JP)
  • RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences (JP)
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP)
Corresponding author
Klose, Robert J.
Venue
Molecular Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
1020-1036.e8
ISSN
1097-2765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2941917579
Cited by
267
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 16
FWCI
11.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Cell (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Research Council (681440)
  • Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
  • Wellcome Trust (209400/Z/17/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
PRC1, X chromosome inactivation, mouse embryonic stem cells, chromatin modification, quantitative genomics, higher-order chromatin structure
MeSH terms
Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells, Animals, Chromatin, Histones, Genomics, RNA Interference, X Chromosome Inactivation, Mice, Ubiquitination, Polycomb Repressive Complex 1

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review