doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.107.171025
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Review |
Epigenetic Regulation of Vascular Endothelial Gene Expression
From the Institute of Medical Sciences (C.C.M., P.A.M.) and the Renal Division and Department of Medicine (P.A.M.), St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Correspondence to Philip A. Marsden, Medical Sciences Building, Rm 7358, University of Toronto, 1 King’s College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8. E-mail p.marsden{at}utoronto.ca
This Review is part of a thematic series on Transcription Factors, which includes the following articles:
Regulation of Vascular Inflammation and Remodeling by ETS Factors
Myocardin-Related Transcription Factors: Critical Coactivators Regulating Cardiovascular Development and Adaptation
Notch Signaling in Blood Vessels: Who Is Talking to Whom About What?
Role of Krüppel-Like Transcription Factors in Endothelial Biology
Forkhead Transcription Factors and Cardiovascular Biology
Epigenetic Regulation of Vascular Endothelial Gene Expression
Mukesh Jain Guest Editor
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
Epigenetics refers to chromatin-based pathways important in the regulation of gene expression and includes 3 distinct, but highly interrelated, mechanisms: DNA methylation, histone density and posttranslational modifications, and RNA-based mechanisms. Together, they offer a newer perspective on transcriptional control paradigms in vascular endothelial cells and provide a molecular basis for how the environment impacts the genome to modify disease susceptibility. This review provides an introduction to epigenetic concepts for vascular biologists. Using endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS3) as an example, we examine the growing body of evidence implicating epigenetic pathways in the control of vascular endothelial gene expression in health and disease.
Key Words: chromatin • DNA methylation • epigenetics • histone • nitric oxide synthase
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
Broadly defined, epigenetics refers to chromatin-based mechanisms important in the regulation of gene expression that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence per se.1 These include DNA methylation, histone density and posttranslational modifications, and RNA-based mechanisms. Together they offer a new perspective on gene regulation that extends the classic cis/trans paradigm and helps to explain some of its limitations.2,3 Central to this model is the concept that the structure of DNA is an effector of gene expression such that identical DNA sequences may demonstrate variable expressivity. Epigenetics has emerged as an increasingly powerful paradigm to understand complex non-Mendelian diseases. For example, epigenetics provides a newer perspective for understanding how gene expression is perturbed in prevalent diseases of the human vascular system characterized by a dysfunctional endothelium.4 This review provides an introduction to epigenetic concepts for vascular biologists and examines newer evidence from our laboratory, and from others, that establishes epigenetic pathways as fundamental determinants of endothelial gene expression in health and disease. Evidence implicating chromatin-based pathways in the control of vascular smooth muscle cell gene expression is not discussed here and was recently the subject of an excellent review in this journal.5
|
Primer on Epigenetics for the Vascular Biologist |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
Molecular Mechanisms of Epigenetic Gene Regulation
DNA does not exist naked within a cell nucleus but, rather, is packaged as a DNA–protein complex that is conserved across all eukaryotic genomes. The fundamental repeating unit of this structure, termed chromatin, is the nucleosome comprising an octamer of core histone proteins around which is wrapped 146 bp of DNA. Each nucleosome comprises 2 molecules of H2A, H2B, H3, and H4. Adjacent nucleosome particles are separated by shorter species-specific lengths of linker DNA associated with a fifth histone protein, histone H1. This linker histone facilitates further compaction of chromatin into higher-order chromatin structures that enable the packaging of extraordinary lengths of DNA into the tight confines of the cell nucleus.6 Over the last 20 years, 3 highly interconnected epigenetic pathways have emerged that impact on the structure and accessibility of chromatin. Each of these pathways is important in the regulation of gene expression: DNA methylation, histone posttranslational modifications, and RNA-based mechanisms (Figure 1).7
|
DNA Methylation
DNA methylation involves the postsynthetic, covalent modification of the 5-position of cytosine to define the "fifth base of DNA," 5-methyl-cytosine.8 First described in 1925 by Johnson and Coghill, even before the elucidation of the DNA double helix,9 this unique pyrimidine continues to base pair with guanine. In mammals, DNA methylation is almost exclusively restricted to CpG dinucleotides. DNA methylation is catalyzed by 3 different DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) encoded by different genes on distinct chromosomes: DNMT1, DNMT3a, and DNMT3b. De novo methylation is catalyzed by the latter 2 enzymes and is important in the establishment of DNA methylation patterns in the early embryo and during development.8 In contrast, DNMT1 serves a maintenance function and is responsible for the propagation of DNA methylation patterns following DNA replication during mitotic cell division. This is accomplished, in part, by the localization of DNMT1 to the replication fork and its specificity for hemi-methylated DNA. Methylation of CpG dinucleotides on the nascent DNA strand is guided, or informed, by the methylation status of CpG dinucleotides on the complementary template strand. DNA methylation is a remarkably stable epigenetic modification. Notwithstanding, its dynamic regulation has been clearly demonstrated during embryogenesis, cellular differentiation, and carcinogenesis. Mechanisms responsible for the removal of DNA methylation marks remain poorly understood. Both passive (replication-dependent) and active (replication-independent) mechanisms have been described.8 Uncommon examples of methylated cytosines in the context of non-CpG methylation (CpNpG and CpW, where W=A or T) have been reported, such as in the early mouse embryo,10 embryonic stem cells,11 endogenous LINE-1 retroelements,12,13 and integrated plasmid DNA.14 The biological significance of this atypical DNA methylation remains unclear.
Approximately 70% to 90% of CpG dinucleotides, representing 3% to 6% of all cytosines, are methylated in healthy somatic cells.8 Surprisingly, CpG dinucleotides are relatively depleted in the mammalian genome, ie, occur at a frequency less than would be expected based on the GC content of the genome. Why the genome is relatively CpG-depleted is an interesting feature of the evolution of the mammalian genome but is beyond the scope of the present review. Some regions of the genome are relatively spared from this depletion and demonstrate observed CpG dinucleotide frequencies closer to what would be expected by chance alone. Although variably defined, these relatively (G+C)- and CpG-rich regions are commonly referred to as CpG islands.15,16 They account for approximately 7% of CpG dinucleotides genome-wide and are associated with the 5'-regulatory regions of 
40% to 60% of human genes.8,17 Typically, these CpG dinucleotides are unmethylated. A significant proportion of CpG dinucleotides also occur in the context of intergenic, repetitive DNA sequences, such as Alu elements. In contrast to those comprising CpG islands, these CpG dinucleotides are usually densely methylated.8
From the perspective of gene regulation, DNA methylation is a repressive mark associated with transcriptional silencing. It has been strongly implicated in a growing number of integral cellular functions, including the silencing of repetitive (parasitic) sequences, X chromosome inactivation, genomic imprinting, mammalian embryonic development, and lineage specification.8,17 Its dysregulation is also characteristic of a growing number of human diseases, most prominently, cancer. The cancer genome is characterized by genome-wide hypomethylation and paradoxical hypermethylation of CpG islands associated with tumor-suppressor genes. A strikingly similar pattern is also observed on the inactive X chromosome.8 The relevance of DNA methylation to common nonneoplastic, non-Mendelian diseases is poorly understood.
Mechanistically, DNA methylation can affect gene expression in 1 of 2 general ways. First, DNA methylation itself can impede the binding of transcription factors to CpG dinucleotide-containing cis-DNA binding elements. Methyl groups of methylated CpG dinucleotides project into the major groove of the DNA helix. Although this mechanism is clearly relevant for some transcriptional regulators, for example, Myc,18 activator protein-2,19 hypoxia-inducible factor-1
,20 and the insulator protein CTCF,21,22 it is likely not relevant for a majority of transcription factors whose target genes are importantly regulated by DNA methylation.8 Second, a family of methyl-CpG binding proteins has been described that can specifically recognize the mammalian methylation mark. These include 4 proteins containing a homologous methyl-CpG-binding domain (MBD1, MBD2, MBD4, and the founding member, MeCP2) and a recently characterized, nonhomologous protein, Kaiso, which is capable of binding a methylated CpG dinucleotide doublet.23 These methyl-CpG-binding proteins can directly repress transcription, prevent the binding of activating transfactors, or recruit enzymes that catalyze histone posttranslational modifications and chromatin-remodeling complexes that alter the structure of chromatin and actively promote transcriptional repression.8 Alternatively, a transcriptional activator that specifically recognizes unmethylated CpG dinucleotides, human CpG binding protein (hCGBP), has also been described.24 These latter observations underscore the highly integrated nature of epigenetic pathways in the control of mammalian gene expression.
Histone Proteins
Recent years have witnessed the characterization of a staggering number of histone posttranslational modifications. These include lysine acetylation, lysine and arginine methylation, serine and threonine phosphorylation, lysine ubiquitylation, and lysine sumoylation, among others. More than 60 distinct modification sites have been described. Although some of these covalent modifications occur in the histone globular domains, the best studied are targeted to the histone amino-terminal tails.17,25 In addition to histone posttranslational modifications, it is now clear that the regulated incorporation of histone variants26 and ATP-dependent chromatin-remodeling activities, which mediates histone recruitment and eviction,27 are also important determinants of mammalian gene expression. This latter activity affects histone density per unit length of genomic DNA. Together, these histone-based mechanisms synergize with DNA methylation to provide a complex and responsive epigenetic landscape superimposed on the underlying static genetic code.7
Even though the DNA helix is wound around the core histone octamer, histone posttranslational modifications can alter the physical properties and structure of chromatin and thereby modulate the accessibility of transcriptional regulators to cis-DNA binding elements. This general mechanism has been well described for lysine acetylation.28 Bulk lysine acetylation, a mark broadly associated with transcriptional activation, can neutralize the basic charge of lysine residues and prevent the higher-order compaction of chromatin, resulting in a more open (or accessible) chromatin configuration.29,30 In addition to a direct effect on the physical structure of chromatin, it is hypothesized that the combination of specific histone posttranslational modifications contains important regulatory information interpretable by the cell. Together, they constitute a putative "histone code."31,32 Unlike DNA methylation, most histone posttranslational modifications are extremely dynamic and reflect the balance between competing enzymatic activities that establish and remove these epigenetic marks. In recent years, an increasing number of "readers" have been identified that can specifically recognize unique histone posttranslational modifications via specific protein binding domains. These, in turn, recruit large multiprotein complexes with enzymatic activities important in the regulation of gene expression.25
Two classes of histone posttranslational modifications, in particular, have well-established roles in the control of mammalian gene expression: lysine acetylation and lysine methylation.25 Lysine acetylation involves the transfer of acetyl groups from acetyl-coenzyme A molecules to the lysine 
-amino groups of histone tails. In mammalian cells, this reaction is catalyzed by 3 principal families of histone acetyltransferases (HATs): GNAT, MYST, and CBP/p300. HATs are recruited to target promoters as components of large, multiprotein complexes. The finding that a number of transcriptional coactivators have intrinsic HAT activity was a major breakthrough. In general HATs demonstrate poor specificity for individual histone tail lysine residues and are also capable of acetylating many nonhistone proteins important in the regulation of transcription; for example, c-Jun, E2F, MyoD, nuclear factor (NF)-
B, p53, pRb, and YY1, among others.33 Removal of histone lysine acetylation is catalyzed by 4 families of mammalian histone deacetylases (HDACs): class I (HDAC1-3, HDAC8), class II (HDAC4-7, HDAC9-10), class III sirtuins (SIRT1-7), and class IV (HDAC11).25 From a pharmacological perspective, class I and II HDACs are sensitive to the prototypical small-molecule inhibitor, trichostatin A (TSA), whereas class III and IV HDACs are TSA-insensitive. Like HATs, HDACs are recruited to target promoters in large, multiprotein complexes. In general, HDACs evidence poor specificity for individual histone lysine residues and are also active on many nonhistone proteins. Small-molecule inhibitors of HDACs have demonstrated early promise in the treatment of several hematologic malignancies and disseminated solid cancers.34 Their utility in the management of nonneoplastic conditions remains largely unexplored.35,36 The acetyl-lysine mark is read by a group of chromatin-associated proteins, including several HATs and chromatin-remodeling enzymes, that contain bromodomains. The interplay between HATs, HDACs, and bromodomain-containing readers allows for a highly dynamic gene transcriptional control pathway.25
A lysine residue can either be acetylated or methylated. Although histone lysine acetylation is tightly correlated with transcriptional activation, the impact of histone lysine methylation on gene expression is context-dependent.25,37 For example, histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4) methylation is strongly associated with transcriptional activation. This epigenetic mark is written by the family of trithorax group (Trx-G) proteins.25,38 An added nuance of histone lysine methylation biology is the observation that a single lysine residue can be mono-, di-, or trimethylated. These more subtle epigenetic modifications are likely to be functionally relevant. This contention is supported by a recent genome-wide survey that demonstrated preferential localization of trimethylated H3K4 to active promoters and monomethylated H3K4 to enhancers.39 The characterization of specific di- and trimethylated H3K4 readers, the mammalian ING (inhibitor of growth) family proteins (ING1-5), provides further compelling evidence.25 Conversely, di- and trimethylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9) are strongly correlated with transcriptional repression.25,37 These epigenetic marks are catalyzed by an increasingly large family of SET-domain-containing histone lysine methyltransferases, including SUV39H1, SUV39H2, PRDM2/RIX1, and G9A/BAT8. Heterochromatin 1 (HP1) proteins (HP1, HP1β, and HP1
) specifically bind di- and trimethylated H3K9 via interactions with their methyl-binding chromodomain and are crucial for the formation of heterochromatin and transcriptional silencing.17,25 Although once thought to be relatively stable epigenetic modifications, the recent identification of Jumonji-domain-containing proteins (JMJD) as histone lysine demethylases points to the dynamic regulation of the histone lysine methylation mark.40
RNA-Based Mechanisms
Of the 3 general modes of epigenetic regulation, RNA-based mechanisms are the most recently described and presently the least well understood. There is mounting evidence that noncoding RNAs and the RNA interference machinery are fundamental determinants of chromatin-based gene expression.7,41 In mammalian systems, the best characterized examples include the role of XIST RNA in X chromosome inactivation, Air RNA at the murine imprinted Igf2r locus, and as of yet unidentified RNAs in the assembly of centromeric heterochromatin.41 These examples importantly involve coordinated epigenetic activities including DNA methylation and histone posttranslational modifications. In contrast, micro-RNAs and short interfering (si)RNAs, 21 to 26 nucleotide small RNA species, are well-known mediators of cytoplasmic, posttranscriptional gene silencing as components of the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). Micro-RNAs are derived from nuclear transcripts with characteristic stem–loop structures and transported to the cytoplasm. Alternatively, siRNAs are derived from long double-stranded RNA precursors delivered exogenously to cells or that arise naturally within cells.42 The complexity of these RNA-based modes of gene regulation is underscored by the recent demonstration that exogenously administered siRNAs directed at promoter regions can effectuate transcriptional gene silencing in mammalian cells by inducing site-specific DNA methylation43 and repressive histone posttranslational modifications.44 Given that at least 15% to 20% of mouse and human genes, respectively, demonstrate cis-encoded natural antisense transcripts,45 it is anticipated that RNA-based mechanisms will have far-reaching influence in the regulation of mammalian gene expression. A summary of the best understood epigenetic control mechanisms is provided in the Table.
|
An Epigenetic Theory of Complex Nonmendelian Disease
The recent characterization of evolutionarily conserved, epigenetic mechanisms has offered a fundamentally new paradigm for understanding mammalian gene regulation. Although best characterized in cancer and developmental biology, these mechanisms provide the molecular substrate for the improved understanding of complex, non-Mendelian diseases including common diseases of the human vascular system.46,47 For example, a common feature of complex, non-Mendelian diseases is discordance of monozygotic (MZ) (genetically identical) twins. Classic twin studies have been immensely useful in establishing the genetic component of disease. In principle, MZ twins share 100% of their DNA sequence. In contrast, dizygotic twins share only half of their DNA sequence, with equal fractions contributed by each parent, and are therefore as genetically related (or unrelated) as nontwin siblings. An enhanced prevalence of disease among MZ twins, versus dizygotic twins, strongly suggests a genetic component of disease. This inference has been formalized in the concept of "heritability," defined as the relative contribution of genetic factors to a disease phenotype. Heritability estimates have been calculated for common cardiovascular diseases and range from 30% to 50%, thus implying a major genetic contribution.48–50 Notwithstanding this enhanced risk, classic twin studies demonstrate low concordance rates of key oligogenic diseases among MZ twins. From an optimistic perspective, MZ twins do not always get the same cardiovascular disease. For example, a frequently quoted study of death from cardiovascular disease in the Swedish Twin Registry reported concordance rates among male or female MZ twins of only 25.4% and 19.4%, respectively.51 What accounts for this discordance of MZ twins in cardiovascular disease? The classic explanation is differential environmental influences on the individual MZ twins: the so-called nonshared environment explanation.46,47 However, empirical evidence supporting this model is scarce, and the mechanisms underlying the influence of the environment on the genome remains poorly understood. Recent studies have pointed to epigenetic mechanisms as an alternative, molecular explanation.
Several studies have reported epigenetic differences between MZ twins (Figure 2). Early examples included skewed X chromosome inactivation in female twins, loss of imprinting, and differential promoter methylation of a few, selected autosomal genes.47 In 2005, Fraga et al published a landmark report describing global and locus-specific differences in DNA methylation and histone H3 and H4 acetylation in a large cohort of young and elderly MZ twins.52 Of 40 twin pairs, 35% demonstrated significant differences in the 3 epigenetic marks assayed in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Remarkably, these epigenetically discordant twins were more likely to be older, spent less of their lifetime together, and reported the greatest differences in natural health/medical history. Consistent with these results, gene expression profiling experiments revealed the differential expression of 4 times as many transcripts in an older, epigenetically discordant twin pair compared with a younger, epigenetically similar twin pair. Although the study design did not permit correlation of differential epigenetic modifications within twin pairs with disease discordance, the data are compelling. They provide the best evidence in humans that epigenetic differences can accumulate with increasing age. Whether these epigenetic differences occur stochastically or in response to differential environmental exposures and the extent to which they are correlated with differences in gene expression require further study.46,47,52 It is of interest that mammals cloned by somatic cell nuclear transfer demonstrate increased lethality and aberrant growth. The working model is that the observed phenotype differences in genetically identical animals (analogous to human MZ twins) may be attributable to the inefficient epigenetic reprogramming of transplanted nuclei.53
|
So far, these studies have considered the accumulation of epigenetic differences in somatic cells. A more contentious issue is the meiotic inheritance of epigenetic modifications. Experimental evidence is accruing in inbred animal models54 and humans,55–57 demonstrating meiotically stable transmission of an epigenotype. If generalizable to common human diseases, epigenetic mechanisms could provide a molecular explanation for the transference of disease susceptibility from parent to child outside the context of the DNA sequence per se, a finding that would revolutionize our understanding of complex, non-Mendelian diseases.
Based on this background, the balance of this review highlights recent evidence from our laboratory, and from others, implicating epigenetic pathways, in particular, DNA methylation and histone posttranslational modifications, in the transcriptional regulation of vascular endothelial gene expression in health and disease. The role of RNA-based mechanisms in the transcriptional control of vascular endothelial gene expression remains unexplored and a focus of present research.
|
Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase: A Model for the Cell-Restricted Expression of Endothelial Genes |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
In 1980, Furchgott and Zawadzki reported that acetylcholine-induced vasorelaxation is dependent on an intact endothelial lining.58 They reasoned that an endothelium-derived relaxing factor (EDRF) was responsible for translating this biochemical signal to adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells. By the end of that decade, endothelium-derived relaxing factor was identified as nitric oxide.59,60
In mammals, the production of nitric oxide is catalyzed by 3 isoforms of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) encoded by separate genes on 3 different chromosomes: neuronal NOS (NOS1), inducible NOS (iNOS) (NOS2), and endothelial NOS (eNOS) (NOS3). These NOS isoforms differ in their regulation and cell-specific distribution. The latter isoform, eNOS, is constitutively expressed and responsible for the majority of nitric oxide produced by the vascular endothelium and, therefore, represents the dominant source of bioactive endothelium-derived relaxing factor. Here, nitric oxide plays important antithrombotic and antiatherogenic roles characterized by the inhibition of platelet aggregation, leukocyte–endothelium adhesion, and vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation.2 Its fundamental role in cardiovascular physiology is underscored by the phenotype of eNOS-null mice. These eNOS-deficient animals demonstrate systemic and pulmonary hypertension, abnormal vascular remodeling, defective angiogenesis, pathological healing in response to vascular injury, and impaired mobilization of stem and progenitor cells.2,61 In human disease, eNOS deficiency has been documented in the lungs of patients with pulmonary hypertension62 and in the neointimal covering of advanced atheromatous plaques.63 Given its prominent role as a signaling molecule in the cardiovascular system, much attention has been focused on deciphering the regulation of eNOS both in vitro and in vivo. Important transcriptional, posttranscriptional, and posttranslational mechanisms have been defined.3 Notwithstanding, the answers to seemingly straightforward questions remain elusive.
For example, a nuance of eNOS biology is its remarkable endothelial-restricted pattern of expression. Using in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry, we previously demonstrated the relatively restricted expression of eNOS steady-state RNA and protein, respectively, to the endothelium, especially large- and medium-sized arteries.63,64 In this regard, eNOS is not unique but rather is representative of a broader class of genes whose expression is primarily confined to the vascular endothelium; for example, von Willebrand factor (VWF), vascular-endothelial cadherin (VE-cadherin) (CDH5), intercellular adhesion molecule-2 (ICAM-2), the angiopoietin receptors (TIE1 and TIE2), and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors (FLT-1/VEGFR1 and FLK-1/VEGFR2).2 What accounts for this endothelial-restricted pattern of expression? Recent insights from the epigenetic perspective are beginning to shed new light.
The Classic Paradigm: Search for a "Master Regulator"
A simple model to account for the cell-restricted expression of endothelial genes is predicated on the classic cis/trans paradigm of gene expression. In this model cis-DNA binding elements in the 5'-regulatory regions of genes specifically recruit transfactors (or transcription factors). To account for cell-specific expression this model requires that cis-DNA binding elements be present in the 5'-regulatory regions of target genes and that the expression of the relevant transfactors themselves be cell-restricted in expression. Several examples of such master regulators are now well documented in mammalian biology, including NeuroD in neurons,65 peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- in adipocytes,66 and myocardin in smooth muscle cells.67 However, perhaps the best example of a master regulator is MyoD in skeletal muscle cells.68 MyoD is a basic helix–loop–helix transcription factor whose expression is restricted to the skeletal muscle lineage throughout development. MyoD heterodimerizes with ubiquitously expressed E-proteins to form a skeletal muscle-specific transcription factor that binds to cis-DNA elements termed E-boxes (core consensus sequence, CANNTG) located in the 5'-regulatory regions of many skeletal muscle-specific genes. Importantly, MyoD is both necessary and sufficient to establish the myogenic program. Elegant experiments have convincingly demonstrated that forced expression of MyoD in a variety of primary and transformed mammalian cell types can induce skeletal muscle differentiation, for example, converting primary fibroblasts into skeletal muscle cells.68,69
In contrast, an endothelial-specific master regulator is yet to be identified.2 Undoubtedly some transcription factors are preferentially expressed in, but not restricted to, the vascular endothelium. Evidence regarding their global role in endothelial specification and the establishment of an endothelial gene expression program is presently lacking. Prominent examples include Hey2, Vezf1, and HoxA9.2 KLF2 (Krüppel-like factor 2), a member of the zinc finger family of DNA-binding transcription factors, has recently received the most attention.70 In the vessel wall, KLF2 expression is confined to the vascular endothelium but has also been documented in developing lung buds, the vertebral column, and bony structures of the head and rib cage.71 In addition, KLF2 has a well-established role in thymocyte and T-cell maturation, survival, and migration.72,73 Undeniably, KLF2 has emerged as an important regulator of the endothelial response to blood flow dynamics and cytokine stimulation.74–76 Importantly, several prototypical endothelial-restricted genes are induced by KLF2, including eNOS.70,75 However, recent gene expression profiling experiments strongly suggest that KLF2 is not required for endothelial lineage specification and is, therefore, unlikely to serve as the elusive endothelial master regulator.76,77 These data are consistent with the phenotype of Klf2-deficient mice that, although embryonic lethal, demonstrate normal vasculogenesis and angiogenesis.71
Although an as of yet uncharacterized endothelial master regulator may exist, the present cis/trans paradigm supports a model for the cooperative activity of several ubiquitously expressed transcription factors in the constitutive expression of endothelial-restricted genes. These include Ets family members, GATA-2, Sp1, activator protein-1, and octamer transcription factors.2 Indeed, a majority of endothelial-restricted genes possess cis-DNA binding elements for these factors in their 5'-regulatory regions. The eNOS gene is a representative example.2,78,79 Specificity could be achieved by a unique combination of transcription factors in endothelial compared with nonendothelial cell types. Additionally, unique posttranslational modifications or alternatively spliced mRNA species may be relevant. However, little direct evidence for these models of endothelial cell-restricted gene expression is presently available.2,3 We, therefore, hypothesized that alternative mechanisms importantly contribute to the cell-specific expression of endothelial genes.
Transient Transfection of eNOS Promoter-Reporter Constructs Suggests Epigenetic Mechanisms of Gene Regulation
We and others have previously reported the cloning and characterization of the human eNOS gene.64,79–81 It exists as a single copy in the haploid genome, contains 26 exons, spans approximately 21 kb of genomic DNA, maps to chromosome 7q35-36, and directs the expression of a single major transcript measuring 4052 nucleotides. A single major transcription initiation site was defined by primer extension, S1 nuclease protection, and 5'-RACE (rapid amplification of 5' cDNA ends).79 The human eNOS promoter lacks a canonical TATA box and does not contain a proximal CpG island. Detailed molecular characterization of the human eNOS promoter using deletion analysis and linker-scanning mutagenesis defined 2 clustered cis-regulatory regions: positive regulatory domain I (PRD I) (–104/–95 relative to transcription initiation) and PRD II (–144/–115).78 In the vascular endothelium, these regions bind multiprotein activator complexes including Sp1, Sp3, and Ets1 transcription factors, among others. Transgenic eNOS promoter-reporter mice faithfully recapitulate expression of the native eNOS gene.82,83
To elucidate the factors responsible for eNOS cell-specific expression, we performed a series of transient transfection experiments in various expressing (endothelial) and nonexpressing cell types (including primary human vascular smooth muscle cells, primary human hepatocytes, and a wide variety of human and murine cell lines).84 Regardless of whether the core promoter (–133/+109), a segment containing both PRD I and PRD II (–151/+109), or longer portions of the eNOS promoter (–1193/+109 or –3500/+109) were used for the generation of episomal constructs, a majority of nonexpressing cell types demonstrated robust promoter activity. These results from transient transfection experiments were in stark contrast to the endothelial cell-restricted expression of stably integrated promoter-reporter constructs in transgenic eNOS promoter-reporter mice.82,83 Taken together, these data demonstrated that nonexpressing cell types possess the requisite transcriptional machinery to direct eNOS expression (Figure 3). Moreover, they hinted at the involvement of a chromatin-dependent repressive mechanism that prevented native eNOS expression in nonendothelial cells.
|
The Role of DNA Methylation
Using Southern hybridization with methylation-sensitive isoschizomer mapping and nucleotide-resolution bisulfite genomic sequencing, a differentially methylated region (DMR) was demonstrated in the native eNOS proximal promoter (–361/+3) in expressing (endothelial) and nonexpressing cell types.84 Genomic DNA isolated from endothelial cells was unmethylated or lightly methylated, whereas genomic DNA isolated from nonendothelial cells was heavily methylated at the eNOS proximal promoter. Importantly DNA methylation was determined to be symmetrical (occurring on both sense and antisense strands) and restricted to CpG dinucleotides. For example, the CpNpG sequence present on the antisense strand in PRD I (a high-affinity Sp1 site) was not methylated. Methylation further upstream (–4912/–4587) in a region corresponding to an enhancer or further downstream in a CpG island located at the 3'-end of the gene failed to demonstrate differential methylation in expressing and nonexpressing cell types. The eNOS proximal promoter DMR was confirmed in vivo by performing bisulfite genomic sequencing of the eNOS proximal promoter in endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells isolated by laser-capture microdissection from the murine aorta (a majority of CpG sites is conserved between mouse and man).84,85
To explore the functional relevance of the eNOS proximal promoter DMR, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) combined with quantitative real-time PCR was performed to assess the binding of relevant transfactors to the native eNOS proximal promoter in human endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells.84 These experiments demonstrated preferential recruitment of Sp1, Sp3, and Ets1 transcription factors to the eNOS proximal promoter in endothelial cells despite the presence of these factors in vascular smooth muscle cells, as determined by Western blotting. Consistent with these results, the transcriptional machinery (RNA polymerase II) was also preferentially bound to the eNOS proximal promoter in endothelial cells. MeCP2, a methyl-CpG-binding protein associated with transcriptional repression, was preferentially recruited to the eNOS proximal promoter in nonexpressing vascular smooth muscle cells.86 Treatment of nonexpressing cell types with 5-azacytidine, a DNMT inhibitor, demethylated the eNOS promoter in various nonendothelial cell types and increased expression of the eNOS mRNA.84 Several groups have previously demonstrated DMRs in the proximal promoters of cell-restricted genes, for example, human maspin (SERPINB5)87 and erythropoietin (EPO).88 Human eNOS represents the first example of a constitutively expressed gene in the vascular endothelium whose cell-restricted pattern of expression is determined, at least in part, by DNA methylation pathways.84
An Endothelial Cell–Specific Histone Code
Despite a prominent role for DNA methylation in the cell-specific expression of eNOS, 2 additional experiments suggested the involvement of other chromatin-based pathways.86 First, bisulfite genomic sequencing of the stably integrated promoter in transgenic eNOS promoter-reporter mice failed to demonstrate important differences in DNA methylation in eNOS-expressing aortic endothelial cells and nonexpressing aortic vascular smooth muscle cells isolated using laser-capture microdissection. In both cell types, the proximal promoter of the transgene was only lightly methylated. Consistent with this observation, maximally tolerated doses of 5-azacytidine did not induce transgene expression in nonexpressing cell types. Second, electrophoretic mobility shift assay using methylated and mock methylated eNOS proximal promoter probes (–161/+89) failed to demonstrate differences in the formation of specific nucleoprotein complexes. Importantly, these latter in vitro studies were performed with naked eNOS probes outside the context of chromatin. We, therefore, hypothesized that additional chromatin-based mechanisms may be relevant to the cell-specific expression of eNOS.
Using ChIP combined with quantitative real-time PCR, we investigated histone posttranslational modifications across the native eNOS genomic locus in various expressing and nonexpressing human cell types.86 These experiments convincingly demonstrated local enrichment of bulk acetylation of histones H3 and H4 in nucleosomes of the eNOS proximal promoter and immediately downstream regions in endothelial compared with nonendothelial cells. A similar pattern was observed for di- and trimethylated H3K4. As previously discussed, these epigenetic marks are associated with transcriptional activation. Consistent with these findings, HDAC1, but not HDAC2 or HDAC3, was enriched at the eNOS proximal promoter in nonendothelial cells. It is noteworthy that MeCP2, also enriched at the eNOS proximal promoter in nonendothelial cells, has been shown to recruit corepressor complexes containing HDAC1 in other experimental systems.89,90 Importantly, the functional relevance of these findings in the cell-specific expression of eNOS was demonstrated by treating nonexpressing vascular smooth muscle cells with a pharmacological HDAC inhibitor, TSA. As anticipated, bulk acetylation of histones H3 and H4 at the eNOS proximal promoter was increased concomitantly with eNOS mRNA expression. In addition to measuring bulk acetylation of histones H3 and H4 at the eNOS proximal promoter, ChIPs were also performed with monospecific antibodies that recognize unique histone lysine acetylation modifications in expressing and various nonexpressing cell types. Using this approach, we were able to document the selective enrichment of acetylated H3K9 and H4K12 at the eNOS proximal promoter in endothelial cells. These observations are consistent with an endothelium-specific histone code predicated on the combinatorial action of specific histone posttranslational modifications important in the regulation of gene expression.86 Differential responsiveness of unique histone lysine acetylation modifications was also reported at the endogenous E-selectin promoter after cytokine stimulation in human endothelial cells.91
Taken together, these data demonstrate the relevance of epigenetic pathways (DNA methylation and histone posttranslational modifications) in the cell-specific expression of a constitutively expressed endothelial gene, eNOS (Figure 4A).84,86 Another group has published complementary findings.92 Chromatin-based mechanisms have been implicated in a growing number of endothelium-restricted genes including VWF,93 NOTCH4,94 and EPHB4.95 These studies support the emerging view that epigenetic pathways are fundamental determinants of cell-restricted gene expression in the vascular endothelium. How these pathways are developmentally established and maintained is an area of intense investigation. It is tempting to speculate that perturbations in these epigenetic pathways may lead to decreased expression of eNOS in human disease, for example, atherosclerosis and pulmonary hypertension.
|
|
Inducibility of Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase: The Epigenetic Perspective |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
In contrast to constitutively expressed eNOS, human iNOS (NOS2A) provides an example of a gene whose expression is actively repressed in the vascular endothelium. iNOS is a cytokine-inducible gene whose expression is implicated in a number of human diseases, in particular, chronic inflammatory conditions. For example, our laboratory has previously documented iNOS mRNA and protein in the neointima of atherosclerotic human blood vessels.63 It is, therefore, surprising that the iNOS gene in cultured human cells is notoriously resistant to cytokine stimulation, a longstanding observation in the field.96–98 This is in contrast to the highly inducible iNOS gene in rodent cells in vitro and in vivo.99,100 Given that iNOS expression is largely under transcriptional control, several models have been proposed to explain the differential responsiveness of the highly homologous iNOS promoter in human and rodent cells in culture. These are based on the classic cis/trans paradigm of gene expression and include nucleotide substitutions in functionally relevant cis-elements, the absence of relevant transfactors, and the presence of a silencer element in human cells.98,101,102 However, these models cannot adequately explain the expression of iNOS in the same cell types in human disease. Recent evidence from our laboratory implicates chromatin-based pathways in the hyporesponsiveness of the human iNOS gene in cultured endothelial cells.103
The human iNOS gene contains 27 exons, spans approximately 40 kb of genomic DNA, maps to chromosome 17q11.2-q12 (pericentromeric location), and directs the expression of a single major transcript. The proximal promoter of the iNOS gene contains a canonical TATA box and lacks a CpG island.104,105 Detailed molecular characterization of the human iNOS promoter using transient transfection of episomal promoter-reporter constructs and transgenic promoter-reporter mice uncovered multiple classic cis-elements important in the cytokine inducibility of the gene including NF-B, interferon-regulatory factor-1, and STAT-3, among others.106–108 Interestingly, a similar promoter architecture is shared by highly responsive cytokine-inducible genes in human endothelial cells, for example, VCAM1.103
To explore the role of DNA methylation in the hyporesponsiveness of the human iNOS gene, nucleotide-resolution bisulfite genomic sequencing of the iNOS core promoter was performed in several nonresponsive cultured human endothelial cells, modestly responsive cultured cell lines (A549, DLD-1), and highly responsive human primary hepatocytes, cultured murine primary peritoneal macrophages and murine cell lines before and after cytokine stimulation.103 Consistent with a role for promoter DNA methylation in transcriptional repression, we documented heavy methylation of CpG dinucleotides in the human iNOS proximal promoter of nonresponsive human endothelial cells. In contrast, the highly homologous mouse iNOS promoter in responsive cell types was only lightly methylated. DNA methylation was symmetrical and restricted to CpG dinucleotides. Considering only cultured human cells, the percentage of methylation of CpG dinucleotides in the core iNOS promoter was well correlated (exponentially) with gene expression, as determined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. These data are consistent with previous reports examining the impact of methylation density on gene transcription using in vitro methylated episomes.109,110 Importantly, cytokine stimulation did not alter the methylation status of the proximal promoter in any of the cell types examined, as has previously been reported for the murine Il2 gene in stimulated T lymphocytes.111 The functional relevance of these findings was demonstrated by treating human cells in culture with 5-azacytidine, a pharmacological DNMT inhibitor. In minimally responsive DLD-1 cells, the iNOS promoter was completely demethylated by treatment with 5-azacytidine and associated with increased iNOS steady-state mRNA after cytokine stimulation. In contrast, the iNOS promoter in human endothelial cells remained hypermethylated and refractory to cytokine stimulation, suggesting additional layers of epigenetic control. Taken together, these data demonstrate a prominent role for DNA methylation in the transcriptional silencing of the human iNOS promoter in nonresponsive human endothelial cells in culture.103 Complementary results have been reported by others describing a role for promoter methylation in the transcriptional silencing of murine iNOS in glomerular mesangial cells.112
In addition to DNA methylation, we hypothesized that histone posttranslational modifications also contribute to the transcriptional silencing of iNOS in cultured human cells. Using ChIP combined with real-time PCR, we first documented differential recruitment of the methyl-binding domain protein MeCP2 to the heavily methylated iNOS promoter in human endothelial cells but not to the highly cytokine-inducible VCAM-1 promoter. Because MeCP2 can mediate transcriptional silencing by recruiting corepressor complexes with associated HDAC and H3K9 methyltransferase activities,113 we next assayed for the corresponding histone posttranslational modifications at the iNOS and VCAM-1 core promoters in a variety of cell types before and after cytokine stimulation. Cytokine stimulation was associated with increased recruitment of RNA polymerase II at the VCAM-1 promoter, but not at the iNOS promoter, in human endothelial cells. Importantly, di- and trimethylated H3K9 marks were enriched at the iNOS proximal promoter before and after cytokine stimulation in human endothelial cells. These repressive marks were not detected at the cytokine-inducible VCAM-1 promoter. Similar results have been reported for E-selectin, another cytokine-inducible endothelial gene.91 In contrast, treatment of human endothelial cells with the HDAC inhibitor TSA in the presence or absence of cytokines could not induce iNOS gene expression. Taken together, these data establish a role for epigenetic pathways, in particular, DNA and histone H3K9 methylation, in the transcriptional silencing of the human iNOS gene in cultured human endothelial cells (Figure 4B). It is tempting to speculate that dysregulation of these epigenetic pathways in disease leads to aberrant iNOS expression in endothelial cells, for example, as observed in human atherosclerosis.63,103
|
Emerging Roles for Epigenetic Pathways in Vascular Biology |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
It is increasingly appreciated that epigenetic pathways are responsive to a wide variety of internal and external environmental stimuli.1,114 Recent data highlight the potential of these pathways to serve as integrators of various environmental cues that converge on the genome and the regulation of endothelial gene expression in health and disease. To date, research has focused primarily on histone acetylation pathways.
Epigenetic Pathways in Vascular Development and Endothelial Differentiation
Epigenetic pathways have received increasing attention in embryonic development and cellular differentiation.115 However, it is only recently that these pathways have been explored in vascular endothelial cells. For example, Chang et al reported that global and endothelial cell-specific knockout of a class II HDAC, HDAC7, is embryonic lethal and required for the development of a normal vasculature.116 Specifically, these mice demonstrated defects in endothelial–endothelial and endothelial–smooth muscle cell contacts, resulting in vascular dilatation and rupture. They postulated that this phenotype was the result of a dysregulated MMP10/TIMP1 axis, resulting in pathological degradation of the extracellular matrix. In addition, HDAC activity has been shown by multiple independent laboratories to be critical for endothelial differentiation of embryonic stem cells and adult endothelial progenitor cells.117–120 In this context, HDAC3 activity appears to be particularly relevant.118,119 It is of interest that the 2 HDACs specifically implicated in endothelial development and differentiation, HDAC3 and HDAC7, colocalize in vivo and are constituents of the same multiprotein, corepressor complexes, SMRT and N-CoR.121 Whether HDAC activity is also required for maintenance of the mature endothelial phenotype is presently not known.
Epigenetic Pathways in Postnatal Angiogenesis
In the mature vascular system, HDACs, importantly, regulate postnatal angiogenesis in response to various pathological cues. For example, the utility of pharmacological HDAC inhibitors as cancer chemotherapeutics is likely related, in part, to their potent antiangiogenic activity, in addition to direct effects on the cancer cells themselves.122 Similar findings were also reported in VEGF-induced, hypoxia-induced, and other models of postnatal angiogenesis and endothelial cell migration.123–126 Several HDACs are likely to have prominent roles. In particular, HDAC1 has been implicated in hypoxia-induced angiogenesis.124 Specific knockdown of HDAC7, but not HDAC1-6, using an siRNA strategy inhibited cell migration and angiogenesis in mature primary endothelial cells in culture.127 Most recently, Potente et al demonstrated a fundamental role for SIRT1, a class III HDAC, in angiogenic signaling both in vitro and in vivo.128 The mechanistic basis for the requirement of HDAC activity in the angiogenic response is presently not clear and likely involves the regulation of the acetylation status of various transcription factors, such as the forkhead transcription factor, Foxo1,128 and other proteins, including eNOS itself.129 It remains to be defined whether global or locus-specific histone modifications important in the chromatin-based control of gene expression are also relevant. Perhaps not surprisingly other epigenetic pathways are beginning to emerge as important regulators of postnatal angiogenesis and include DNA methylation,130 histone methylation,95 and the RNA interference machinery.131
Epigenetic Pathways in Inflammation and the Endothelial Response to Blood Flow
Hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in the 5'-regulatory regions of genes is strongly associated with transcriptional activation. Treatment with HDAC inhibitors should therefore induce gene expression at sensitive promoters. It is surprising then that HDAC inhibitors have emerged as an important new class of potent antiinflammatory agents in a number of cell types, including endothelial cells. For example, HDAC inhibitors have shown early promise in the treatment of a growing number of chronic inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease,132,133 systemic lupus erythematosus,36,134 and rheumatoid arthritis.135 To date, the mechanism of action remains unclear but may involve modulation of NF-B transcriptional activity, among others, in addition to chromatin-based mechanisms.136 In human cultured endothelial cells, HDAC inhibitors inhibited TNF-–induced monocyte adhesion in vitro and in vivo via suppression of the VCAM-1 gene.137 Interestingly, other cytokine-inducible genes, ICAM-1 and E-selectin, were not suppressed, suggesting a direct effect on the VCAM-1 promoter as opposed to a general inhibition of the NF-B signaling pathway. Similar results have recently been reported for the repression of cytokine-induced tissue factor in human endothelial cells by a variety of structurally distinct HDAC inhibitors.138 It is of interest that both groups implicated an HDAC3-dependent pathway in the repression of these cytokine-inducible genes following treatment of cells with pharmacological HDAC inhibitors.137,138 What accounts for this unique promoter specificity is presently not known. The recent demonstration that the administration of the pharmacological HDAC inhibitor, TSA, to atherosclerosis-prone, Ldlr–/– mice exacerbates neointimal lesions emphasizes the need for a better understanding of epigenetic pathways in animal models of atherosclerosis.139 In this regard, it is of great interest that epigenetic pathways in human endothelial cells are responsive to the physical forces of blood flow, in particular, laminar shear stress. For example, Illi et al reported pronounced changes in global and locus-specific histone posttranslational modifications in cultured human endothelial cells in response to laminar shear stress.140 It is interesting to speculate that epigenetic pathways, in part, determine the susceptibility of different regions of the vascular system to atherosclerosis. For example, Won et al have recently reported the relative reduction of eNOS transcription in atherosclerosis prone regions of the mouse aorta.141 Whether epigenetic pathways underlie these differences in eNOS expression is presently under investigation.
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
Using the example of the eNOS gene, it is evident that epigenetics provides a newer vantage point for understanding transcriptional control paradigms in vascular endothelial cells. In particular, these pathways may represent the molecular substrate for the influence of the environment on vascular endothelial gene expression important in the modulation of cardiovascular disease susceptibility. We and others have demonstrated that DNA methylation and histone posttranslational modifications are markedly different at the proximal promoter of the eNOS gene in vascular endothelial cells versus vascular smooth muscle cells. These epigenetic marks can be modified in vascular smooth muscle cells by pharmacological inhibitors of DNA methylation and histone deacetylation pathways, and eNOS mRNA increases. Whether modifications of these pathways are also relevant to the changes in eNOS gene transcription in vascular endothelial cells exposed to changes in hemodynamic forces, hypoxia, proinflammatory cytokines, and entry into the cell cycle warrants further study. The malleability and dynamic nature of the epigenetic code, in contrast to the static genetic code, make therapeutic intervention in cardiovascular disease an enticing and high priority.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We gratefully thank members of the laboratory of P.A.M. for critical review of this manuscript.
Sources of Funding
C.C.M. is a recipient of a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship and McLaughlin Centre for Molecular Medicine Scientist Training Fellowship. P.A.M. is a recipient of a Career Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant MOP 36381.
Disclosures
None.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Original received December 29, 2007; revision received February 26, 2008; accepted March 21, 2008.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionPrimer on Epigenetics for...Endothelial Nitric Oxide...Inducibility of Inducible Nitric...Emerging Roles for Epigenetic...ConclusionReferences |
|---|
1. Bird A. Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature. 2007; 447: 396–398.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Fish JE, Marsden PA. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase: insight into cell-specific gene regulation in the vascular endothelium. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006; 63: 144–162.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Tai SC, Robb GB, Marsden PA. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase: a new paradigm for gene regulation in the injured blood vessel. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004; 24: 405–412.
4. Schumacher A, Petronis A. Epigenetics of complex diseases: from general theory to laboratory experiments. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006; 310: 81–115.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. McDonald OG, Owens GK. Programming smooth muscle plasticity with chromatin dynamics. Circ Res. 2007; 100: 1428–1441.
6. van Holde K, Zlatanova J, Arents G, Moudrianakis E. Elements of chromatin structure: histones, nucleosomes, and fibres. In: Elgin SCR, ed. Chromatin Structure and Gene Expression. New York: IRL Press; 1995: 1–26.
7. Goldberg AD, Allis CD, Bernstein E. Epigenetics: a landscape takes shape. Cell. 2007; 128: 635–638.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Miranda TB, Jones PA. DNA methylation: the nuts and bolts of repression. J Cell Physiol. 2007; 213: 384–390.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Johnson TB, Coghill RD. Researches on pyrimidines. C111. The discovery of 5-methyl-cytosine in tuberculinic acid, the nucleic acid of the tubercle bacillus. J Am Chem Soc. 1925; 47: 2838–2844.[CrossRef]
10. Haines TR, Rodenhiser DI, Ainsworth PJ. Allele-specific non-CpG methylation of the nf1 gene during early mouse development. Dev Biol. 2001; 240: 585–598.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Ramsahoye BH, Biniszkiewicz D, Lyko F, Clark V, Bird AP, Jaenisch R. Non-CpG methylation is prevalent in embryonic stem cells and may be mediated by DNA methyltransferase 3a. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97: 5237–5242.
12. Burden AF, Manley NC, Clark AD, Gartler SM, Laird CD, Hansen RS. Hemimethylation and non-CpG methylation levels in a promoter region of human line-1 (l1) repeated elements. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280: 14413–14419.
13. Woodcock DM, Lawler CB, Linsenmeyer ME, Doherty JP, Warren WD. Asymmetric methylation in the hypermethylated CpG promoter region of the human l1 retrotransposon. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272: 7810–7816.
14. Clark SJ, Harrison J, Frommer M. CpNpG methylation in mammalian cells. Nat Genet. 1995; 10: 20–27.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Gardiner-Garden M, Frommer M. CpG islands in vertebrate genomes. J Mol Biol. 1987; 196: 261–282.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Takai D, Jones PA. Comprehensive analysis of CpG islands in human chromosomes 21 and 22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99: 3740–3745.
17. Bernstein BE, Meissner A, Lander ES. The mammalian epigenome. Cell. 2007; 128: 669–681.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Perini G, Diolaiti D, Porro A, Della Valle G. In vivo transcriptional regulation of n-myc target genes is controlled by E-box methylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 12117–12122.
19. Comb M, Goodman HM. CpG methylation inhibits proenkephalin gene expression and binding of the transcription factor AP-2. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990; 18: 3975–3982.
20. Wenger RH, Kvietikova I, Rolfs A, Camenisch G, Gassmann M. Oxygen-regulated erythropoietin gene expression is dependent on a CpG methylation-free hypoxia-inducible factor-1 DNA-binding site. Eur J Biochem. 1998; 253: 771–777.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Bell AC, Felsenfeld G. Methylation of a CTCF-dependent boundary controls imprinted expression of the Igf2 gene. Nature. 2000; 405: 482–485.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Hark AT, Schoenherr CJ, Katz DJ, Ingram RS, Levorse JM, Tilghman SM. CTCF mediates methylation-sensitive enhancer-blocking activity at the H19/Igf2 locus. Nature. 2000; 405: 486–489.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Prokhortchouk A, Hendrich B, Jorgensen H, Ruzov A, Wilm M, Georgiev G, Bird A, Prokhortchouk E. The p120 catenin partner kaiso is a DNA methylation-dependent transcriptional repressor. Genes Dev. 2001; 15: 1613–1618.
24. Voo KS, Carlone DL, Jacobsen BM, Flodin A, Skalnik DG. Cloning of a mammalian transcriptional activator that binds unmethylated CpG motifs and shares a CXXC domain with DNA methyltransferase, human trithorax, and methyl-CpG binding domain protein 1. Mol Cell Biol. 2000; 20: 2108–2121.
25. Wang GG, Allis CD, Chi P. Chromatin remodeling and cancer. Part I: Covalent histone modifications. Trends Mol Med. 2007; 13: 363–372.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Hake SB, Allis CD. Histone H3 variants and their potential role in indexing mammalian genomes: the "H3 barcode hypothesis". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103: 6428–6435.
27. Wang GG, Allis CD, Chi P. Chromatin remodeling and cancer. Part II: ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling. Trends Mol Med. 2007; 13: 373–380.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Kouzarides T. Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell. 2007; 128: 693–705.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Shogren-Knaak M, Ishii H, Sun JM, Pazin MJ, Davie JR, Peterson CL. Histone H4-K16 acetylation controls chromatin structure and protein interactions. Science. 2006; 311: 844–847.
30. Shogren-Knaak M, Peterson CL. Switching on chromatin: mechanistic role of histone H4-K16 acetylation. Cell Cycle. 2006; 5: 1361–1365.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Jenuwein T, Allis CD. Translating the histone code. Science. 2001; 293: 1074–1080.
32. Strahl BD, Allis CD. The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature. 2000; 403: 41–45.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Batta K, Das C, Gadad S, Shandilya J, Kundu TK. Reversible acetylation of non histone proteins: role in cellular function and disease. Subcell Biochem. 2007; 41: 193–212.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Minucci S, Pelicci PG. Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006; 6: 38–51.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Minetti GC, Colussi C, Adami R, Serra C, Mozzetta C, Parente V, Fortuni S, Straino S, Sampaolesi M, Di Padova M, Illi B, Gallinari P, Steinkuhler C, Capogrossi MC, Sartorelli V, Bottinelli R, Gaetano C, Puri PL. Functional and morphological recovery of dystrophic muscles in mice treated with deacetylase inhibitors. Nat Med. 2006; 12: 1147–1150.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Mishra N, Reilly CM, Brown DR, Ruiz P, Gilkeson GS. Histone deacetylase inhibitors modulate renal disease in the MRL-lpr/lpr mouse. J Clin Invest. 2003; 111: 539–552.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Barski A, Cuddapah S, Cui K, Roh TY, Schones DE, Wang Z, Wei G, Chepelev I, Zhao K. High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell. 2007; 129: 823–837.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Ruthenburg AJ, Allis CD, Wysocka J. Methylation of lysine 4 on histone H3: intricacy of writing and reading a single epigenetic mark. Mol Cell. 2007; 25: 15–30.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
39. Heintzman ND, Stuart RK, Hon G, Fu Y, Ching CW, Hawkins RD, Barrera LO, Van Calcar S, Qu C, Ching KA, Wang W, Weng Z, Green RD, Crawford GE, Ren B. Distinct and predictive chromatin signatures of transcriptional promoters and enhancers in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 311–318.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Tsukada Y, Fang J, Erdjument-Bromage H, Warren ME, Borchers CH, Tempst P, Zhang Y. Histone demethylation by a family of JmjC domain-containing proteins. Nature. 2006; 439: 811–816.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Zaratiegui M, Irvine DV, Martienssen RA. Noncoding RNAs and gene silencing. Cell. 2007; 128: 763–776.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. Valencia-Sanchez MA, Liu J, Hannon GJ, Parker R. Control of translation and mRNA degradation by miRNAs and siRNAs. Genes Dev. 2006; 20: 515–524.
43. Morris KV, Chan SW, Jacobsen SE, Looney DJ. Small interfering RNA-induced transcriptional gene silencing in human cells. Science. 2004; 305: 1289–1292.
44. Ting AH, Schuebel KE, Herman JG, Baylin SB. Short double-stranded RNA induces transcriptional gene silencing in human cancer cells in the absence of DNA methylation. Nat Genet. 2005; 37: 906–910.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Galante PA, Vidal DO, de Souza JE, Camargo AA, de Souza SJ. Sense-antisense pairs in mammals: functional and evolutionary considerations. Genome Biol. 2007; 8: R40.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Petronis A. Epigenetics and twins: three variations on the theme. Trends Genet. 2006; 22: 347–350.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47. Poulsen P, Esteller M, Vaag A, Fraga MF. The epigenetic basis of twin discordance in age-related diseases. Pediatr Res. 2007; 61: 38R–42R.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Hayward CS, Benetos A. Hereditary and environmental influences on arterial function. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2007; 34: 658–664.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Mayer B, Erdmann J, Schunkert H. Genetics and heritability of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. Clin Res Cardiol. 2007; 96: 1–7.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
50. Nora JJ, Lortscher RH, Spangler RD, Nora AH, Kimberling WJ. Genetic–epidemiologic study of early-onset ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1980; 61: 503–508.
51. Marenberg ME, Risch N, Berkman LF, Floderus B, de Faire U. Genetic susceptibility to death from coronary heart disease in a study of twins. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 1041–1046.
52. Fraga MF, Ballestar E, Paz MF, Ropero S, Setien F, Ballestar ML, Heine-Suner D, Cigudosa JC, Urioste M, Benitez J, Boix-Chornet M, Sanchez-Aguilera A, Ling C, Carlsson E, Poulsen P, Vaag A, Stephan Z, Spector TD, Wu YZ, Plass C, Esteller M. Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 10604–10609.
53. Yang X, Smith SL, Tian XC, Lewin HA, Renard JP, Wakayama T. Nuclear reprogramming of cloned embryos and its implications for therapeutic cloning. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 295–302.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
54. Morgan HD, Sutherland HG, Martin DI, Whitelaw E. Epigenetic inheritance at the agouti locus in the mouse. Nat Genet. 1999; 23: 314–318.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
55. Chan TL, Yuen ST, Kong CK, Chan YW, Chan AS, Ng WF, Tsui WY, Lo MW, Tam WY, Li VS, Leung SY. Heritable germline epimutation of MSH2 in a family with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2006; 38: 1178–1183.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Hitchins MP, Wong JJ, Suthers G, Suter CM, Martin DI, Hawkins NJ, Ward RL. Inheritance of a cancer-associated mlh1 germ-line epimutation. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 697–705.
57. Suter CM, Martin DI, Ward RL. Germline epimutation of MLH1 in individuals with multiple cancers. Nat Genet. 2004; 36: 497–501.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
58. Furchgott RF, Zawadzki JV. The obligatory role of endothelial cells in the relaxation of arterial smooth muscle by acetylcholine. Nature. 1980; 288: 373–376.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
59. Ignarro LJ, Buga GM, Wood KS, Byrns RE, Chaudhuri G. Endothelium-derived relaxing factor produced and released from artery and vein is nitric oxide. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987; 84: 9265–9269.
60. Palmer RM, Ferrige AG, Moncada S. Nitric oxide release accounts for the biological activity of endothelium-derived relaxing factor. Nature. 1987; 327: 524–526.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
61. Liu VW, Huang PL. Cardiovascular roles of nitric oxide: a review of insights from nitric oxide synthase gene disrupted mice. Cardiovasc Res. 2008; 77: 19–29.
62. Giaid A, Saleh D. Reduced expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase in the lungs of patients with pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 214–221.
63. Wilcox JN, Subramanian RR, Sundell CL, Tracey WR, Pollock JS, Harrison DG, Marsden PA. Expression of multiple isoforms of nitric oxide synthase in normal and atherosclerotic vessels. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997; 17: 2479–2488.
64. Marsden PA, Schappert KT, Chen HS, Flowers M, Sundell CL, Wilcox JN, Lamas S, Michel T. Molecular cloning and characterization of human endothelial nitric oxide synthase. FEBS Lett. 1992; 307: 287–293.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
65. Bertrand N, Castro DS, Guillemot F. Proneural genes and the specification of neural cell types. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3: 517–530.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
66. Lehrke M, Lazar MA. The many faces of PPARgamma. Cell. 2005; 123: 993–999.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
67. Wang Z, Wang DZ, Pipes GC, Olson EN. Myocardin is a master regulator of smooth muscle gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100: 7129–7134.
68. Tapscott SJ. The circuitry of a master switch: Myod and the regulation of skeletal muscle gene transcription. Development. 2005; 132: 2685–2695.
69. Weintraub H, Tapscott SJ, Davis RL, Thayer MJ, Adam MA, Lassar AB, Miller AD. Activation of muscle-specific genes in pigment, nerve, fat, liver, and fibroblast cell lines by forced expression of MyoD. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989; 86: 5434–5438.
70. Atkins GB, Jain MK. Role of Krüppel-like transcription factors in endothelial biology. Circ Res. 2007; 100: 1686–1695.
71. Kuo CT, Veselits ML, Barton KP, Lu MM, Clendenin C, Leiden JM. The LKLF transcription factor is required for normal tunica media formation and blood vessel stabilization during murine embryogenesis. Genes Dev. 1997; 11: 2996–3006.
72. Buckley AF, Kuo CT, Leiden JM. Transcription factor LKLF is sufficient to program T cell quiescence via a c-Myc–dependent pathway. Nat Immunol. 2001; 2: 698–704.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
73. Carlson CM, Endrizzi BT, Wu J, Ding X, Weinreich MA, Walsh ER, Wani MA, Lingrel JB, Hogquist KA, Jameson SC. Kruppel-like factor 2 regulates thymocyte and T-cell migration. Nature. 2006; 442: 299–302.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
74. Dekker RJ, van Thienen JV, Rohlena J, de Jager SC, Elderkamp YW, Seppen J, de Vries CJ, Biessen EA, van Berkel TJ, Pannekoek H, Horrevoets AJ. Endothelial KLF2 links local arterial shear stress levels to the expression of vascular tone-regulating genes. Am J Pathol. 2005; 167: 609–618.
75. SenBanerjee S, Lin Z, Atkins GB, Greif DM, Rao RM, Kumar A, Feinberg MW, Chen Z, Simon DI, Luscinskas FW, Michel TM, Gimbrone MA Jr, Garcia-Cardena G, Jain MK. KLF2 is a novel transcriptional regulator of endothelial proinflammatory activation. J Exp Med. 2004; 199: 1305–1315.
76. Dekker RJ, Boon RA, Rondaij MG, Kragt A, Volger OL, Elderkamp YW, Meijers JC, Voorberg J, Pannekoek H, Horrevoets AJ. KLF2 provokes a gene expression pattern that establishes functional quiescent differentiation of the endothelium. Blood. 2006; 107: 4354–4363.
77. Parmar KM, Larman HB, Dai G, Zhang Y, Wang ET, Moorthy SN, Kratz JR, Lin Z, Jain MK, Gimbrone MA Jr, Garcia-Cardena G. Integration of flow-dependent endothelial phenotypes by Kruppel-like factor 2. J Clin Invest. 2006; 116: 49–58.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
78. Karantzoulis-Fegaras F, Antoniou H, Lai SL, Kulkarni G, D’Abreo C, Wong GK, Miller TL, Chan Y, Atkins J, Wang Y, Marsden PA. Characterization of the human endothelial nitric-oxide synthase promoter. J Biol Chem. 1999; 274: 3076–3093.
79. Marsden PA, Heng HH, Scherer SW, Stewart RJ, Hall AV, Shi XM, Tsui LC, Schappert KT. Structure and chromosomal localization of the human constitutive endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene. J Biol Chem. 1993; 268: 17478–17488.
80. Nadaud S, Bonnardeaux A, Lathrop M, Soubrier F. Gene structure, polymorphism and mapping of the human endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994; 198: 1027–1033.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
81. Robinson LJ, Weremowicz S, Morton CC, Michel T. Isolation and chromosomal localization of the human endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS3) gene. Genomics. 1994; 19: 350–357.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
82. Guillot PV, Liu L, Kuivenhoven JA, Guan J, Rosenberg RD, Aird WC. Targeting of human eNOS promoter to the Hprt locus of mice leads to tissue-restricted transgene expression. Physiol Genomics. 2000; 2: 77–83.
83. Teichert AM, Miller TL, Tai SC, Wang Y, Bei X, Robb GB, Phillips MJ, Marsden PA. In vivo expression profile of an endothelial nitric oxide synthase promoter-reporter transgene. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2000; 278: H1352–H1361.
84. Chan Y, Fish JE, D’Abreo C, Lin S, Robb GB, Teichert AM, Karantzoulis-Fegaras F, Keightley A, Steer BM, Marsden PA. The cell-specific expression of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase: a role for DNA methylation. J Biol Chem. 2004; 279: 35087–35100.
85. Teichert AM, Karantzoulis-Fegaras F, Wang Y, Mawji IA, Bei X, Gnanapandithen K, Marsden PA. Characterization of the murine endothelial nitric oxide synthase promoter. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998; 1443: 352–357.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
86. Fish JE, Matouk CC, Rachlis A, Lin S, Tai SC, D’Abreo C, Marsden PA. The expression of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase is controlled by a cell-specific histone code. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280: 24824–24838.
87. Futscher BW, Oshiro MM, Wozniak RJ, Holtan N, Hanigan CL, Duan H, Domann FE. Role for DNA methylation in the control of cell type specific maspin expression. Nat Genet. 2002; 31: 175–179.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
88. Yin H, Blanchard KL. DNA methylation represses the expression of the human erythropoietin gene by two different mechanisms. Blood. 2000; 95: 111–119.
89. Ghoshal K, Datta J, Majumder S, Bai S, Dong X, Parthun M, Jacob ST. Inhibitors of histone deacetylase and DNA methyltransferase synergistically activate the methylated metallothionein I promoter by activating the transcription factor MTF-1 and forming an open chromatin structure. Mol Cell Biol. 2002; 22: 8302–8319.
90. Jones PL, Veenstra GJ, Wade PA, Vermaak D, Kass SU, Landsberger N, Strouboulis J, Wolffe AP. Methylated DNA and MeCP2 recruit histone deacetylase to repress transcription. Nat Genet. 1998; 19: 187–191.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
91. Edelstein LC, Pan A, Collins T. Chromatin modification and the endothelial-specific activation of the E-selectin gene. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280: 11192–11202.
92. Gan Y, Shen YH, Wang J, Wang X, Utama B, Wang J, Wang XL. Role of histone deacetylation in cell-specific expression of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280: 16467–16475.
93. Peng Y, Jahroudi N. The NFY transcription factor inhibits von Willebrand factor promoter activation in non-endothelial cells through recruitment of histone deacetylases. J Biol Chem. 2003; 278: 8385–8394.
94. Wu J, Iwata F, Grass JA, Osborne CS, Elnitski L, Fraser P, Ohneda O, Yamamoto M, Bresnick EH. Molecular determinants of NOTCH4 transcription in vascular endothelium. Mol Cell Biol. 2005; 25: 1458–1474.
95. Diehl F, Rossig L, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S, Urbich C. The histone methyltransferase MLL is an upstream regulator of endothelial-cell sprout formation. Blood. 2007; 109: 1472–1478.
96. Nussler AK, Di Silvio M, Liu ZZ, Geller DA, Freeswick P, Dorko K, Bartoli F, Billiar TR. Further characterization and comparison of inducible nitric oxide synthase in mouse, rat, and human hepatocytes. Hepatology. 1995; 21: 1552–1560.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
97. Rosenkranz-Weiss P, Sessa WC, Milstien S, Kaufman S, Watson CA, Pober JS. Regulation of nitric oxide synthesis by proinflammatory cytokines in human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Elevations in tetrahydrobiopterin levels enhance endothelial nitric oxide synthase specific activity. J Clin Invest. 1994; 93: 2236–2243.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
98. Zhang X, Laubach VE, Alley EW, Edwards KA, Sherman PA, Russell SW, Murphy WJ. Transcriptional basis for hyporesponsiveness of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene to lipopolysaccharide/interferon-gamma. J Leukoc Biol. 1996; 59: 575–585.[Abstract]
99. Balligand JL, Ungureanu-Longrois D, Simmons WW, Kobzik L, Lowenstein CJ, Lamas S, Kelly RA, Smith TW, Michel T. Induction of NO synthase in rat cardiac microvascular endothelial cells by IL-1 beta and IFN-gamma. Am J Physiol. 1995; 268: H1293–H1303.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
100. Marsden PA, Ballermann BJ. Tumor necrosis factor alpha activates soluble guanylate cyclase in bovine glomerular mesangial cells via an L-arginine-dependent mechanism. J Exp Med. 1990; 172: 1843–1852.
101. Chu SC, Marks-Konczalik J, Wu HP, Banks TC, Moss J. Analysis of the cytokine-stimulated human inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) gene: characterization of differences between human and mouse iNOS promoters. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998; 248: 871–878.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
102. Feng X, Guo Z, Nourbakhsh M, Hauser H, Ganster R, Shao L, Geller DA. Identification of a negative response element in the human inducible nitric-oxide synthase (hiNOS) promoter: the role of NF-kappa B-repressing factor (NRF) in basal repression of the hiNOS gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99: 14212–14217.
103. Chan GC, Fish JE, Mawji IA, Leung DD, Rachlis AC, Marsden PA. Epigenetic basis for the transcriptional hyporesponsiveness of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene in vascular endothelial cells. J Immunol. 2005; 175: 3846–3861.
104. Chartrain NA, Geller DA, Koty PP, Sitrin NF, Nussler AK, Hoffman EP, Billiar TR, Hutchinson NI, Mudgett JS. Molecular cloning, structure, and chromosomal localization of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene. J Biol Chem. 1994; 269: 6765–6772.
105. Xu W, Charles IG, Liu L, Moncada S, Emson P. Molecular cloning and structural organization of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene (NOS2). Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1996; 219: 784–788.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
106. Taylor BS, Geller DA. Molecular regulation of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) gene. Shock. 2000; 13: 413–424.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
107. Warke VG, Nambiar MP, Krishnan S, Tenbrock K, Geller DA, Koritschoner NP, Atkins JL, Farber DL, Tsokos GC. Transcriptional activation of the human inducible nitric-oxide synthase promoter by Kruppel-like factor 6. J Biol Chem. 2003; 278: 14812–14819.
108. Yu Z, Xia X, Kone BC. Expression profile of a human inducible nitric oxide synthase promoter reporter in transgenic mice during endotoxemia. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2005; 288: F214–F220.
109. Boyes J, Bird A. Repression of genes by DNA methylation depends on CpG density and promoter strength: evidence for involvement of a methyl-CpG binding protein. EMBO J. 1992; 11: 327–333.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
110. Hsieh CL. Dependence of transcriptional repression on CpG methylation density. Mol Cell Biol. 1994; 14: 5487–5494.
111. Bruniquel D, Schwartz RH. Selective, stable demethylation of the interleukin-2 gene enhances transcription by an active process. Nat Immunol. 2003; 4: 235–240.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
112. Yu Z, Kone BC. Hypermethylation of the inducible nitric-oxide synthase gene promoter inhibits its transcription. J Biol Chem. 2004; 279: 46954–46961.
113. Fuks F, Hurd PJ, Wolf D, Nan X, Bird AP, Kouzarides T. The methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 links DNA methylation to histone methylation. J Biol Chem. 2003; 278: 4035–4040.
114. Jirtle RL, Skinner MK. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nat Rev Genet. 2007; 8: 253–262.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
115. Reik W. Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development. Nature. 2007; 447: 425–432.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
116. Chang S, Young BD, Li S, Qi X, Richardson JA, Olson EN. Histone deacetylase 7 maintains vascular integrity by repressing matrix metalloproteinase 10. Cell. 2006; 126: 321–334.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
117. Rossig L, Urbich C, Bruhl T, Dernbach E, Heeschen C, Chavakis E, Sasaki K, Aicher D, Diehl F, Seeger F, Potente M, Aicher A, Zanetta L, Dejana E, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. Histone deacetylase activity is essential for the expression of HoxA9 and for endothelial commitment of progenitor cells. J Exp Med. 2005; 201: 1825–1835.
118. Xiao Q, Zeng L, Zhang Z, Margariti A, Ali ZA, Channon KM, Xu Q, Hu Y. Sca-1+ progenitors derived from embryonic stem cells differentiate into endothelial cells capable of vascular repair after arterial injury. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006; 26: 2244–2251.
119. Zeng L, Xiao Q, Margariti A, Zhang Z, Zampetaki A, Patel S, Capogrossi MC, Hu Y, Xu Q. HDAC3 is crucial in shear- and VEGF-induced stem cell differentiation toward endothelial cells. J Cell Biol. 2006; 174: 1059–1069.
120. Illi B, Scopece A, Nanni S, Farsetti A, Morgante L, Biglioli P, Capogrossi MC, Gaetano C. Epigenetic histone modification and cardiovascular lineage programming in mouse embryonic stem cells exposed to laminar shear stress. Circ Res. 2005; 96: 501–508.
121. Fischle W, Dequiedt F, Fillion M, Hendzel MJ, Voelter W, Verdin E. Human HDAC7 histone deacetylase activity is associated with HDAC3 in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2001; 276: 35826–35835.
122. Hellebrekers DM, Griffioen AW, van Engeland M. Dual targeting of epigenetic therapy in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007; 1775: 76–91.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
123. Deroanne CF, Bonjean K, Servotte S, Devy L, Colige A, Clausse N, Blacher S, Verdin E, Foidart JM, Nusgens BV, Castronovo V. Histone deacetylases inhibitors as anti-angiogenic agents altering vascular endothelial growth factor signaling. Oncogene. 2002; 21: 427–436.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
124. Kim MS, Kwon HJ, Lee YM, Baek JH, Jang JE, Lee SW, Moon EJ, Kim HS, Lee SK, Chung HY, Kim CW, Kim KW. Histone deacetylases induce angiogenesis by negative regulation of tumor suppressor genes. Nat Med. 2001; 7: 437–443.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
125. Michaelis M, Michaelis UR, Fleming I, Suhan T, Cinatl J, Blaheta RA, Hoffmann K, Kotchetkov R, Busse R, Nau H, Cinatl J Jr. Valproic acid inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Mol Pharmacol. 2004; 65: 520–527.
126. Rossig L, Li H, Fisslthaler B, Urbich C, Fleming I, Forstermann U, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. Inhibitors of histone deacetylation downregulate the expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and compromise endothelial cell function in vasorelaxation and angiogenesis. Circ Res. 2002; 91: 837–844.
127. Mottet D, Bellahcene A, Pirotte S, Waltregny D, Deroanne C, Lamour V, Lidereau R, Castronovo V. Histone deacetylase 7 silencing alters endothelial cell migration, a key step in angiogenesis. Circ Res. 2007; 101: 1237–1246.
128. Potente M, Ghaeni L, Baldessari D, Mostoslavsky R, Rossig L, Dequiedt F, Haendeler J, Mione M, Dejana E, Alt FW, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. SIRT1 controls endothelial angiogenic functions during vascular growth. Genes Dev. 2007; 21: 2644–2658.
129. Mattagajasingh I, Kim CS, Naqvi A, Yamamori T, Hoffman TA, Jung SB, DeRicco J, Kasuno K, Irani K. SIRT1 promotes endothelium-dependent vascular relaxation by activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104: 14855–14860.
130. Hellebrekers DM, Jair KW, Vire E, Eguchi S, Hoebers NT, Fraga MF, Esteller M, Fuks F, Baylin SB, van Engeland M, Griffioen AW. Angiostatic activity of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006; 5: 467–475.
131. Kuehbacher A, Urbich C, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. Role of Dicer and Drosha for endothelial microRNA expression and angiogenesis. Circ Res. 2007; 101: 59–68.
132. Glauben R, Batra A, Fedke I, Zeitz M, Lehr HA, Leoni F, Mascagni P, Fantuzzi G, Dinarello CA, Siegmund B. Histone hyperacetylation is associated with amelioration of experimental colitis in mice. J Immunol. 2006; 176: 5015–5022.
133. Vernia P, Annese V, Bresci G, d’Albasio G, D’Inca R, Giaccari S, Ingrosso M, Mansi C, Riegler G, Valpiani D, Caprilli R. Topical butyrate improves efficacy of 5-ASA in refractory distal ulcerative colitis: results of a multicentre trial. Eur J Clin Invest. 2003; 33: 244–248.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
134. Ballestar E, Esteller M, Richardson BC. The epigenetic face of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Immunol. 2006; 176: 7143–7147.
135. Lin HS, Hu CY, Chan HY, Liew YY, Huang HP, Lepescheux L, Bastianelli E, Baron R, Rawadi G, Clement-Lacroix P. Anti-rheumatic activities of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors in vivo in collagen-induced arthritis in rodents. Br J Pharmacol. 2007; 150: 862–872.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
136. Greene WC, Chen LF. Regulation of NF-kappaB action by reversible acetylation. Novartis Found Symp. 2004; 259: 208–217.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
137. Inoue K, Kobayashi M, Yano K, Miura M, Izumi A, Mataki C, Doi T, Hamakubo T, Reid PC, Hume DA, Yoshida M, Aird WC, Kodama T, Minami T. Histone deacetylase inhibitor reduces monocyte adhesion to endothelium through the suppression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 expression. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006; 26: 2652–2659.
138. Wang J, Mahmud SA, Bitterman PB, Huo Y, Slungaard A. Histone deacetylase inhibitors suppress TF-kappaB-dependent agonist-driven tissue factor expression in endothelial cells and monocytes. J Biol Chem. 2007; 282: 28408–28418.
139. Choi JH, Nam KH, Kim J, Baek MW, Park JE, Park HY, Kwon HJ, Kwon OS, Kim DY, Oh GT. Trichostatin a exacerbates atherosclerosis in low density lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005; 25: 2404–2409.
140. Illi B, Nanni S, Scopece A, Farsetti A, Biglioli P, Capogrossi MC, Gaetano C. Shear stress-mediated chromatin remodeling provides molecular basis for flow-dependent regulation of gene expression. Circ Res. 2003; 93: 155–161.
141. Won D, Zhu SN, Chen M, Teichert AM, Fish JE, Matouk CC, Bonert M, Ojha M, Marsden PA, Cybulsky MI. Relative reduction of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase expression and transcription in atherosclerosis-prone regions of the mouse aorta and in an in vitro model of disturbed flow. Am J Pathol. 2007; 171: 1691–1704.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||