Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Central Science logoLink to ACS Central Science
. 2026 Feb 5;12(2):208–221. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.5c00736

Direct Readout of Multivalent Chromatin Reader-Nucleosome Interactions by Nucleosome Mass Spectrometry

Alexander S Lee †,‡, Nickolas P Fisher †, Matthew R Marunde §, Pei Su †, Laiba F Khan §, Ryan J Ezell §, Zachary B Gillespie §, Bria Graham §, Hailey F Taylor §, Ugochi C Onuoha §, Taojunfeng Su †, Kevin Jooß †, Luis F Schachner †, Harrison A Fuchs ∥, Kelsey Noll §, Matthew J Meiners §, Marcus A Cheek §, Jonathan M Burg §, Zu-Wen Sun §, Catherine A Musselman ∥, Michael-Christopher Keogh §, Neil L Kelleher †,‡,*
PMCID: PMC12947556  PMID: 41768765

Abstract

Histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) often serve as distinct recognition sites for the recruitment of chromatin-associated proteins (CAPs) for epigenome regulation. While CAP:PTM interactions are extensively studied using histone peptides, this cannot represent the regulatory potential of multisite binding on intact nucleosomes. To overcome this limitation, we applied Nucleosome Mass Spectrometry (Nuc-MS), a native Top-Down MS approach that enables the controlled disassembly and proteoform analysis of CAP:nucleosome (CAP:nuc) complexes. As proof of principle, we show the BPTF plant homeodomain (PHD)-bromodomain (BD) native tandem reader binds synergistically to both PTM classes in fully defined ([H3K4me3K9acK14acK18ac]2) nucleosomes. We then extend to explore the engagement of BRD4 (native BD1-BD2), DNMT3A-MPP8 (chimeric PWWP-CD), and Populus trichocarpa Short Half Life (PtSHL) (native bromodomain-adjacent homology (BAH-PHD) tandem readers with endogenous HeLa nucleosomes. In the resulting enrichment profiles, BRD4 favors di- and triacetylated histone H4 proteoforms, whereas DNMT3A-MPP8 and PtSHL recover distinct hypermethylated H3 proteoforms. Of note, PtSHL enriches a potential {H3K4me3K27me3} cis combinatorial that expands the biology of this bivalent signature previously only described in trans. By directly characterizing CAP:nuc complex composition, Nuc-MS informs on the nucleoforms driving binding and thus identifies primary candidates for direct biochemical, structural, and genomic studies.

graphic file with name oc5c00736_0007.jpg

graphic file with name oc5c00736_0006.jpg

1. Introduction

Nucleosomes are the fundamental repeating units of eukaryotic genome organization with arrays forming higher-order chromatin. Canonical nucleosomes contain two copies of each core histone (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4), forming protein octamers wrapped by 147 bp of DNA. Within this unit, the globular histone-fold domains mediate extensive structural associations with each other and DNA, while highly charged N-terminal tails dynamically interact with various intra- and inter-nucleosomal surfaces. − Introducing diversity to the repeating unit, each histone can be decorated with a myriad of post-translational modifications (PTMs), added and removed by a range of histone-modifying enzymes. Distinctly modified forms of histones resulting from PTMs and sequence variants are termed “proteoforms” and their assemblage in distinct nucleosomes, as nucleoforms. − To mediate function, site-specific PTMs serve as recognition sites for chromatin-associated proteins (CAPs) through specialized reader domains (or more accurately PTM combinations by grouped domains). As an example, plant homeodomain (PHD) fingers bind unmodified and methylated lysines, − whereas bromodomains (BDs) bind acetylated lysines. Understanding how CAPs interact with nucleosomes is critical because their regulated engagement at distinct chromatin locations supports the assembly of large nucleoprotein complexes to govern DNA-centric processes including replication, transcription, and repair. , Insight thus informs on organismal development and how dysregulation can impact diseases including cancer and neurodegeneration.

For decades, most studies that interrogate the binding potential between CAPs and histone PTMs have used histone peptide pulldowns or arrays, predictions from structures of related reader domains with histone peptides, or domain incubations with cell extracts followed by immunoblotting with PTM-specific antibodies. − Such approaches are often undermined by reductive formats (minimal reader domains and histone peptides) that poorly represent the regulatory potential of a CAP:nucleosome (CAP:nuc) complex and anti-PTM antibodies of varying quality. ,, In these approaches, histone peptides can inform on CAP engagement with combinatorial PTMs on the same histone tail (in cis) but not on interactions across nucleosomal histones (in trans). As an additional complexity, while the histone N-terminal tails are traditionally depicted as extending from the nucleosome core, current studies show they instead dynamically associate with nucleosomal DNA with profound regulatory potential. − Histone peptides do not supply this nucleosomal DNA directly required by some reader domains, including PWWPs or certain BDs, for effective PTM engagement. ,− Lastly, histone peptides cannot provide the diversity of “nonspecific” surfaces that support multivalent CAP:nuc engagement, such as the wrapping nucleosomal DNA and acidic patch. ,,− Semisynthetic PTM-defined nucleosomes provide the ability to interrogate CAP interactions with more representative targets but require direct site-specific chemical synthesis of each histone PTM and their assembly to combinatorial nucleosomes. As such, it is cost-prohibitive to address the immense potential diversity of histone proteoforms and nucleoforms in chromatin. − Rather, an approach is needed to screen for the binding of CAPs (alone or within megadalton complexes) to nucleosomes absent a priori knowledge, and detect the enriched histone proteoforms and nucleoforms driving engagement for further study.

Mass Spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics has hugely contributed to our understanding of CAP:nuc interactions. − However, current MS approaches often require that the nucleosomes and any associated CAPs be denatured and digested to short peptides prior to analysis (aka. bottom-up MS). − This loses information on CAP complex composition and histone PTM co-occurrence (unless immediately adjacent). Due to this, we still have a limited understanding of how most histone proteoforms contribute to epigenetic regulation, cellular identity, and disease development. − Understanding the role of combinatorial PTMs can reveal the crosstalk, where one PTM influences the deposition, recognition, or removal of another, that regulates in vivo CAP interactions. − Advances in MS, such as Top-Down in which intact proteins are directly analyzed, can provide information on complete histone proteoforms including variant identity and distal PTM combinations (e.g., {H3.2K36me2K79me2}). ,,− Native Top-Down Mass Spectrometry (nTDMS) refers to the controlled disassembly of protein complexes and subsequent characterization of encompassed proteoforms. , Nucleosome Mass Spectrometry (Nuc-MS) is a nTDMS approach that can provide information on protein composition and histone proteoforms from semisynthetic or endogenous nucleosomes. − Such gains in proteomics capability alongside advances in genomics and protein engineering have driven the need for a new nomenclature to communicate proteoform and nucleoform level data and the degree of experimental certainty. This new nomenclature is used through the current study (Methods in the SI and Figure ).

1.

1

Open in a new tab

Nucleosome Mass Spectrometry (Nuc-MS) workflow for the direct analysis of CAP-associated nucleoforms. (a) Chromatin-associated proteins (CAPs) are mixed with Nucleosomes ([semisynthetic] or {endogenous} as in ref ). (b) Native and intact CAP-nucleosome complexes are isolated (MS1). (c) These complexes are activated by collision with nitrogen gas to eject histone subunits (MS2). (d) The desired histone subunit is further isolated and fragmented (pseudo MS3) to determine protein sequence and PTM identity/position.

Here, we broaden the application of Nuc-MS by coupling the approach with CAP-mediated enrichment to (i) confirm the PTMs required for CAP interaction with fully defined nucleoforms, and (ii) identify the histone proteoform landscape after CAP-capture from a pool of endogenous nucleoforms. As proof of principle, we confirm the preference of the BPTF PHD-BD tandem reader for PTM-defined ([H3K4me3K9­acK14acK­18ac]2) nucleosomes and that loss-of-function mutations in either reader domain prevents stable complex formation. We then explored the binding of three distinct tandem reader domain CAPs with endogenous nucleosomes. Here, BRD4 BD1-BD2 enriches nucleosomes with acetylated H2A.Z and histone H4 proteoforms, including with a rare acetylation at H4K44; the DNMT3A-MPP8 chimeric PWWP-CD recovers ({H3K9me­3K36me3}); and the Populus trichocarpa Short Half Life (PtSHL) bromodomain-adjacent homology (BAH)-PHD potentially yields ({H3K4me­3K27me3}). The last was of particular note since this “bivalent” PTM combination (active H3K4me3 and repressive H3K27me3) is generally reported to coexist in nucleosomes in trans rather than on the same histone tail. , These results highlight the potential of Nuc-MS as a tool to reveal the combined elements driving CAP:nuc interactions and suggest focused studies on novel aspects of epigenetic regulation.

2. Results and Discussion

The Nuc-MS workflow was developed on commercially available Orbitrap-based mass spectrometers and is composed of three MS elements to interrogate CAP:nuc interactions: (i) intact mass analysis of native CAP:nuc complexes (MS1); (ii) intact mass analysis of ejected histones (MS2); and (iii) tandem MS fragmentation data to assert the enriched histone proteoforms (MS3) (Figure ). In this study, we used the Orbitrap Q-Exactive Ultra High Mass Range (UHMR) and Orbitrap Tribrid mass spectrometers because of their ability to analyze at high mass ranges (upward of 800 kDa), making them suitable to study intact CAP:nuc complexes (see Methods in the SI). In addition, the Orbitrap Tribrid series is capable of multiple MS/MS fragmentation approaches, supporting the in-depth characterization of histone proteoforms (see Methods in the SI). Of note, the initial experimental steps of CAP-mediated nucleosome enrichment with extensive washing reduce sample complexity and permit a focus on distinguishing the isobaric forms (molecules or ions with the same mass but different compositions: e.g., ac or me3 each add 42 Da) driving engagement. Further, we deliberately focus on tandem readers since combinatorial engagement will invariably be of the greatest affinity and is almost certainly the most biologically meaningful. ,,

To begin, we conducted a Luminex-based assay to confirm the binding preference of GST-BPTF PHD-BD (hereafter BPTF) for PTM-defined histone H3 peptides and semisynthetic nucleosomes (Figure S1). As expected, BPTF effectively bound H3[1–20]K4me3 and H3[1–20]K4me3K9­acK14­acK18ac peptides (with respective EC50 Rel values of 4.3 and 18.9 nM: Figure S1B and Tables S1–S2). However, in the nucleosome context, BPTF showed a strong preference for the ([H3K4me3K9ac­K14acK18ac]2) combinatorial (EC50 Rel 23.4 nM: Figure S1C and Tables S3–S4). ,

We next used Nuc-MS (MS1) to examine this CAP:nuc interaction and determined that BPTF failed to stably engage ([unmodified]2), ([H3K4me3]2), or ([H3K4acK9ac­K14acK18ac]2) nucleosomes but effectively bound ([H3K4me3K9­acK14acK18ac]2) (Figure a–d). As predicted, loss-of-function alanine mutations , within the BPTF PHD finger (W2891A, PHD*), bromodomain (N3007A, BD*), or both domains (PHD*BD*) abrogated this nucleosome complexation (Figure S3 and Table S1). By disrupting the BPTF:nuc complex inside the mass spectrometer (MS2), we validated the identity of each histone proteoform at the intact level and their PTMs by MS fragmentation (MS3) (Figure S2). Of note, this complex contained two copies of BPTF, where MS cannot distinguish two independent bindings from one dimerized via the N-terminal GST-tag. , However, GST dimerization increases the avidity of GST-BPTF PHD-BD over 6xHis-BPTF PHD-BD for PTM-defined nucleosomes without impacting the specificity profile, a tag comparison observed with multiple other readers. This suggests the most probable mode of engagement as GST-dimerized BPTF bound to one nucleosomal H3 tail.

2.

2

Open in a new tab

Nuc-MS analysis of BPTF PHD-BD binding to PTM-defined semisynthetic nucleoforms. (a–d) Native MS1 spectrum of intact GST-BPTF PHD-BD with ([unmodified]2) (a), ([H3K4me3]2) (b), ([H3K4acK9­acK14cK18ac]2) (c), or ([H3K4me3K­9acK14cK18ac]2) (d) mononucleosomes. The absence of complexation in (a) is reflected by charge state distributions at (+17 to +20) and (+24 to +38), respectively corresponding to a BPTF dimer (possibly via the N-terminal GST-tag) and unmodified nucleosome. Complexation with ([H3K4me3K9­acK14cK18ac]2) in (d) is reflected by the appearance of a charge state at (+35 to +41). Representative of three independent experiments shown.

In the above, Nuc-MS can successfully detect multivalent CAP binding to fully defined semisynthetic nucleosomes and delineate the histone proteoforms that support complexation. We next challenged the approach to characterize CAP-enriched endogenous nucleosomes, hypothesizing that different tandem reader domains should recover distinct histone proteoform landscapes. To achieve this, we mixed each bead-immobilized CAP with a pool of endogenous nucleosomes liberated from HeLa chromatin by micrococcal nuclease (Methods in the SI and Figures S4–S5), washed extensively to remove unbound nucleoforms, and then performed Nuc-MS.

Bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4) is a member of the Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal (BET) family and contains tandem BDs (BD1 and BD2) to mediate interactions with nucleosomes hyperacetylated at histones H3 and H4. ,,− BRD4 mediates roles in DNA repair, higher-order chromatin structure, and transcription, ,,− with dysfunction in a range of cancers, , and BRD4-targeting therapeutics in active development. − The 6xHis-BRD4 BD1-BD2 tandem reader (hereafter BRD4) (Figure S6) was found to enrich hyperacetylated H4 proteoforms with 0.5-, 2.6-, and 4.5-fold increases in the amount of mono-, di-, and triacetylated forms relative to bulk HeLa nucleosomes (Figure a). Tandem MS characterization of these isolated H4 proteoforms revealed multiple acetylations at K5, K8, K12, and K16 (reflective of active transcription and euchromatin ,,− , ) in combination with K20me2 (Figures a and S7–S8). We additionally identified a {H4K20me2K44ac} proteoform (Figures c and S9) not previously linked to canonical BRD4 function but which may reflect a role in DNA damage and repair. ,,,

3.

3

Open in a new tab

Nuc-MS analysis of BRD4-enriched endogenous nucleoforms. (a, b) Representative MS1 spectra of the histone H4 (a) and H2A/H2B (b) proteoform landscapes (left) and their quantification (right) after nucleosome enrichment by the native tandem reader BRD4 BD1-BD2. In each landscape, acetyl equivalents are represented as (nxAc) with BRD4-enriched nucleosomes above and bulk HeLa nucleosomes below. (c) Graphical fragment maps of {H4K20me2K44ac} (left) and {H2A.ZK15ac} (right). Red forward and reverse flags respectively represent c and z ions. Blue forward and reverse flags respectively represent b and y ions. (d) Model of possible BRD4 PTM-binding sites in nucleosome context. Key: Quantification of enrichment in bar graphs (a, b) was calculated by determining the relative abundances of each histone proteoform and normalizing to either H4: N-Acetyl + K20me2 or H2A Type 2A. The relative ratio of BRD4:HeLa bulk is the normalized values of each histone proteoform enriched by BRD4 divided by that in bulk HeLa. Error bars represent standard deviation from the mean.

On further analysis of the BRD4:nuc complex, proteoforms of H3.2 were consistently below the level required for confident tandem MS characterization (not shown), though all that crossed the detection threshold was unchanged relative to bulk HeLa nucleosomes (Figures a and S10). Examination of H2A and H2B proteoforms also identified no major differences relative to bulk (Figures b and S11–S12) with the exception (∼1.75-fold enriched) an acetylated form of H2A.Z {H2A.ZK15ac}, a variant often associated with gene transcription (Figures c and S13). ,− Of note, this insight regarding BRD4 preferred nucleoforms, including ({H2A.ZK15ac}·­{H4K5acK12acK16­acK20me2K44ac}) was not previously identified by peptide-centric MS and other biochemical approaches.

We next expanded our study to the histone proteoform landscapes enriched by tandem reader domains that engage lysine methyl states. The DNMT3A-MPP8 reader fuses the H3K36me2/3 binding PWWP domain from de novo DNA methyltransferase 3A to the H3K9me3 binding chromodomain of M-phase Phosphoprotein 8 (MPP8) (Figure S14). This chimera is an effective tool for genomic and biochemical studies, , and its combinatorial PTM target represents a “bivalent” state (repressive H3K9me3 coincident with transcriptionally active H3K36me3) marking poised transcriptional enhancers.

Nuc-MS spectra of complexes assembled from DNMT3A-MPP8 and endogenous HeLa nucleosomes (Figure S4) identified a proteoform landscape ∼1.5-fold enriched for H3.2 containing four or more methyl equivalents (i.e., multiple additions of CH3 (+14) to the primary sequence mass) (Figure a). The correct assignment of PTMs within this highly complex MS2 spectrum is challenged by isobaric proteoforms, where a similar mass can represent different structures, such as acetylation [42.0106 Da] vs me3 [42.0471 Da]. , To address, we conducted denatured LC-Top-Down MS (dLC-TD-MS) targeted on 3×, 6×, and 9× methyl equivalents from this CAP:nuc pool (Figures S15–S16). We also performed a parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) workflow tailored for analysis of the potential proteoforms. In this manner, we can more confidently assign each proteoform from ever more complex mixtures.

4.

4

Open in a new tab

Nuc-MS analysis of DNMT3A-MPP8-enriched endogenous nucleoforms. (a–c) Representative MS1 spectra of the histone H3 (a), H4 (b), and H2A/H2B (c) proteoform landscapes (left) and their quantification (right) after nucleosome enrichment by the chimeric tandem reader DNMT3A-MPP8 PWWP-CD. In each landscape, acetyl and methyl equivalents are, respectively, represented as (nxAc) or (nxMe) with DNMT3A-MPP8 nucleosomes above and bulk HeLa mononucleosomes below. (d) Model of possible DNMT3A-MPP8 PTM-binding sites in nucleosome context. Key: Quantification of enrichment in bar graphs (a–c) was calculated by determining the relative abundances of each histone proteoform and normalizing to either H3.2: 3x Me; H4: N-Acetyl + K20me2; or H2A Type 2A. The relative ratio of DNMT3A-MPP8:HeLa bulk is the normalized values of each histone proteoform enriched by DNMT3A-MPP8 divided by that in bulk HeLa. Error bars represent standard deviation from the mean.

Analysis of the 3× methyl equivalent H3.2 proteoforms revealed a mix of {H3.2K9me1}, {H3.2K9me2}, and {H3.2K9me3}, with {H3.2K9me2} being the most abundant (Figures S15a,b and S16a,d). The 6× methyl equivalent proteoforms contained greater complexity, with differential methylations at K9, K14, K27, and K36, and the two most abundant proteoforms being {H3.2K9me2K36me3} and {H3.2K9me2K27me3} (Figures S15c and S16b,d). Finally, the 9× methyl equivalent H3.2 proteoform pool contained a mix of acetylations and methylations at K9, K14 and K27 (Figures S15d and S16c,d). ,,,

Analyses of other histones in DNMT3A-MPP8 enriched nucleosomes revealed {H4K16acK20me2}, a PTM combinatorial associated with active transcription (Figures b and S17–S18), ,, but no obvious difference in H2A or H2B proteoforms relative to bulk HeLa nucleosomes (Figures c and S19–S20). These findings (Figure d) are in line with prior orthogonal studies ,,, and validate the sensitivity of Nuc-MS as an approach to usefully interrogate CAP:endogenous nuc complexes.

In the final example, Populus trichocarpa Short Half Life (PtSHL) contains a bromodomain-adjacent homology (BAH) domain and PHD finger reader tandem that recognizes H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 with mutually exclusive binding of each PTM state important for SHL-mediated floral repression. In mammalian cells, H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 are usually nonoverlapping, respectively marking transcriptionally active promoters and polycomb repressed regions. An interesting exception is the canonical “bivalency” signature, where the functionally opposing PTMs coexist within the same nucleosome but on distinct histone H3 tails (a trans heterotypic). This holds potential to poise genes for rapid activation or repression during development from embryonic stem cells ,,, and could contribute to plasticity and therapeutic resistance in cancer cells. ,

Nuc-MS of complexes assembled from GST-PtSHL BAH-PHD (hereafter PtSHL) (Figure S21) and endogenous HeLa nucleosomes revealed a H3.2 proteoform profile with increased methyl equivalents, while the H2A, H2B, and H4 profiles were similar to bulk HeLa (Figures , S4, and S22–S25). To dissect the H3.2 proteoform profile, we conducted dLC-TD-MS on 3×, 6×, and 9× methyl equivalents (Figures S26 and S27). Here, characterization of the 3× methyl equivalents revealed diverse acetylations and methylations at K4, K9, K14, K18, K23, and K27 (Figures S26a,b and S27a,d). The 6× methyl equivalents contained diverse acetylations and methylations, with the most abundant proteoform (27%) being {H3.2K9me2K27me3} (Figures S26c and S27b,d), but perhaps the most interesting being the cis bivalent {H3.2K4me2/­3K27me2/3} (Figures S26c and S27b,d). Lastly, the 9× methyl equivalent proteoforms included {H3.2K9me2K18­acK27me3}, {H3.2K4me­2K14acK18ac}, , {H3.2K4me2K14­acK27me3} and {H3.2K4me­2K18acK27me3} (Figures S26d and S27c,d). The PtSHL enrichment of {H3.2K4me2/3} and {H3.2K27me2/3} could reflect nucleoforms with each individual PTM or the bivalent signature in its canonical trans format. ,,, However, PtSHL enrichment of {H3.2K4me2/­3K27me2/3} was unexpected (since this PTM cis configuration had not (to our knowledge) been reported) but of high confidence since identified in the 6× and 9× methyl equivalent H3.2 proteoforms (Figures S26–S27).

5.

5

Open in a new tab

Nuc-MS analysis of PtSHL-enriched endogenous nucleoforms. (a–c) Representative MS1 spectra of the H3.2 (a), H4 (b), and H2A/H2B (c) proteoform landscapes (left) and their quantification (right) after nucleosome enrichment by the native tandem reader PtSHL BAH-PHD. In each landscape, acetyl and methyl equivalents are, respectively, represented as (nxAc) or (nxMe) with PtSHL-enriched above and bulk HeLa nucleosomes below. (d, e) Binding of GST-PtSHL to PTM-defined homotypic (d) or heterotypic (e) nucleosomes by Captify Luminex. Data (logarithmic transformation) is plotted as Median Fluorescence Intensity (MFI) as a function of GST-PtSHL molar concentration (M). Key: Quantification of enrichment in bar graphs (a–c) was calculated by determining the relative abundance of each histone proteoform and normalizing to either H3.2: 3x Me; H4: N-Acetyl + K20me2; or H2A Type 2A. The relative ratio of PtSHL:HeLa bulk is the normalized value of each histone proteoform enriched by PtSHL divided by that in bulk HeLa. Error bars represent standard deviation from the mean.

To further explore the PTM preference of PtSHL, we examined its binding to a multiplex panel of PTM defined nucleosomes by Captify Luminex. , When titrated to homotypic targets, the tandem reader showed a profound (>150-fold) preference for ([H3K4me­3K27me3]2) over each comprising PTM (Figure d and Table S11). This could not distinguish engagement with the cis or trans configuration (since both are represented), so we examined the titration of PtSHL to heterotypic targets and observed a >350-fold preference for ([H3.2]·[H3.2K4­me3K27me3]) over ([H3.2K4me3]·­[H3.2K27me3]) or its comprising PTMs (Figure e and Table S11). This would suggest the ability of PtSHL to enrich even a small amount of its preferred cis bivalent target from bulk HeLa chromatin, allowing Nuc-MS to identify the novel PTM configuration. It remains to be determined if {H3.2K4me­3K27me3} represents either an underappreciated biological possibility, or major dysregulation of the chromatin landscape in HeLa cells after >70 years of accumulated genomic aberrations. ,

3. Conclusions

Directly informing on the functional relationship between CAPs and the chromatin landscape is a profound challenge for existing methods, which are often unable to dissect the relative contribution of diverse histone proteoforms to CAP engagement. To address this, we applied Nuc-MS to investigate the proteoform landscape within four tandem-reader CAP:nuc complexes and demonstrated its practicality using commercially available Orbitrap-based mass spectrometers. This included proof of principle with fully defined nucleosomes (BPTF PHD-BD: ([H3K4me3K9­acK14acK18ac])2); a further exploration of reported capability with endogenous nucleosomes for BRD4 BD1-BD2: ({H2A.ZK15ac}·{H4K5acK12­acK16ac K20me2K44ac}) and DNMT3A-­MPP8 PWWP-CD: ({H3.2K9me2/­3K36me2/3}); and a new interrogation of PtSHL BAH-PHD: ({H3.2K4me2/­3K27me2/3}). In each case, we validated known interactions but also revealed novel histone proteoform compositions that would form a basis for follow-up genomic studies. The application of this Nuc-MS workflow to multisubunit CAP complexes and chromatin from healthy and disease states should offer insights to the importance of epigenetic (dys)­regulation.

In closing, while the capabilities of Nuc-MS are appreciated, its current limitations should also be acknowledged. This study used CAP-mediated affinity enrichment rather than resolving denatured histone proteoforms by relative hydrophobicity or electrophoretic mobility. , As a result, isobaric histone proteoforms in the CAP:endogenous nuc pool can be challenging to distinguish, though the nonoverlapping charge state (z) distributions of native histone proteoforms can somewhat mitigate. ,,, As another limitation, Nuc-MS requires larger sample amounts (see Methods in the SI) than traditional peptide-centric MS-proteomics. This is not a limitation specific to Nuc-MS but rather because measurements of intact proteins and proteoforms have lower sensitively relative to peptides, which easily ionize due to their smaller size. ,, Irrespective, Nuc-MS can be performed on the current generation of mass spectrometer instrumentation (Tables S5–S9), and continued technical advances will almost certainly reduce the input requirements.

Supplementary Material

oc5c00736_si_001.docx (19.5MB, docx)
oc5c00736_si_002.pdf (382.8KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of General Medical Sciences P41GM108569 for the National Resource for Translational and Developmental Proteomics at Northwestern University and NIA grant (RF1 AG063903). A.S.L. is a trainee fellow under the Chemistry of Life Processes Predoctoral Training Grant (5T32GM105538-10) at Northwestern University. N.P.F. is a trainee fellow under the Molecular Biophysics Predoctoral Training Grant (T32GM140995) at Northwestern University. EpiCypher was supported by NIH grants R44GM116584, R44GM136172, R44HG010595, and R43CA236474. Work in the Musselman laboratory is funded by NIH grant R35GM128705.

Glossary

Abbreviations

AmAc

Ammonium acetate

BAH

Bromo adjacent homology

BD

Bromodomain

BRD4

Bromodomain-containing protein 4

BPTF

Bromodomain and PHD finger-containing transcription factor

CD

Chromodomain

CAP

Chromatin-associated protein

dLC-TD-MS

denatured LC-Top-Down MS

GST

Glutathione S-transferase

MNase

Miccrococal nuclease

nMS

native Mass Spectrometry

nTDMS

Native Top-Down Mass Spectrometry

Nuc-MS

Nucleosome Mass Spectrometry

PHD

Plant homeodomain

PtSHL

Populus trichocarpa Short Half-life

PTM

post-translational modification

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.5c00736.

  • Experimental methods, materials, and additional references pertaining to this study; Figure S1: Differential BPTF PHD-BD binding preference for histone peptides and nucleosomes; Figure S2: Nuc-MS characterization of BPTF bound ([H3K4me3K9acK14cK18ac]2) nucleosomes; Figure S3: Both domains in the BPTF PHD-BD tandem binding to semisynthetic ([H3K4me3K9acK14cK18ac]2) nucleosomes; Figures S4–S5: Purification and validation of CAP-endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S6: Characterization of 6xHis-BRD4 BD1-BD2 native tandem reader; Figure S7: Characterization of H4 proteoforms from BRD4 enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S8: Tandem MS characterization of H4 proteoforms from BRD4 enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S9: Tandem MS characterization of {H4K20me2K44ac} proteoform from BRD4-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S10: Relative quantification of H3.2 proteoforms from BRD4-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S11: Characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from BRD4-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S12: Tandem MS characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from BRD4-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S13: Acetylated histone variant H2A.Z enriched by BRD4; Figure S14: Characterization of GST-DNMT3A-MPP8 PWWP-CD chimeric tandem reader; Figure S15: LC-MS characterization of major H3 proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S16: LC-MS characterization of additional H3 proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S17: Characterization of H4 proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8 enriched endogenous nucleosomes by MS/MS fragmentation; Figure S18: Tandem MS characterization of H4 proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S19: Characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8 enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S20: Tandem MS characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from DNMT3A-MPP8 enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S21: Characterization of GST-PtSHL BAH-PHD native tandem reader; Figure S22: Characterization of H4 proteoforms from PtSHL enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S23: Tandem MS characterization of H4 proteoforms from PtSHL enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S24: Characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from PtSHL enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S25: Tandem MS characterization of H2A and H2B proteoforms from PtSHL-enriched endogenous; Figure S26: Characterization of major H3 proteoforms from PtSHL-enriched endogenous nucleosomes; Figure S27: Characterization of additional H3 proteoforms from PtSHL-enriched endogenous nucleosomes. Table S1: Relative Effective Concentrations (EC50 Rel) in Luminex assays to measure the interaction between GST-BPTF PHD-BD constructs and PTM-defined histone H3 peptides; Table S2: Averaged (AVG) and Standard Deviation (ST.DEV) of EC50 Rel Luminex assays to measure interaction between GST-BPTF PHD-BD constructs and PTM-defined histone H3 peptides; Table S3: EC50 Rel from Luminex assay between GST-tagged BPTF constructs and PTM-defined semisynthetic nucleosomes; Table S4: AVG and ST.DEV of EC50 Rel from Luminex assays between GST-tagged BPTF constructs and PTM-defined semisynthetic nucleosomes; Table S5: Settings used for intact nMS analysis of BPTF bound nucleosome complexes (MS1); Table S6: Settings used for intact nMS analysis of CAPs (MS1); Table S7: Settings used for MS/MS fragmentation analysis of CAPs (MS2); Table S8: Settings used for characterization of ejected intact histone proteoforms from CAP-nucleosome complexes (MS1); Table S9: Settings used for MS/MS fragmentation analysis of histone proteoforms (MS2); Table S10: Targeted Mass List for Parallel Reaction Monitoring of H3.2 proteoforms for denatured Top-Down LC-MS; Table S11: EC50 rel for PtSHL binding to defined homotypic and heterotypic nucleosomes (PDF)

  • Transparent Peer Review report available (DOCX)

⊥.

Division of BioAnalytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HZ, Netherlands

¶.

Centre for Analytical Sciences Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HZ, Netherlands.

◆.

Department of Microchemistry, Proteomics and Lipidomics, Genentech, South San Francisco, California 94080, United States.

A.S.L. (with assistance from P.S., K.J., and L.F.S.) performed Nuc-MS BPTF binding experiments with fully defined semisynthetic nucleosomes. A.S.L. performed affinity purification experiments. A.S.L., N.P.F., and T.S. acquired and analyzed Nuc-MS of CAP-endogenous nucleosome complexes. M.R.M., L.F.K., R.J.E., Z.B.G., B.G., H.F.T., U.C.O., M.J.M., M.A.C., K.N., J.M.B., and Z.-W.S. contributed to the synthesis of fully defined histones and nucleosomes; CAP construct design, purification and characterization; and Captify-Luminex experiments. H.A.F. assisted in purification of BPTF. M.-C.K. and C.A.M. supervised project performance and supported data analysis/interpretation. A.S.L. and N.L.K. conceived the study and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors contributed to and are responsible for subsequent versions.

The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): EpiCypher is a commercial developer and supplier of reagents (e.g., fully defined semi-synthetic nucleosomes) and approaches (e.g., CaptifyTM Luminex) used in this study. All EpiCypher affiliated authors own shares in the company, with M.-C.K. also a board member of same. N.L.K. serves as a consultant to Thermo Fisher Scientific and engages in entrepreneurship in the area of Top-Down Proteomics.

References

  1. Luger K., Mäder A. W., Richmond R. K., Sargent D. F., Richmond T. J.. Crystal Structure of the Nucleosome Core Particle at 2.8 Å Resolution. Nature. 1997;389(6648):251–260. doi: 10.1038/38444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Shogren-Knaak M., Ishii H., Sun J.-M., Pazin M. J., Davie J. R., Peterson C. L.. Histone H4-K16 Acetylation Controls Chromatin Structure and Protein Interactions. Science (1979) 2006;311(5762):844–847. doi: 10.1126/science.1124000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang R., Erler J., Langowski J.. Histone Acetylation Regulates Chromatin Accessibility: Role of H4K16 in Inter-Nucleosome Interaction. Biophys. J. 2017;112(3):450–459. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2016.11.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Morgan M. A. J., Shilatifard A.. Reevaluating the Roles of Histone-Modifying Enzymes and Their Associated Chromatin Modifications in Transcriptional Regulation. Nat. Genet. 2020;52(12):1271–1281. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-00736-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Smith L. M., Kelleher N. L.. Proteoform: A Single Term Describing Protein Complexity. Nat. Methods. 2013;10(3):186–187. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Schachner L. F., Jooß K., Morgan M. A., Piunti A., Meiners M. J., Kafader J. O., Lee A. S., Iwanaszko M., Cheek M. A., Burg J. M., Howard S. A., Keogh M. C., Shilatifard A., Kelleher N. L.. Decoding the Protein Composition of Whole Nucleosomes with Nuc-MS. Nat. Methods. 2021;18(3):303–308. doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-01052-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jooß K., Schachner L. F., Watson R., Gillespie Z. B., Howard S. A., Cheek M. A., Meiners M. J., Sobh A., Licht J. D., Keogh M. C., Kelleher N. L.. Separation and Characterization of Endogenous Nucleosomes by Native Capillary Zone Electrophoresis-Top-Down Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2021;93(12):5151–5160. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Keogh M.-C., Almouzni G., Andrews A. J., Armache K.-J., Arrowsmith C. H., Baek S. H., Bedford M. T., Bernstein E., Côté J., David Y., Denu J. M., Fierz B., Garcia B. A., Glass K. C., Gozani O., Helin K., Henikoff S., Jensen O. N., Josefowicz S. Z., Kelleher N. L., Kutateladze T. G., Lindner H. H., Lu C., Luger K., Mallick P., Musselman C. A., Muir T. W., Paša-Tolić L., Schneider R., Shi X., Shi Y., Sidoli S., Smith L. M., Tyler J. K., Wolberger C., Workman J. L., Strahl B. D., Young N. L.. A Needed Nomenclature for Nucleosomes. Mol. Cell. 2025;85(19):3554–3561. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2025.08.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Musselman C. A., Lalonde M. E., Côté J., Kutateladze T. G.. Perceiving the Epigenetic Landscape through Histone Readers. Nat. Struct Mol. Biol. 2012;19(12):1218–1227. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Black J. C., Kutateladze T. G.. Atypical Histone Targets of PHD Fingers. J. Biol. Chem. 2023;299:104601. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jain K., Kougnassoukou Tchara P. E., Khan A., Mengistalem A. B., Holland A. P., Bowman C. N., Marunde M. R., Engel T. A., Popova I. K., Cooke S. W., Krajewski K., Keogh M. C., Lambert J. P., Strahl B. D.. Histone H3 N-Terminal Recognition by the PHD Finger of PHRF1 Is Required for Proper DNA Damage Response. Nucleic Acids Res. 2025;53(13):gkaf666. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaf666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jain K., Fraser C. S., Marunde M. R., Parker M. M., Sagum C., Burg J. M., Hall N., Popova I. K., Rodriguez K. L., Vaidya A., Krajewski K., Keogh M. C., Bedford M. T., Strahl B. D.. Characterization of the Plant Homeodomain (PHD) Reader Family for Their Histone Tail Interactions. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2020;13(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13072-020-0328-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Filippakopoulos P., Picaud S., Mangos M., Keates T., Lambert J. P., Barsyte-Lovejoy D., Felletar I., Volkmer R., Müller S., Pawson T., Gingras A. C., Arrowsmith C. H., Knapp S.. Histone Recognition and Large-Scale Structural Analysis of the Human Bromodomain Family. Cell. 2012;149(1):214–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. McGinty R. K., Tan S.. Recognition of the Nucleosome by Chromatin Factors and Enzymes. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2016;37:54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2015.11.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lukauskas S., Tvardovskiy A., Nguyen N. V., Stadler M., Faull P., Ravnsborg T., Özdemir Aygenli B., Dornauer S., Flynn H., Lindeboom R. G. H., Barth T. K., Brockers K., Hauck S. M., Vermeulen M., Snijders A. P., Müller C. L., DiMaggio P. A., Jensen O. N., Schneider R., Bartke T.. Decoding Chromatin States by Proteomic Profiling of Nucleosome Readers. Nature. 2024;627:671. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07141-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Janssen S. M., Lorincz M. C.. Interplay between Chromatin Marks in Development and Disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2022;23:137–153. doi: 10.1038/s41576-021-00416-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhao S., Allis C. D., Wang G. G.. The Language of Chromatin Modification in Human Cancers. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2021;21(7):413–430. doi: 10.1038/s41568-021-00357-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Berson A., Nativio R., Berger S. L., Bonini N. M.. Epigenetic Regulation in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Trends in Neurosciences. 2018;41:587–598. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2018.05.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuchs S. M., Krajewski K., Baker R. W., Miller V. L., Strahl B. D.. Influence of Combinatorial Histone Modifications on Antibody and Effector Protein Recognition. Curr. Biol. 2011;21(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Egelhofer T. A., Minoda A., Klugman S., Lee K., Kolasinska-Zwierz P., Alekseyenko A. A., Cheung M. S., Day D. S., Gadel S., Gorchakov A. A., Gu T., Kharchenko P. V., Kuan S., Latorre I., Linder-Basso D., Luu Y., Ngo Q., Perry M., Rechtsteiner A., Riddle N. C., Schwartz Y. B., Shanower G. A., Vielle A., Ahringer J., Elgin S. C. R., Kuroda M. I., Pirrotta V., Ren B., Strome S., Park P. J., Karpen G. H., Hawkins R. D., Lieb J. D.. An Assessment of Histone-Modification Antibody Quality. Nat. Struct Mol. Biol. 2011;18(1):91–94. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Peach S. E., Rudomin E. L., Udeshi N. D., Carr S. A., Jaffe J. D.. Quantitative Assessment of Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Grade Antibodies Directed against Histone Modifications Reveals Patterns of Co-Occurring Marks on Histone Protein Molecules. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11(5):128–137. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M111.015941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Perell G. T., Mishra N. K., Sudhamalla B., Ycas P. D., Islam K., Pomerantz W. C. K.. Specific Acetylation Patterns of H2A.Z Form Transient Interactions with the BPTF Bromodomain. Biochemistry. 2017;56(35):4607–4615. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.7b00648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Li H., Ilin S., Wang W., Duncan E. M., Wysocka J., Allis C. D., Patel D. J.. Molecular Basis for Site-Specific Read-out of Histone H3K4me3 by the BPTF PHD Finger of NURF. Nature. 2006;442(7098):91–95. doi: 10.1038/nature04802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rothbart S. B., Dickson B. M., Raab J. R., Grzybowski A. T., Krajewski K., Guo A. H., Shanle E. K., Josefowicz S. Z., Fuchs S. M., Allis C. D., Magnuson T. R., Ruthenburg A. J., Strahl B. D.. An Interactive Database for the Assessment of Histone Antibody Specificity. Mol. Cell. 2015;59(3):502–511. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.06.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ruthenburg A. J., Li H., Milne T. A., Dewell S., McGinty R. K., Yuen M., Ueberheide B., Dou Y., Muir T. W., Patel D. J., Allis C. D.. Recognition of a Mononucleosomal Histone Modification Pattern by BPTF via Multivalent Interactions. Cell. 2011;145(5):692–706. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Weinzapfel E. N., Fedder-Semmes K. N., Sun Z. W., Keogh M. C.. Beyond the Tail: The Consequence of Context in Histone Post-Translational Modification and Chromatin Research. Biochem. J. 2024;481:219–244. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20230342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Shah R. N., Grzybowski A. T., Cornett E. M., Johnstone A. L., Dickson B. M., Boone B. A., Cheek M. A., Cowles M. W., Maryanski D., Meiners M. J., Tiedemann R. L., Vaughan R. M., Arora N., Sun Z. W., Rothbart S. B., Keogh M. C., Ruthenburg A. J.. Examining the Roles of H3K4Methylation States with Systematically Characterized Antibodies. Mol. Cell. 2018;72(1):162–177.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Morgan M. A. J., Popova I. K., Vaidya A., Burg J. M., Marunde M. R., Rendleman E. J., Dumar Z. J., Watson R., Meiners M. J., Howard S. A., Khalatyan N., Vaughan R. M., Rothbart S. B., Keogh M., Shilatifard A.. A Trivalent Nucleosome Interaction by PHIP/BRWD2 Is Disrupted in Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Cancer. Genes Dev. 2021;35:1642–1656. doi: 10.1101/gad.348766.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Saikusa K., Osakabe A., Kato D., Fuchigami S., Nagadoi A., Nishimura Y., Kurumizaka H., Akashi S.. Structural Diversity of Nucleosomes Characterized by Native Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2018;90(13):8217–8226. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b01649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ghoneim M., Fuchs H. A., Musselman C. A.. Histone Tail Conformations: A Fuzzy Affair with DNA. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2021;46(7):564–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2020.12.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Musselman C. A., Kutateladze T. G.. Characterization of Functional Disordered Regions within Chromatin-Associated Proteins. iScience. 2021;24(2):102070. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Marunde M. R., Fuchs H. A., Burg J. M., Popova I. K., Vaidya A., Hall N. W., Weinzapfel E. N., Meiners M. J., Watson R., Gillespie Z. B., Taylor H. F., Mukhsinova L., Onuoha U. C., Howard S. A., Novitzky K., McAnarney E. T., Krajewski K., Cowles M. W., Cheek M. A., Sun Z.-W., Venters B. J., Keogh M.-C., Musselman C. A.. Nucleosome Conformation Dictates the Histone Code. Elife. 2024;13:e78866. doi: 10.7554/eLife.78866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jain K., Marunde M. R., Burg J. M., Gloor S. L., Joseph F. M., Poncha K. F., Gillespie Z. B., Rodriguez K. L., Popova I. K., Hall N. W., Vaidya A., Howard S. A., Taylor H. F., Mukhsinova L., Onuoha U. C., Patteson E. F., Cooke S. W., Taylor B. C., Weinzapfel E. N., Cheek M. A., Meiners M. J., Fox G. C., Namitz K. E., Cowles M. W., Krajewski K., Sun Z.-W., Cosgrove M. S., Young N. L., Keogh M.-C., Strahl B. D.. An Acetylation-Mediated Chromatin Switch Governs H3K4Methylation Read-Write Capability. Elife. 2023;12:1–17. doi: 10.7554/eLife.82596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller T. C. R., Simon B., Rybin V., Grötsch H., Curtet S., Khochbin S., Carlomagno T., Müller C. W.. A Bromodomain-DNA Interaction Facilitates Acetylation-Dependent Bivalent Nucleosome Recognition by the BET Protein BRDT. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:13855. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hatazawa S., Liu J., Takizawa Y., Zandian M., Negishi L., Kutateladze T. G., Kurumizaka H.. Structural Basis for Binding Diversity of Acetyltransferase P300 to the Nucleosome. iScience. 2022;25(7):104563. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kalra P., Zahid H., Ayoub A., Dou Y., Pomerantz W. C. K.. Alternative Mechanisms for DNA Engagement by BET Bromodomain-Containing Proteins. Biochemistry. 2022;61:1260. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.2c00157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Weinberg D. N., Papillon-Cavanagh S., Chen H., Yue Y., Chen X., Rajagopalan K. N., Horth C., McGuire J. T., Xu X., Nikbakht H., Lemiesz A. E., Marchione D. M., Marunde M. R., Meiners M. J., Cheek M. A., Keogh M. C., Bareke E., Djedid A., Harutyunyan A. S., Jabado N., Garcia B. A., Li H., Allis C. D., Majewski J., Lu C.. The Histone Mark H3K36me2 Recruits DNMT3A and Shapes the Intergenic DNA Methylation Landscape. Nature. 2019;573(7773):281–286. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1534-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Dilworth D., Hanley R. P., Ferreira de Freitas R., Allali-Hassani A., Zhou M., Mehta N., Marunde M. R., Ackloo S., Carvalho Machado R. A., Khalili Yazdi A., Owens D. D. G., Vu V., Nie D. Y., Alqazzaz M., Marcon E., Li F., Chau I., Bolotokova A., Qin S., Lei M., Liu Y., Szewczyk M. M., Dong A., Kazemzadeh S., Abramyan T., Popova I. K., Hall N. W., Meiners M. J., Cheek M. A., Gibson E., Kireev D., Greenblatt J. F., Keogh M. C., Min J., Brown P. J., Vedadi M., Arrowsmith C. H., Barsyte-Lovejoy D., James L. I., Schapira M.. A Chemical Probe Targeting the PWWP Domain Alters NSD2 Nucleolar Localization. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2022;18(1):56–63. doi: 10.1038/s41589-021-00898-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McGinty R. K., Tan S.. Nucleosome Structure and Function. Chem. Rev. 2015;115(6):2255–2273. doi: 10.1021/cr500373h. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kalashnikova A. A., Porter-Goff M. E., Muthurajan U. M., Luger K., Hansen J. C.. The Role of the Nucleosome Acidic Patch in Modulating Higher Order Chromatin Structure. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2013;10:20121022. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2012.1022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gamarra N., Johnson S. L., Trnka M. J., Burlingame A. L., Narlikar G. J.. Nucleosomal Acidic Patch Relieves Auto-Inhibition by the ISWI Remodeler SNF2h. eLife. 2018;7:e35322. doi: 10.7554/eLife.35322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Anderson C. J., Baird M. R., Hsu A., Barbour E. H., Koyama Y., Borgnia M. J., McGinty R. K.. Structural Basis for Recognition of Ubiquitylated Nucleosome by Dot1L Methyltransferase. Cell Rep. 2019;26(7):1681–1690.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Skrajna A., Goldfarb D., Kedziora K. M., Cousins E. M., Grant G. D., Spangler C. J., Barbour E. H., Yan X., Hathaway N. A., Brown N. G., Cook J. G., Major M. B., McGinty R. K.. Comprehensive Nucleosome Interactome Screen Establishes Fundamental Principles of Nucleosome Binding. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(17):9415–9432. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomas J. F., Igor Valencia-Sánchez M., Tamburri S., Gloor S. L., Rustichelli S., Godínez-López V., De Ioannes P., Lee R., Abini-Agbomson S., Gretarsson K., Burg J. M., Hickman A. R., Sun L., Gopinath S., Taylor H. F., Sun Z.-W., Ezell R. J., Vaidya A., Meiners M. J., Cheek M. A., Rice W. J., Svetlov V., Nudler E., Lu C., Keogh M.-C., Pasini D., Armache K.-J.. Structural Basis of Histone H2A Lysine 119 Deubiquitination by Polycomb Repressive Deubiquitinase BAP1/ASXL1. Science Advances. 2023;9:eadg9832. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adg9832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mashtalir N., Dao H. T., Sankar A., Liu H., Corin A. J., Bagert J. D., Ge E. J., D’Avino A. R., Filipovski M., Michel B. C., Dann G. P., Muir T. W., Kadoch C.. Chromatin Landscape Signals Differentially Dictate the Activities of MSWI/SNF Family Complexes. Science (1979) 2021;373(6552):306–315. doi: 10.1126/science.abf8705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nguyen U. T. T., Bittova L., Müller M. M., Fierz B., David Y., Houck-Loomis B., Feng V., Dann G. P., Muir T. W.. Accelerated Chromatin Biochemistry Using DNA-Barcoded Nucleosome Libraries. Nat. Methods. 2014;11(8):834–840. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Marunde, M. R. ; Popova, I. K. ; Weinzapfel, E. N. ; Keogh, M. C. . The DCypher Approach to Interrogate Chromatin Reader Activity Against Posttranslational Modification-Defined Histone Peptides and Nucleosomes. In Methods in Molecular Biology; Humana Press Inc., 2022; Vol. 2458, pp 231–255; 10.1007/978-1-0716-2140-0_13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lin J., Wu Y., Tian G., Yu D., Yang E., Lam W. H., Liu Z., Jing Y., Dang S., Bao X., Wong J. W. H., Zhai Y., Li X. D.. X. D. Menin “Reads” H3K79me2Mark in a Nucleosomal Context. Science (1979) 2023;379(6633):717–723. doi: 10.1126/science.adc9318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yuan Z. F., Arnaudo A. M., Garcia B. A.. Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Histone Proteoforms. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry. 2014;7:113–128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anchem-071213-015959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Huang H., Lin S., Garcia B. A., Zhao Y.. Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Histone Modifications. Chem. Rev. 2015;115(6):2376–2418. doi: 10.1021/cr500491u. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lu C., Coradin M., Porter E. G., Garcia B. A.. Accelerating the Field of Epigenetic Histone Modification through Mass Spectrometry–Based Approaches. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2021;20:100006. doi: 10.1074/mcp.R120.002257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Fasci D., van Ingen H., Scheltema R. A., Heck A. J.R.. Histone Interaction Landscapes Visualized by Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry in Intact Cell Nuclei. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2018;17(10):2018–2033. doi: 10.1074/mcp.RA118.000924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Graziadei A., Rappsilber J.. Leveraging Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry in Structural and Cell Biology. Structure. 2022;30(1):37–54. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2021.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Nakamura K., Kustatscher G., Alabert C., Hödl M., Forne I., Völker-Albert M., Satpathy S., Beyer T. E., Mailand N., Choudhary C., Imhof A., Rappsilber J., Groth A.. Proteome Dynamics at Broken Replication Forks Reveal a Distinct ATM-Directed Repair Response Suppressing DNA Double-Strand Break Ubiquitination. Mol. Cell. 2021;81(5):1084–1099.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.12.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Bryan E., Valsakumar D., Idigo N. J., Warburton M., Webb K. M., McLaughlin K. A., Spanos C., Lenci S., Major V., Ambrosi C., Andrews S., Baubec T., Rappsilber J., Voigt P.. Nucleosomal Asymmetry Shapes Histone Mark Binding and Promotes Poising at Bivalent Domains. Mol Cell. 2025;85(3):471–489.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2024.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Carraro M., Hendriks I. A., Hammond C. M., Solis-Mezarino V., Vȯlker-Albert M., Elsborg J. D., Weisser M. B., Spanos C., Montoya G., Rappsilber J., Imhof A., Nielsen M. L., Groth A.. DAXX Adds a de Novo H3.3K9me3 Deposition Pathway to the Histone Chaperone Network. Mol Cell. 2023;83(7):1075–1092.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2023.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwämmle V., Aspalter C. M., Sidoli S., Jensen O. N.. Large Scale Analysis of Co-Existing Post-Translational Modifications in Histone Tails Reveals Global Fine Structure of Cross-Talk. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2014;13(7):1855–1865. doi: 10.1074/mcp.O113.036335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lee J. S., Smith E., Shilatifard A.. The Language of Histone Crosstalk. Cell. 2010;142:682–685. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lempiäinen J. K., Garcia B. A.. Characterizing Crosstalk in Epigenetic Signaling to Understand Disease Physiology. Biochem. J. 2023;480:57–85. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20220550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Fischle W., Boo S. T., Dormann H. L., Ueberheide B. M., Garcia B. A., Shabanowitz J., Hunt D. F., Funabiki H., Allis C. D.. Regulation of HP1-Chromatin Binding by Histone H3 Methylation and Phosphorylation. Nature. 2005;438(7071):1116–1122. doi: 10.1038/nature04219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Gehani S. S., Agrawal-Singh S., Dietrich N., Christophersen N. S., Helin K., Hansen K.. Polycomb Group Protein Displacement and Gene Activation through MSK-Dependent H3K27me3S28 Phosphorylation. Mol. Cell. 2010;39(6):886–900. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.08.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zippo A., Serafini R., Rocchigiani M., Pennacchini S., Krepelova A., Oliviero S.. Histone Crosstalk between H3S10ph and H4K16ac Generates a Histone Code That Mediates Transcription Elongation. Cell. 2009;138(6):1122–1136. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zheng Y., Huang X., Kelleher N. L.. Epiproteomics: Quantitative Analysis of Histone Marks and Codes by Mass Spectrometry. Curr. Opin Chem. Biol. 2016;33:142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.06.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Jiang T., Hoover M. E., Holt M. V., Freitas M. A., Marshall A. G., Young N. L.. Middle-Down Characterization of the Cell Cycle Dependence of Histone H4 Posttranslational Modifications and Proteoforms. Proteomics. 2018;18(11):1700442. doi: 10.1002/pmic.201700442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Pesavento J. J., Mizzen C. A., Kelleher N. L.. Quantitative Analysis of Modified Proteins and Their Positional Isomers by Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Human Histone H4. Anal. Chem. 2006;78(13):4271–4280. doi: 10.1021/ac0600050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Pesavento J. J., Yang H., Kelleher N. L., Mizzen C. A.. Certain and Progressive Methylation of Histone H4 at Lysine 20 during the Cell Cycle. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2008;28(1):468–486. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01517-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Pesavento J. J., Garcia B. A., Streeky J. A., Kelleher N. L., Mizzen C. A.. Mild Performic Acid Oxidation Enhances Chromatographic and Top down Mass Spectrometric Analyses of Histones. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2007;6(9):1510–1526. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M600404-MCP200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Sun L., Chen D., Yang Z., Shen X.. Capillary Zone Electrophoresis-Tandem Mass Spectrometry as an Alternative to Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Top-down Proteomics of Histones. Anal. Chem. 2021;93(10):4417–4424. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Boyne M. T., Pesavento J. J., Mizzen C. A., Kelleher N. L.. Precise Characterization of Human Histones in the H2A Gene Family by Top down Mass Spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2006;5(2):248–253. doi: 10.1021/pr050269n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Bonenfant D., Coulot M., Towbin H., Schindler P., van Oostrum J.. Characterization of Histone H2A and H2B Variants and Their Post-Translational Modifications by Mass Spectrometry. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2006;5(3):541–552. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M500288-MCP200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Skinner O. S., Haverland N. A., Fornelli L., Melani R. D., Do Vale L. H. F., Seckler H. S., Doubleday P. F., Schachner L. F., Srzentić K., Kelleher N. L., Compton P. D.. Top-down Characterization of Endogenous Protein Complexes with Native Proteomics. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2018;14(1):36–41. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.2515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Li H., Nguyen H. H., Loo R. R. O., Campuzano I. D. G., Loo J. A.. An Integrated Native Mass Spectrometry and Top down Proteomics Method That Connects Sequence to Structure and Function of Macromolecularcomplexes. Nat Chem. 2018;10(2):139–148. doi: 10.1038/nchem.2908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Young N. L., DiMaggio P. A., Plazas-Mayorca M. D., Baliban R. C., Floudas C. A., Garcia B. A.. High Throughput Characterization of Combinatorial Histone Codes. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2009;8(10):2266–2284. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M900238-MCP200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Voigt P., LeRoy G., Drury W. J., Zee B. M., Son J., Beck D. B., Young N. L., Garcia B. A., Reinberg D.. Asymmetrically Modified Nucleosomes. Cell. 2012;151(1):181–193. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Marunde M. R., Popova I. K., Hall N. W., Vaidya A., Bone J. R., Boone B. A., Brown P. J., Ezell R. J., Firestone T. M., Fuchs H. A., Gibson E., Gillespie Z. B., Gloor S. L., Hickman A. R., Howard S. A., Husby N. L., Hsiung V. T., Johnstone A. L., Khan L. F., Krajewski K., Lee A. S., McAnarney E. T., Maier K. E., Maryanski D. N., McCuiston J. L., Noll K. E., Novitzky K., Patteson E. F., Rodriguez K. L., Sanchez J. C., Schachner L. F., Smith C. E., Sun L., Taylor H. F., Watson R., Willis H. E., Musselman C. A., Venters B. J., Cheek M. A., Meiners M. J., Sun Z.-W., Kelleher N. L., Cowles M. W., Weinzapfel E. N., Keogh M.-C., Burg J. M.. Nucleosome Context Regulates Chromatin Reader Preference. Nucleic Acids Res. 2025;53(20):gkaf1061. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaf1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Hicks C. W., Rahman S., Gloor S. L., Fields J. K., Husby N. L., Vaidya A., Maier K. E., Morgan M., Keogh M. C., Wolberger C.. Ubiquitinated Histone H2B as Gatekeeper of the Nucleosome Acidic Patch. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(16):9978–9995. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Morrison E. A., Bowerman S., Sylvers K. L., Wereszczynski J., Musselman C. A.. The Conformation of the Histone H3 Tail Inhibits Association of the BPTF PHD Finger with the Nucleosome. Elife. 2018;7:e31481. doi: 10.7554/eLife.31481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Wysocka J., Swigut T., Xiao H., Milne T. A., Kwon S. Y., Landry J., Kauer M., Tackett A. J., Chait B. T., Badenhorst P., Wu C., Allis C. D.. A PHD Finger of NURF Couples Histone H3 Lysine 4 Trimethylation with Chromatin Remodelling. Nature. 2006;442(7098):86–90. doi: 10.1038/nature04815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Bell M. R., Engleka M. J., Malik A., Strickler J. E.. To Fuse or Not to Fuse: What Is Your Purpose? Protein Sci. 2013;22:1466–1477. doi: 10.1002/pro.2356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Olp M. D., Jackson V., Smith B. C.. Nucleosome Scaffolding by Brd4 Tandem Bromodomains in Acetylation-Dependent Chromatin Compartmentalization. bioRxiv. 2019:699967. doi: 10.1101/699967. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Wu T., Kamikawa Y. F., Donohoe M. E.. Brd4′s Bromodomains Mediate Histone H3 Acetylation and Chromatin Remodeling in Pluripotent Cells through P300 and Brg1. Cell Rep. 2018;25(7):1756–1771. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Devaiah B. N., Case-Borden C., Gegonne A., Hsu C. H., Chen Q., Meerzaman D., Dey A., Ozato K., Singer D. S.. BRD4 Is a Histone Acetyltransferase That Evicts Nucleosomes from Chromatin. Nat. Struct Mol. Biol. 2016;23(6):540–548. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Gao M., Wang J., Rousseaux S., Tan M., Pan L., Peng L., Wang S., Xu W., Ren J., Liu Y., Spinck M., Barral S., Wang T., Chuffart F., Bourova-Flin E., Puthier D., Curtet S., Bargier L., Cheng Z., Neumann H., Li J., Zhao Y., Mi J. Q., Khochbin S.. Metabolically Controlled Histone H4K5 Acylation/Acetylation Ratio Drives BRD4 Genomic Distribution. Cell Rep. 2021;36(4):109460. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rahnamoun H., Lee J., Sun Z., Lu H., Ramsey K. M., Komives E. A., Lauberth S. M.. RNAs Interact with BRD4 to Promote Enhanced Chromatin Engagement and Transcription Activation. Nat. Struct Mol. Biol. 2018;25(8):687–697. doi: 10.1038/s41594-018-0102-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Dey A., Chitsaz F., Abbasi A., Misteli T., Ozato K.. Double Bromodomain Protein Brd4 Binds to Acetylated Chromatin during Interphase and Mitosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003;100:8758. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1433065100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Devaiah B. N., Singh A. K., Mu J., Chen Q., Meerzaman D., Singer D. S.. Phosphorylation by JNK Switches BRD4 Functions. Mol. Cell. 2024;84:4282. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2024.09.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhang J., Dulak A. M., Hattersley M. M., Willis B. S., Nikkilä J., Wang A., Lau A., Reimer C., Zinda M., Fawell S. E., Mills G. B., Chen H.. BRD4 Facilitates Replication Stress-Induced DNA Damage Response. Oncogene. 2018;37(28):3763–3777. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0194-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Behera V., Stonestrom A. J., Hamagami N., Hsiung C. C., Keller C. A., Giardine B., Sidoli S., Yuan Z. F., Bhanu N. V., Werner M. T., Wang H., Garcia B. A., Hardison R. C., Blobel G. A.. Interrogating Histone Acetylation and BRD4 as Mitotic Bookmarks of Transcription. Cell Rep. 2019;27(2):400–415.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.03.057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Barrows J. K., Lin B., Quaas C. E., Fullbright G., Wallace E. N., Long D. T.. BRD4 Promotes Resection and Homology-Directed Repair of DNA Double-Strand Breaks. Nat. Commun. 2022;13(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30787-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Lam F. C., Kong Y. W., Huang Q., Vu Han T. L., Maffa A. D., Kasper E. M., Yaffe M. B.. BRD4 Prevents the Accumulation of R-Loops and Protects against Transcription–Replication Collision Events and DNA Damage. Nat. Commun. 2020;11(1):4083. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17503-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Wang R., Li Q., Helfer C. M., Jiao J., You J.. Bromodomain Protein Brd4 Associated with Acetylated Chromatin Is Important for Maintenance of Higher-Order Chromatin Structure. J. Biol. Chem. 2012;287(14):10738–10752. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.323493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Zhang J., Dulak A. M., Hattersley M. M., Willis B. S., Nikkilä J., Wang A., Lau A., Reimer C., Zinda M., Fawell S. E., Mills G. B., Chen H.. BRD4 Facilitates Replication Stress-Induced DNA Damage Response. Oncogene. 2018;37(28):3763–3777. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0194-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Durall R. T., Huang J., Wojenski L., Huang Y., Gokhale P. C., Leeper B. A., Nash J. O., Ballester P. L., Davidson S., Shlien A., Sotirakis E., Bertaux F., Dubus V., Luo J., Wu C. J., Keskin D. B., Eagen K. P., Shapiro G. I., French C. A.. The BRD4-NUT Fusion Alone Drives Malignant Transformation of NUT Carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2023;83(23):3846–3860. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-23-2545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Andrikopoulou A., Bletsa G., Rouvalis A., Tsakogiannis D., Kaparelou M., Papatheodoridi A., Haidopoulos D., Liontos M., Dimopoulos M. A., Zagouri F.. The Prognostic Role of BRD4 Expression in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024;16(11):1962. doi: 10.3390/cancers16111962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Liang Y., Tian J., Wu T.. BRD4 in Physiology and Pathology: ‘“BET”’ on Its Partners. BioEssays. 2021;43(12):1–14. doi: 10.1002/bies.202100180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Malvezzi F., Stubbs C. J., Jowitt T. A., Dale I. L., Guo X., DeGnore J. P., Degliesposti G., Skehel J. M., Bannister A. J., McAlister M. S.. Phosphorylation-Dependent BRD4 Dimerization and Implications for Therapeutic Inhibition of BET Family Proteins. Commun. Biol. 2021;4(1):1–13. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02750-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Liu N., Ling R., Tang X., Yu Y., Zhou Y., Chen D.. Post-Translational Modifications of BRD4: Therapeutic Targets for Tumor. Front Oncol. 2022;12(March):1–11. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.847701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Trojer P.. Targeting BET Bromodomains in Cancer. Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 2022;6:313–336. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-070120-103531. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Filippakopoulos P., Qi J., Picaud S., Shen Y., Smith W. B., Fedorov O., Morse E. M., Keates T., Hickman T. T., Felletar I., Philpott M., Munro S., McKeown M. R., Wang Y., Christie A. L., West N., Cameron M. J., Schwartz B., Heightman T. D., La Thangue N., French C. A., Wiest O., Kung A. L., Knapp S., Bradner J. E.. Selective Inhibition of BET Bromodomains. Nature. 2010;468(7327):1067–1073. doi: 10.1038/nature09504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Zaware N., Zhou M. M.. Bromodomain Biology and Drug Discovery. Nat. Struct Mol. Biol. 2019;26(10):870–879. doi: 10.1038/s41594-019-0309-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Gold S., Shilatifard A.. Therapeutic Targeting of BET Bromodomain and Other Epigenetic Acetylrecognition Domain–Containing Factors. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development. 2024;86:102181. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2024.102181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Piunti A., Hashizume R., Morgan M. A., Bartom E. T., Horbinski C. M., Marshall S. A., Rendleman E. J., Ma Q., Takahashi Y. H., Woodfin A. R., Misharin A. V., Abshiru N. A., Lulla R. R., Saratsis A. M., Kelleher N. L., James C. D., Shilatifard A.. Therapeutic Targeting of Polycomb and BET Bromodomain Proteins in Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Gliomas. Nat. Med. 2017;23(4):493–500. doi: 10.1038/nm.4296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. López-Hernández L., Toolan-Kerr P., Bannister A. J., Millán-Zambrano G.. Dynamic Histone Modification Patterns Coordinating DNA Processes. Mol. Cell. 2025;85:225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2024.10.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Pellegrino S., Michelena J., Teloni F., Imhof R., Altmeyer M.. Replication-Coupled Dilution of H4K20me2 Guides 53BP1 to Pre-Replicative Chromatin. Cell Rep. 2017;19(9):1819–1831. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.05.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Hu J., Donahue G., Dorsey J., Govin J., Yuan Z., Garcia B. A., Shah P. P., Berger S. L.. H4K44 Acetylation Facilitates Chromatin Accessibility during Meiosis. Cell Rep. 2015;13(9):1772–1780. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.10.070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Colino-Sanguino Y., Clark S. J., Valdes-Mora F.. The H2A.Z-Nuclesome Code in Mammals: Emerging Functions. Trends Genet. 2022;38(5):516. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2022.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Li S., Wei T., Panchenko A. R.. Histone Variant H2A.Z Modulates Nucleosome Dynamics to Promote DNA Accessibility. Nat. Commun. 2023;14(1):769. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-36465-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Patel K., Solomon P. D., Walshe J. L., Low J. K. K., Mackay J. P.. The Bromodomains of BET Family Proteins Can. Recognize Diacetylated Histone H2A.Z. Protein Sci. 2021;30(2):464–476. doi: 10.1002/pro.4006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Mauser R., Kungulovski G., Keup C., Reinhardt R., Jeltsch A.. Application of Dual Reading Domains as Novel Reagents in Chromatin Biology Reveals a New H3K9me3 and H3K36me2/3 Bivalent Chromatin State. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2017;10(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13072-017-0153-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Kungulovski G., Kycia I., Tamas R., Jurkowska R. Z., Kudithipudi S., Henry C., Reinhardt R., Labhart P., Jeltsch A.. Application of Histone Modification-Specific Interaction Domains as an Alternative to Antibodies. Genome Res. 2014;24(11):1842–1853. doi: 10.1101/gr.170985.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Barral A., Pozo G., Ducrot L., Papadopoulos G. L., Sauzet S., Oldfield A. J., Cavalli G., Déjardin J.. SETDB1/NSD-Dependent H3K9me3/H3K36me3 Dual Heterochromatin Maintains Gene Expression Profiles by Bookmarking Poised Enhancers. Mol. Cell. 2022;82(4):816–832.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.12.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Zheng Y., Fornelli L., Compton P. D., Sharma S., Canterbury J., Mullen C., Zabrouskov V., Fellers R. T., Thomas P. M., Licht J. D., Senko M. W., Kelleher N. L.. Unabridged Analysis of Human Histone H3 by Differential Top-down Mass Spectrometry Reveals Hypermethylated Proteoforms from MMSET/NSD2 Overexpression. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2016;15(3):776–790. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M115.053819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Huang C.-F., Kline J. T., Negrão F., Robey M. T., Toby T. K., Durbin K. R., Fellers R. T., Friedewald J. J., Levitsky J., Abecassis M. M. I., Melani R. D., Kelleher N. L., Fornelli L.. Targeted Quantification of Proteoforms in Complex Samples by Proteoform Reaction Monitoring. Anal. Chem. 2024;96(8):3578–3586. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c05578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Lu C., Coradin M., Janssen K. A., Sidoli S., Garcia B. A.. Combinatorial Histone H3Modifications Are Dynamically Altered in Distinct Cell Cycle Phases. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2021;32:1300. doi: 10.1021/jasms.0c00451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Qian S., Lv X., Scheid R. N., Lu L., Yang Z., Chen W., Liu R., Boersma M. D., Denu J. M., Zhong X., Du J.. Dual Recognition of H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 by a Plant Histone Reader SHL. Nat. Commun. 2018;9(1):2425. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04836-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Bernstein B. E., Mikkelsen T. S., Xie X., Kamal M., Huebert D. J., Cuff J., Fry B., Meissner A., Wernig M., Plath K., Jaenisch R., Wagschal A., Feil R., Schreiber S. L., Lander E. S.. A Bivalent Chromatin Structure Marks Key Developmental Genes in Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell. 2006;125(2):315–326. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Vastenhouw N. L., Schier A. F.. Bivalent Histone Modifications in Early Embryogenesis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2012;24:374–386. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2012.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Marsolier J., Prompsy P., Durand A., Lyne A. M., Landragin C., Trouchet A., Bento S. T., Eisele A., Foulon S., Baudre L., Grosselin K., Bohec M., Baulande S., Dahmani A., Sourd L., Letouzé E., Salomon A. V., Marangoni E., Perié L., Vallot C.. H3K27me3 Conditions Chemotolerance in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Nat. Genet. 2022;54(4):459–468. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01047-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Hahn M. A., Li A. X., Wu X., Yang R., Drew D. A., Rosenberg D. W., Pfeifer G. P.. Loss of the Polycomb Mark from Bivalent Promoters Leads to Activation of Cancer-Promoting Genes in Colorectal Tumors. Cancer Res. 2014;74(13):3617–3629. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Karmodiya K., Krebs A. R., Oulad-Abdelghani M., Kimura H., Tora L.. H3K9 and H3K14 Acetylation Co-Occur at Many Gene Regulatory Elements, While H3K14ac Marks a Subset of Inactive Inducible Promoters in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. BMC Genomics. 2012;13(1):424. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Fox G. C., Poncha K. F., Smith B. R., van der Maas L. N., Robbins N. N., Graham B., Dowen J. M., Strahl B. D., Young N. L., Jain K.. Histone H3K18 & H3K23 Acetylation Directs Establishment of MLL-Mediated H3K4Methylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2024;300(8):107527. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Blanco E., González-Ramírez M., Alcaine-Colet A., Aranda S., Di Croce L.. The Bivalent Genome: Characterization, Structure, and Regulation. Trends in Genetics. 2020;36:118–131. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2019.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Macrae T. A., Fothergill-Robinson J., Ramalho-Santos M.. Regulation, Functions and Transmission of Bivalent Chromatin during Mammalian Development. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2023;24:6–26. doi: 10.1038/s41580-022-00518-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Landry J. J. M., Pyl P. T., Rausch T., Zichner T., Tekkedil M. M., Stütz A. M., Jauch A., Aiyar R. S., Pau G., Delhomme N., Gagneur J., Korbel J. O., Huber W., Steinmetz L. M.. The Genomic and Transcriptomic Landscape of a Hela Cell Line. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2013;3(8):1213–1224. doi: 10.1534/g3.113.005777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Callaway E.. Most Popular Human Cell in Science Gets Sequenced. Nature. 2013 doi: 10.1038/nature.2013.12609. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Fang F., Gao G., Wang Q., Wang Q., Sun L.. Combining SDS-PAGE to Capillary Zone Electrophoresis-Tandem Mass Spectrometry for High-Resolution Top-down Proteomics Analysis of Intact Histone Proteoforms. Proteomics. 2024;24:2300650. doi: 10.1002/pmic.202300650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Britt H. M., Ben-Younis A., Page N., Thalassinos K.. A Conformation-Specific Approach to Native Top-down Mass Spectrometry. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2024;35:3203. doi: 10.1021/jasms.4c00361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Zhou M., Lantz C., Brown K. A., Ge Y., Paša-Tolić L., Loo J. A., Lermyte F.. Higher-Order Structural Characterisation of Native Proteins and Complexes by Top-down Mass Spectrometry. Chem. Sci. 2020;11(48):12918–12936. doi: 10.1039/D0SC04392C. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Donnelly D. P., Rawlins C. M., DeHart C. J., Fornelli L., Schachner L. F., Lin Z., Lippens J. L., Aluri K. C., Sarin R., Chen B., Lantz C., Jung W., Johnson K. R., Koller A., Wolff J. J., Campuzano I. D. G., Auclair J. R., Ivanov A. R., Whitelegge J. P., Paša-Tolić L., Chamot-Rooke J., Danis P. O., Smith L. M., Tsybin Y. O., Loo J. A., Ge Y., Kelleher N. L., Agar J. N.. Best Practices and Benchmarks for Intact Protein Analysis for Top-down Mass Spectrometry. Nat. Methods. 2019;16(7):587–594. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0457-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Compton P. D., Zamdborg L., Thomas P. M., Kelleher N. L.. On the Scalability and Requirements of Whole Protein Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2011;83(17):6868–6874. doi: 10.1021/ac2010795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

oc5c00736_si_001.docx (19.5MB, docx)
oc5c00736_si_002.pdf (382.8KB, pdf)

Articles from ACS Central Science are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES