Delineating hierarchical cellular states including rare intermediates and the networks of regulatory genes that orchestrate cell-type specification are quintessential challenges for developmental biology. Single-cell RNA-Seq (scRNA-Seq) is greatly accelerating such research given its power to provide comprehensive descriptions of genomic states and their presumptive regulators1–5. Hematopoietic multipotential progenitors (MPPs) as well as bipotential intermediates manifest mixed-lineage patterns of gene expression at a single-cell level6,7. Such mixed-lineage states may reflect molecular priming of developmental potentials by co-expressed alternate-lineage determinants, namely transcription factors. Although a bistable-gene-regulatory network has been proposed to regulate the specification of neutrophils versus macrophages7,8, the nature of the transition states manifested in vivo and the underlying dynamics of the cell-fate determinants have remained elusive. We used scRNA-Seq, coupled with a new analytic tool, ICGS and clonogenic assays to delineate hierarchical genomic and regulatory states culminating in neutrophil or macrophage specification. The analysis captured prevalent mixed-lineage intermediates that manifested coincident expression of hematopoietic stem cell/progenitor (HSCP) and myeloid progenitor genes. It also revealed rare metastable intermediates that had collapsed the HSCP program and expressed low levels of the myeloid determinants, Irf8 and Gfi19–13. Genetic perturbations and ChIP-Seq revealed Irf8 and Gfi1 as key components of counteracting myeloid-gene-regulatory networks. Combined loss of these two determinants “trapped” the metastable transition state. We propose that mixed-lineage states are obligatory during cell-fate specification and manifest differing frequencies because of their “dynamic instability”, dictated by counteracting gene-regulatory networks.
To analyze discrete genomic states and transitional intermediates spanning myelopoiesis, we performed scRNA-Seq on stem/multipotent progenitors (LSK; lin−Sca1+c-Kit+), common myeloid progenitors (CMP), granulocyte monocyte progenitors (GMP)14, and LKCD34+ cells (lin−c-Kit+CD34+)15 that included granulocytic precursors. Analysis of the data using six independent computational approaches1,3,4,16,17 resulted in varied delineation of cellular states and intermediates (Supplementary Information, Extended Data Fig. 1–5). Therefore, we developed a method, Iterative Clustering and Guide-gene Selection (ICGS), which utilizes pair-wise correlation of dynamically expressed genes and iterative clustering with pattern-specific guide genes to delineate coherent gene-expression patterns (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Information). Exclusion of cell-cycle genes improved predictions of developmental states (Supplementary Information, Extended Data Fig. 6a–c). ICGS resolved nine hierarchically-ordered cellular states (Fig. 1b) that encompassed all those delineated above. GO-Elite pathway enrichment assigned cellular identities to these states; HSCP-1 (Hematopoietic Stem Cell Progenitor), HSCP-2, Meg (Megakaryocytic), Eryth (Erythrocytic), Multi-Lin* (Multi-Lineage Primed), MDP (Monocyte-Dendritic cell precursor), Mono (Monocytic), Gran (Granulocytic) and Myelocyte (myelocytes and metamyelocytes). Gene expression patterns of Csf1r, Flt3 and Cx3cr1 suggested that both CMP and GMP contain macrophage/dendritic cell precursors (MDP: CX3CR1+CD115+CD135+)18, which was confirmed by flow cytometry (Extended Data Fig. 6d–f). Strikingly, the unbiased ICGS analysis inferred a developmental order in agreement with the experimentally determined hematopoietic sequence19 (Fig. 1b, bottom). Similarly, clustering of LKCD34+ cells recreated the entire developmental ordering with granulocytic precursors at one end of the continuum (Extended Data Fig. 6b). Thus ICGS generated a refined order of discrete myeloid cell states, independent of but consistent with prior knowledge.
Next, we displayed the incidence and amplitude of expression of key genes within the predicted ICGS hematopoietic hierarchy (Fig. 1c). Notably, the Multi-Lin* population co-expressed the transcription factors (TFs) Gata2, Meis1, PU.1 (Spi1) and C/EBPα, the latter two are key regulators of myelopoiesis20,21. They also manifested infrequent and variable-amplitude expression of megakaryocytic, erythroid, granulocytic and monocytic genes (Fig. 1c). Thus, during steady-state myelopoiesis a prevalent mixed-lineage state is encountered that expresses HSCP and myeloid progenitor genes (Ctsg, Mpo, and Elane), while displaying molecular priming of erythrocytic, megakaryocytic, granulocytic and monocytic potentials. Each ICGS delineated cellular state is expected to have an underlying regulatory state characterized by distinct combinations of TFs. Clustering of Pearson-correlation coefficients for ICGS-delineated TF-gene pairs (Fig. 1d, e, Extended Data Fig. 6g–j), revealed three distinct regulatory states within GMPs (Fig. 1e). Two were demarcated by TFs involved in granulocyte (e.g., Cebpe, Gfi1) or monocyte (e.g., Irf8, Klf4) specification10–12,22. The third encompassed HSCP TFs, Gata2 and Meis1, along with signal-induced TFs, Jun, Fos and Egr1. The combined analysis of myelopoiesis suggests a multipotential ground state associated with a large set of TFs including Gata2, Meis1, PU.1 and C/EBPα, that is acted on by signal induced TFs such as Fos and Egr1 to generate myeloid progenitors which undergo a strong bifurcation into well demarcated monocytic and granulocytic genomic states.
To infer regulatory interactions among TFs reflective of granulocytic and monocytic specification their pairwise expression was correlated with cellular genomic states (Fig. 1f–i, Extended Data Fig. 7a). This confirmed an established regulatory relationship (e.g. Irf8-Klf423), and suggested new regulatory interactions (Irf8-Zeb2 and Gfi1-Per3). Notably, Gfi1 and Irf8, which are required for normal granulopoiesis and monopoiesis, respectively9,11,12,24,25, displayed strong partitioning within granulocyte- versus monocyte-specified cells (Fig. 1f). Given their reciprocal expression, we analyzed the consequences of Gfi1 or Irf8 loss on genes strongly correlated with their expression within wild type (WT) GMPs (Fig. 2a). Importantly, loss of either TF reduced the heterogeneity of genomic states manifested at the single-cell level (Fig. 2a). Furthermore, loss of Irf8 or Gfi1 reciprocally perturbed the expression of transcription factors that were associated with the monocytic (Klf4, Zeb2, Irf5) and granulocytic (Per3, Ets1) regulatory states, respectively (Fig. 2a, Extended Data Fig. 7b, c). To explore underlying molecular mechanisms, we performed ChIP-Seq analyses in GMPs (Fig. 2b). Notably, Irf8 peaks were enriched for EICE motifs, which are co-bound by PU.126. Intersection of the Gfi1 and Irf8 peaks revealed shared regions that were deemed accessible in GMPs27 based on ATAC-Seq27 (Fig. 2b, c). Gfi1 recruits Lsd128, a histone demethylase acting on H3K4me2. The shared genomic regions manifested increased H3K4me2 upon Gfi1 loss (Fig. 2c) or Lsd1-inhibition, correlating with enhanced monocytic potential (Extended Data Fig. 7d, e). Genes located near the shared genomic regions were associated with monocytic-dendritic-precursors (ImmGen) or abnormal mononuclear cell morphology (Mouse Phenotype Ontology), and were reciprocally dysregulated in Irf8−/− or Gfi1−/− GMPs (Extended Data Fig. 7f). Thus Gfi1 antagonizes the specification of the monocytic-dendritic program in GMPs by repressing enhancers activated by PU.1-Irf8. Strikingly, similar binding patterns for Gfi1 and Irf8 were seen on the Irf8, Klf4 and Zeb2 genes (Extended Data Fig. 8a). Thus Gfi1 likely represses the Irf8, Klf4 and Zeb2 genes by interrupting positive regulation by PU.1 and Irf8, similar to its antagonism of PU.1 on the Spi1 gene29. To further test regulatory interactions, we varied levels of Gfi1 within GMPs using an inducible Gfi1 allele (Extended Data Fig. 8b). Gfi1 induction in GMP increased granulocytic and diminished monocytic potential (Extended Data Fig. 8c, d). In Csf1r+ GMP, inducing Gfi1 repressed monocytic genes (including Irf8), and induced neutrophil genes in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 2d). In agreement with regulatory state (Fig. 1e) and loss-of-function analyses (Fig. 2a), key TFs were reciprocally altered by increased expression of Gfi1; Klf4, Zeb2 and Irf5 were repressed whereas Ets1 and Per3 were induced. The perturbation and ChIP-Seq data were used to assemble a gene regulatory network underlying myeloid cell fate specification (Fig. 2e).
Given that Irf8 and Gfi1 function as antagonistic determinants, we determined how their dynamic expression shapes the genomic state and developmental potential of a GMP. Analysis of GMPs using an Irf8-GFP reporter (Fig. 3a) and CD115 (Csf1r) revealed two major Irf8-GMP subpopulations (IG1 and IG3) and a minor intermediate (IG2) (Fig. 3b). Expression of Csf1r protein and transcripts was strongly correlated with Irf8 (Fig. 3b, c). Conversely Gfi1 transcripts were anti-correlated with Irf8 and Csf1r (Fig. 3c). Colony forming unit (CFU) assays demonstrated that Irf8hi GMPs (IG3) were specified monocytic progenitors (CFU-M); whereas Irf8− GMPs (that expressed highest levels of Gfi1) comprised of specified granulocytes (CFU-G) as well as bipotential progenitors (CFU-GM) (Fig. 3d). Intriguingly, the IG2s, which expressed low levels of Irf8 and Gfi1 (Fig. 3b, c), appeared to represent cells poised to undergo specification as they gave rise to equal proportion of monocytic and granulocytic colonies. Next, we examined GMPs from Gfi1-GFP reporter mice (Fig. 3e), using Csf1r as a surrogate for Irf8. Flow cytometry analysis revealed two major Gfi1-GMP intermediates (GG2, GG3) and a minor population (GG1) (Fig. 3f). GG2 cells expressed highest levels of Gfi1 and represented specified granulocytic progenitors, while GG3 cells, which expressed highest levels of Irf8 were oppositely specified as monocytic progenitors (Fig. 3f–h). The rare GG1 cells expressed intermediate levels of both transcription factors (Fig. 3g). The Gfi1-GFP reporter expresses a stable GFP, which can over-estimate Gfi1 expression, likely accounting for higher GFP expression in GG3s (Fig. 3f) in spite of very low levels of Gfi1 transcripts (Fig. 3g). Importantly GG1s were enriched for bipotential cells (CFU-GM) as well as those undergoing lineage specification (CFU-G and CFU-M; Fig. 3h, Extended Data Fig. 9a). Thus using reporters for reciprocally expressed TFs we were able to distinguish bipotential cells, their lineage-committed progeny and rare intermediates poised to undergo binary cell-fate choice.
We next performed scRNA-Seq of GG1s and IG2s (Fig. 4a). Four clusters of cells could be delineated within GG1s (Supplementary Information, Extended Data Fig. 9b–d). One group was enriched for HSCP genes including Gata1, Gata2, Egr1, FosB and Jun (Fig. 4a). These cells were not contaminants as they expressed CD16/32 and CD34 (Extended Data Fig. 9e, f), and corresponded to the bipotential cells (CFU-GM) within the GG1 population (see below). The second cluster down regulated most HSCP genes except Gata1 and expressed Gfi1, Il5ra, Prg2 and Epx. These were eosinophilic progenitors based on CFU assays, cytospins and flow cytometry (Extended Data Fig. 10a–h)30. The remaining two groups of cells expressed low levels of Gfi1 and Irf8 along with the myeloid genes Etv6, Mpo, Elane, Hax1, a subset of these expressed higher levels of Irf8 along with Cybb and Ly6a (Fig. 4a). The genomic states of these latter groups suggested they represented mixed-lineage intermediates poised for binary cell fate choice. To test this, we analyzed IG2s (Fig. 4a, Extended Data Fig. 10i), which lack bipotential progenitors (CFU-GM) and are highly enriched for cells undergoing lineage specification, resulting in CFU-G and CFU-M. HSCP gene expression waned in IG2s and they co-expressed Gfi1 and Irf8. In contrast, GG1s and IG1s, which both contain the bipotential progenitors (CFU-GM) were enriched for cells expressing key HSCP genes (Extended Data Fig. 10j, k), linking the HSCP gene expression module with CFU-GM developmental output. Thus, we were able to assign genomic states at a single cell level to well-known myeloid intermediates, CFU-M, CFU-G and CFU-GM.
We note induction of Irf8 at low levels is associated with loss of the multipotential program but is not accompanied by specification of monocytes. Higher amplitude Irf8 expression appears necessary for the latter. Similarly, an intermediate level of Gfi1 expression is associated with loss of the multipotential program, but a further increase in its expression coincides with neutrophil specification. Thus hematopoietic intermediates, which express a multipotential program (HSCP1, HSCP2) span the LSK, CMP and GMP flow cytometric gates. The rare cells within the GMP gate that are undergoing monocyte versus neutrophil specification have collapsed multipotential gene expression program and manifest a metastable mixed-lineage transcriptional state involving low-level expression of both Irf8 and Gfi1. If this genomic state, exemplified by IG2s, is a developmental intermediate that is rendered metastable because of counteracting gene regulatory networks, we reasoned that it may be “trapped” by eliminating opposing lineage determinants such as Irf8 and Gfi1. Accordingly, we isolated GMP-like cells from Irf8−/−Gfi1−/− mice and subjected them to scRNA-Seq. Analysis of their genomic states revealed that they, like the IG2s, were primarily distributed between the monocytic and granulocytic specified cells (Fig. 4b, Extended Data Fig. 10l), underscored by quantitative indexing of monocytic and granulocytic signature genes (Fig. 4c). Notably the Irf8−/−Gfi1−/− GMPs were more tightly correlated as a group than the IG2s. Accordingly, we propose that IG2s manifest “dynamic instability” because of the counter acting functions of Irf8 and Gfi1 and that this metastable state is “trapped” by the elimination of both developmental determinants.
We were able to identify both prevalent and rare mixed-lineage genomic states that are encountered during myelopoiesis (Fig. 5). Multi-Lin* intermediates expressing HSCP genes induce robust myeloid progenitor gene expression and transcripts for alternate lineage genes. Notably, myeloid priming occurs in cells which express the TFs PU.1 and/or C/EBPα32. A remarkable feature of this mixed-lineage state is its prevalence and apparent stability in spite of mixing of alternate lineage determinants. Expression of the HSCP module in GMPs is associated with CFU-GM potential. In rare cells, HSCP gene expression wanes with the simultaneous acquisition of CFU-G and CFU-M potentials. Based on its frequency, this state is inferred to be metastable, but could be “trapped” by elimination of counter-acting determinants. The concept of “trapping” of rare developmental intermediates by genetic perturbation is based on the analogy with trapping of unstable transition states in chemical reactions using physico-chemical strategies33. We propose that coincident expression of counteracting regulatory network components manifests as dynamic instability34. This may generate oscillations in the regulatory states of multi- or bi-potential intermediates, resulting in bursts of alternate lineage gene expression. The oscillatory behavior may be a reflection of partial assembly of counter acting regulatory states or a lack of their stabilization.
Methods
Mice
Gfi1Δex2-3/Δex2-312, Gfi1P2A11, Gfi1GFP31, Irf8tm1.2Hm/J25, Irf8EGFP32 and CX3CR1GFP33 mice were maintained on C57Bl/6 background. C57Bl/6 mice used in experiments were purchased from Charles River. Mice were bred and housed by Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Veterinary Services, and mouse manipulations were reviewed and approved by the Children's Hospital Research Foundation Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol Number IACUC2013-0090).
To generate G3-tetracycline-inducible-promoter Gfi1-IRES-Venus (G3GV) knock-in mice, we first modified the pBS31 vector34 to contain 7 tetracycline responsive elements with revised sequence and spacing, termed “G3”35 (pBS31-G3). To generate the Gfi1-IRES-Venus sequence, the internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) from encephalomyocarditis virus was cloned 5 prime of a rapidly maturing YFP variant (Venus)36. The murine Gfi1 open reading frame was then cloned 5 prime of IRES-Venus. Finally, the Gfi1-IRES-Venus fragment was cloned into the pBS31-G3 plasmid (pBS31-G3GV). Inducible Gfi1-IRES-Venus knock in mice were generated by electroporating KH2 ES cells34 with both the pBS31-G3GV vector and a FLP recombinase expression vector (pCAGs-FLPe-Puro). FLP recombinase is expected to recombine the pBS31 plasmid into the Col1A1 locus of KH2 ES cells, and repair a defective hygromycin resistance gene34. KH2 cells were maintained on DR4 feeders (Mirimus, NY) according to Preimsrirut et al.37. After electroporation, the KH2 cells were selected in hygromycin and the first eight hygromycin-resistant clones were expanded. Since KH2 cells also contain a ROSA allele encoding rtTA-M2, a split of each recombinant clone was treated with doxycycline in vitro, then analyzed by immunoblot using α-Gfi1 (AF3540, R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN) or α-GFP (632593, Clontech, Mountain View, CA) antibodies. Four independent G3GV+ ES clones were injected into 8-cell embryos, resulting in an average of 50% chimerism. Progeny were backcrossed to C57Bl/6 ROSA-rtTA-M2 mice (JAX Stock Number:006965).
Flow cytometry and cell sorting
Mice were euthanized with carbon dioxide and cervical dislocation. Femurs, tibias and iliac crest were harvested immediately after euthanasia and put in cold PBS+2%FBS. Bones were crushed with mortar and pestle, filtered and washed in cold PBS+2%FBS, then enriched using CD117 MicroBeads on a Automacs Pro separator (Miltenyi, San Diego, CA). CD117+ cells were stained with lineage: CD3-biotin (clone 145-2C11, BioLegend, San Diego, CA), CD4-biotin (clone RM4-5, eBioscience, San Diego, CA), CD8-biotin (clone 53-6.7, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ), CD11b-biotin (clone M1/70, Becton, Dickinson and Company), CD19-biotin (clone 6D5, BioLegend), Gr1-biotin (clone RB6-8C5, Biolegend), Ter119-biotin (clone Ter-119, Biolegend) and CD45R-biotin (clone RA3-6B2, Biolegend). To isolate LSK, CMP and GMP, lineage stained cells were stained with: Streptavidin APC-Cy7 (Becton, Dickinson and Company), CD16/32-PerCp-ef710 (clone 93, eBioscience), CD117-APC (clone 2B8, Becton, Dickinson and Company), Sca-1-Pe-Cy7 (clone D7, Becton, Dickinson and Company) and CD34-BV421 (clone RAM34, Becton, Dickinson and Company). GMP and CMP gates were set using CD34 FMO.
To isolate Irf8-GFP and Gfi1-GFP GMP subpopulations, the LSK, CMP, GMP panel was supplemented with CD115-BV605 (clone TR15-12F1 2.2, BioLegend). MDP were analyzed by adding CD115-BV605 (clone TR15-12F1 2.2, Biolegend) and CD135-PE (A2F10.1, eBioscience) to the LSK, CMP, GMP panel. To isolate LK CD34+, mouse bone marrow cells were stained with CD3-biotin (clone 145-2C11, Biolegend), CD4-biotin (clone RM4-5, eBioscience), CD8-biotin (clone 53-6.7, Becton, Dickinson and Company), CD19-biotin (clone 6D5, BioLegend), CD45R-biotin (clone RA3-6B2, BioLegend), Streptavidin APC-Cy7 (Becton, Dickinson and Company), CD16/32-PerCp-ef710 (clone 93, eBioscience), CD117-APC (clone 2B8, Becton, Dickinson and Company), Sca-1-Pe-Cy7 (clone D7, Becton, Dickinson and Company), Gr1-FITC (clone RB6-8C5, Becton, Dickinson and Company) and CD34-BV421 (clone RAM34, Becton, Dickinson and Company).
Eosinophil differentiation was assayed by staining washed CFU cells with CCR3-FITC (clone 83101, R&D Systems) and SiglecF-PE (clone_E50-2440, Becton, Dickinson and Company). Cells analyzed by flow were briefly ACK treated before filtering.
Cell sorting was performed on MoFloXDP (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA) or BD FACSAria II with a 100µm nozzle. Flow cytometric analyses were performed on FACS LSR Fortessa (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Data were analyzed with FlowJo Software (TreeStar, Ashland, OR). For flow cytometric statistics, a t-test was performed from at least 3 independent experiments.
RNA-Seq
To ensure maximum cell integrity, C57BL/6J mice between 6–8 weeks of age were sacrificed in the morning, cells were sorted at noon and loaded on the microfluidics chamber at 2PM. Single cell LSK, CMP, GMP and CD34+Lin−CD117+ cells were prepared using the C1™ Single-Cell Auto Prep System (Fluidigm, San Fransisco, CA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In short, flow-sorted cells were counted and resuspended at a concentration of 35,000 cells per 100 µl PBS then loaded onto a primed C1 Single-Cell Auto Prep Integrated Fluidic Chip for mRNA-Seq (5–10 µm). After the fluidic step, cell separation was visually scored, between 55–86 single cells were normally captured. Cells were lysed on chip and reverse transcription was performed using Clontech SMARTer® Kit using the mRNA-Seq: RT + Amp (1771×) according to the manual. After the reverse transcriptase step, cDNAs were transferred to a 96 well plate and diluted with 5 µl C1™ DNA Dilution Reagent. cDNAs were quantified using Quant-iT™ PicoGreen® dsDNA Assay Kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) and Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA). Libraries were prepared using Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina Inc, Santa Clara, CA) on cDNAs with an initial concentration>180 pg/µl that were then diluted to 100 pg/µl. In each single-cell library preparation, a total of 125pg cDNA was tagmented at 55 °C for 20 minutes. Libraries were pooled and purified on AMPure® bead-based magnetic separation before a final quality control using Qubit® dsDNA HS Assay Kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) and Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit. We required the majority of cDNA fragments to be between 375–425bp to qualify for sequencing. For bulk RNA-Seq, RNA was isolated from LSK, CMP and GMP cells using RNeasy Micro Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Libraries were prepared from one microgram of total RNA with TRUseq Stranded mRNA HT kit (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA). Both bulk and single cell libraries were subjected to paired-end 75bp RNA-Seq uencing on a HiSeq 2500 (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA). 96 scRNA-Seq libraries were sequenced per HiSeq 2500 gel (~300 million bp/gel).
ChIP-Seq
Mouse GMP were fixed with 1% formaldehyde for 15 min and quenched with 0.125 M glycine. Chromatin was isolated by the addition of lysis buffer, followed by disruption with a Dounce homogenizer. Lysates were sonicated and the DNA sheared to an average length of 300–500bp. Approximately 20 mice were needed to obtain enough GMP to generate the chromatin used for each ChIP-Seq library. Genomic DNA (Input) was prepared by treating aliquots of chromatin with RNase, proteinase K and heat for de-crosslinking, followed by ethanol precipitation. Pellets were resuspended and the resulting DNA was quantified on a NanoDrop spectrophotometer. Extrapolation to the original chromatin volume allowed quantitation of the total chromatin yield. An aliquot of chromatin (30 ug) was precleared with protein A- (for Gfi1) or protein G- (for Irf8) agarose beads (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY). Genomic DNA regions of interest were isolated using 4 ug of antibody against Gfi131 or Irf8 (sc-6058, Santa Cruz, Dallas, Tx). Complexes were washed, eluted from the beads with SDS buffer, and subjected to RNase and proteinase K treatment. Crosslinks were reversed by incubation overnight at 65 °C, and ChIP DNA was purified by phenol-chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation. Illumina sequencing libraries were prepared from the ChIP and Input DNAs by the standard consecutive enzymatic steps of end-polishing, dA-addition, and adaptor ligation. After a final PCR amplification step, the resulting DNA libraries were quantified and then 50 nt single end reads were sequenced on Illumina HiSeq 2500 (Gfi1) or NexSeq 500 (Irf8).
Alternatively, lineage negative bone marrow cells were lysed in cell lysis buffer (10mM Tris pH 8.0, 10mM NaCl, 0.2% NP40). Chromatin from nuclei, lysed in Nuclear lysis buffer (50mM Tris pH 8.0, 10mM EDTA, 1% SDS), was diluted in IP buffer (20mM Tris pH 8.0, 2mM EDTA, 150mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100, 0.01% SDS) and sheared using a Bioruptor (Diagenode, Denville, NJ). Chromatin immunoprecipitation was performed with α-H3K4me2 (pAb-035-050, Diagenode, Denville, NJ), then isolated with Protein A/G Magnetic Beads (Pierce, Rockford, IL). After uncrosslinking, libraries were prepared (llumina Inc.) and sequenced on Genome Analyzer II (Illumina Inc). Cebpα ChIP-Seq fastq were downloaded from NCBI/GEO/GSE43007. ATAC-Seq in GMP was downloaded from NCBI/GEO/GSE59992.
RNA-Seq and ChIP-Seq Data Processing
RNA and ChIP-Seq reads were aligned to the reference mm9 mouse genome using Bowtie238. Single-cell and bulk sorted RNA-Seq were analyzed using RSEM to estimate transcripts per million mapped reads (TPM) for all genes39. Genomic aligned sequences were visualized with IGV40. In order to identify sub-populations of 3 cells, present at 10%, a minimum of 30 cells was required. For primary discovery analyses n>90 was required. Differentially expressed genes were identified using AltAnalyze using a FDR adjusted empirical Bayes moderated t-test p<0.05. Hierarchical clustering and heat map visualization was produced using AltAnalyze and R41. All AltAnalyze heatmaps are scaled to a contrast factor 2.5 and median-centered normalized. Details on the ICGS analysis pipeline and GG1/IG2 associated population identification are detailed in Supplementary Information.
ChIP-Seq peaks were called using Homer software42 using options “-style factor, -size 500 minDist 1000”. ChIP-Seq heat plot was generated in R using heatplot utility from bioconductor package “made4”43,44. For visualization, RNA and ChIP-Seq were processed and aligned to mm10 using Biowardrobe45 (which requires mm10). Tracks were displayed using UCSC Genome Browser46.
The data sets are reposited in GEO as a SuperSeries under GSE70245. ICGS ordered cells and gene expression profiles can be queried and visualized for selected gene and gene-sets of interest at http://www.altanalyze.org/hematopoietic.html.
RT-PCR
High capacity cDNA reverse transcription kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) was used to generate cDNA. Quantitative PCR was performed using Taqman universal master mix (Applied Biosystem) and the following gene expression assays (Applied Biosystems): Csf1r (Mm00432689_m1), Egr1 (Mm00656724_m1), Ela2 (Mm00469310_m1), Epx (Mm00514768_m1), Fos (Mm00487425_m1), Gata1 (Mm01352636_m1), Gata2 (Mm00492301_m1). Gapdh (Mm99999915_g1), Gfi1 (Mm00515855_m1), Il5ra (Mm00434284_m1), Irf8 (Mm00492567_m1), JunB (Mm04243546_s1), Meis1 (Mm00487664_m1), Pbx (Mm04207617_m1) and Prg2 (Mm01336479_m1).
Methyl cellulose assays and liquid culture
For methyl cellulose assays, 750 sorted GMP or 10,000 lineage negative BM cells were mixed with 1ml M3534 (StemCell Technologies, Vancouver, Canada) supplemented with penicillin-streptomycin and plated in a 35mm gridded plate. Colonies were scored from triplicate plates after 7 days. Colonies containing at least 30 cells were scored. CFU-G, CFU-M and CFU-GM scoring was based on colony appearance and morphology, as exemplified in Extended Data Fig. 9a. Dispersed colonies with large oval/round cells with a grainy or grey center were scored as CFU-M. Dense colonies with round, bright cells (that are uniformly smaller than CFU-M) were scored as CFU-G. Colonies with multiple cell clusters of both these types were scored as CFU-GM. To induce the G3-Gfi1-IRES-Venus (G3GV) transgene, 1µg/ml Doxycycline (SIGMA D9891) was added to either liquid or methyl cellulose media. To test Gfi1 function in CD115+ GMP, G3GV GMP were sorted for CD115 expression. CD115+/− GMP were cultured 16 hours with 1µg/ml Doxycycline. Cells were sorted for Venus expression the following day. For liquid culture, cells were maintained in serum-free StemSpan medium (StemCell Technologies) supplemented with IL-3 (10 ng/ml), IL-6 (20 ng/ml), SCF (25 ng/ml). To test Lsd1 dependency, CD117+ cells were treated with 0.5 µM LSD1-C76 (Xcessbio, San Diego, CA), for either 24 hours in liquid culture or in methylcellulose for 7 days. For IL5 driven eosinophil colony assays, Gfi1-GFPdim, Cd115− GMP were plated in M3231 (StemCell Technologies) supplemented with IL-3 (20 ng/ml), IL-5 (50 ng/ml), GM-CSF (10ng/ml), SCF (25 ng/ml) or IL-5 (50 ng/ml) and SCF (25 ng/ml) only. Cytospins were prepared by washing the cells twice in PBS. 10,000 cells were loaded onto VistaVision™ HistoBond (VWR, Radnor, PA) slides using a Cytospin 4 Cytocentrifuge (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Slides were dried overnight and then stained with Camco™ Stain Pak (Cambridge Diagnostic Products, Inc, Fort Lauderdale, FL).
Extended Data
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank Herbert C. Morse for supplying Irf8-Gfp mice. We acknowledge the assistance of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Research Flow Cytometry Core (supported in part by NIH AR-47363, NIH DK78392 and NIH DK90971) and DNA Sequencing and Genotyping Core. We thank Shawn Smith and Hung Chi Liang in the CCHMC Gene Expression Core for optimizing and generating scRNA-Seq libraries. We thank Steven Potter and Jeffrey Whitsett for advice on scRNA-Seq experiments, Phillip Dexheimer and Kashish Chetal for assistance with RNA-Seq data processing, and Katherine Pollard, Larsson Omberg and Aly Khan for helpful discussions. This work was partly funded by contributions from CCRF (H.S.), CCHMC Divisions of Pathology and Oncology, and NIH R01HL122661 (H.L.G.). In memory of Eric Davidson.
Footnotes
Supplementary Information is linked to the online version of the paper at www.nature.com/nature
Author Contributions
A.O., H.S. and H.L.G. designed and interpreted experiments. A.O. performed the experiments. N.S. conceived and developed the software with significant input from B.A., H.S., and H.L.G.. M.V., V.C., B.A., N.S., H.S. and H.L.G. analyzed bioinformatics data. A.O., N.S., H.S. and H.L.G. wrote the paper.
Data is deposited as GEO SuperSeries GSE70245.
References
- 1.Grun D, et al. Single-cell messenger RNA sequencing reveals rare intestinal cell types. Nature. 2015;525:251–255. doi: 10.1038/nature14966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Paul F, et al. Transcriptional Heterogeneity and Lineage Commitment in Myeloid Progenitors. Cell. 2015;163:1663–1677. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Satija R, Farrell JA, Gennert D, Schier AF, Regev A. Spatial reconstruction of single-cell gene expression data. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33:495–502. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Trapnell C, et al. The dynamics and regulators of cell fate decisions are revealed by pseudotemporal ordering of single cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:381–386. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yan L, et al. Single-cell RNA-Seq profiling of human preimplantation embryos and embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20:1131–1139. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hu M, et al. Multilineage gene expression precedes commitment in the hemopoietic system. Genes Dev. 1997;11:774–785. doi: 10.1101/gad.11.6.774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Laslo P, et al. Multilineage transcriptional priming and determination of alternate hematopoietic cell fates. Cell. 2006;126:755–766. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dahl R, et al. Regulation of macrophage and neutrophil cell fates by the PU.1:C/EBPalpha ratio and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Nat Immunol. 2003;4:1029–1036. doi: 10.1038/ni973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hambleton S, et al. IRF8 mutations and human dendritic-cell immunodeficiency. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:127–138. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tamura T, Nagamura-Inoue T, Shmeltzer Z, Kuwata T, Ozato K. ICSBP directs bipotential myeloid progenitor cells to differentiate into mature macrophages. Immunity. 2000;13:155–165. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(00)00016-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Karsunky H, et al. Inflammatory reactions and severe neutropenia in mice lacking the transcriptional repressor Gfi1. Nat Genet. 2002;30:295–300. doi: 10.1038/ng831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hock H, et al. Intrinsic requirement for zinc finger transcription factor Gfi-1 in neutrophil differentiation. Immunity. 2003;18:109–120. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(02)00501-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zarebski A, et al. Mutations in growth factor independent-1 associated with human neutropenia block murine granulopoiesis through colony stimulating factor-1. Immunity. 2008;28:370–380. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.12.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Akashi K, Traver D, Miyamoto T, Weissman IL. A clonogenic common myeloid progenitor that gives rise to all myeloid lineages. Nature. 2000;404:193–197. doi: 10.1038/35004599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Guibal FC, et al. Identification of a myeloid committed progenitor as the cancer-initiating cell in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood. 2009;114:5415–5425. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-10-182071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bendall SC, et al. Single-cell trajectory detection uncovers progression and regulatory coordination in human B cell development. Cell. 2014;157:714–725. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Marco E, et al. Bifurcation analysis of single-cell gene expression data reveals epigenetic landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:E5643–E5650. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408993111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Auffray C, et al. CX3CR1+ CD115+ CD135+ common macrophage/DC precursors and the role of CX3CR1 in their response to inflammation. J Exp Med. 2009;206:595–606. doi: 10.1084/jem.20081385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Orkin SH, Zon LI. Hematopoiesis: an evolving paradigm for stem cell biology. Cell. 2008;132:631–644. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.DeKoter RP, Singh H. Regulation of B lymphocyte and macrophage development by graded expression of PU.1. Science. 2000;288:1439–1441. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5470.1439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zhang DE, et al. Absence of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor signaling and neutrophil development in CCAAT enhancer binding protein alpha-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:569–574. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.2.569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yamanaka R, et al. Impaired granulopoiesis, myelodysplasia, and early lethality in CCAAT/enhancer binding protein epsilon-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:13187–13192. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.24.13187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kurotaki D, et al. Essential role of the IRF8-KLF4 transcription factor cascade in murine monocyte differentiation. Blood. 2013;121:1839–1849. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-437863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Person RE, et al. Mutations in proto-oncogene GFI1 cause human neutropenia and target ELA2. Nat Genet. 2003;34:308–312. doi: 10.1038/ng1170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Holtschke T, et al. Immunodeficiency and chronic myelogenous leukemia-like syndrome in mice with a targeted mutation of the ICSBP gene. Cell. 1996;87:307–317. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81348-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Brass AL, Zhu AQ, Singh H. Assembly requirements of PU.1-Pip (IRF-4) activator complexes: inhibiting function in vivo using fused dimers. EMBO J. 1999;18:977–991. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.4.977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Lara-Astiaso D, et al. Immunogenetics. Chromatin state dynamics during blood formation. Science. 2014;345:943–949. doi: 10.1126/science.1256271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Saleque S, Kim J, Rooke HM, Orkin SH. Epigenetic regulation of hematopoietic differentiation by Gfi-1 and Gfi-1b is mediated by the cofactors CoREST and LSD1. Mol Cell. 2007;27:562–572. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.06.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Spooner CJ, Cheng JX, Pujadas E, Laslo P, Singh H. A recurrent network involving the transcription factors PU.1 and Gfi1 orchestrates innate and adaptive immune cell fates. Immunity. 2009;31:576–586. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Voehringer D, van Rooijen N, Locksley RM. Eosinophils develop in distinct stages and are recruited to peripheral sites by alternatively activated macrophages. J Leukoc Biol. 2007;81:1434–1444. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1106686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.