Mapping the chromosomal locations of transcription factors, nucleosomes, histone modifications, chromatin remodeling enzymes, chaperones, and polymerases is one of the key tasks of modern biology, as evidenced by the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Project. To this end, chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) is the standard methodology. Mapping such protein-DNA interactions in vivo using ChIP-seq presents multiple challenges not only in sample preparation and sequencing but also for computational analysis. Here, we present step-by-step guidelines for the computational analysis of ChIP-seq data. We address all the major steps in the analysis of ChIP-seq data: sequencing depth selection, quality checking, mapping, data normalization, assessment of reproducibility, peak calling, differential binding analysis, controlling the false discovery rate, peak annotation, visualization, and motif analysis. At each step in our guidelines we discuss some of the software tools most frequently used. We also highlight the challenges and problems associated with each step in ChIP-seq data analysis. We present a concise workflow for the analysis of ChIP-seq data in Figure 1 that complements and expands on the recommendations of the ENCODE and modENCODE projects. Each step in the workflow is described in detail in the following sections.

Multi-agent chemotherapeutic regimes remain the cornerstone treatment for Ewing sarcoma, the second most common bone malignancy diagnosed in pediatric and young adolescent populations. We have reached a therapeutic ceiling with conventional cytotoxic agents, highlighting the need to adopt novel approaches that specifically target the drivers of Ewing sarcoma oncogenesis. As KDM1A/ysine-pecific emethylase 1 (LSD1) is highly expressed in Ewing sarcoma cell lines and tumors, with elevated expression levels associated with worse overall survival ( = 0.033), this study has examined biomarkers of sensitivity and mechanisms of cytotoxicity to targeted inhibition using SP-2509 (reversible inhibitor). We report, that innate resistance to SP-2509 was not observed in our Ewing sarcoma cell line cohort ( = 17; IC range, 81 -1,593 nmol/L), in contrast resistance to the next-generation irreversible inhibitor GSK-LSD1 was observed across multiple cell lines (IC > 300 μmol/L). Although status and basal KDM1A mRNA and protein levels did not correlate with SP-2509 response, induction of KDM1B following SP-2509 treatment was strongly associated with SP-2509 hypersensitivity. We show that the transcriptional profile driven by SP-2509 strongly mirrors genetic depletion. Mechanistically, RNA-seq analysis revealed that SP-2509 imparts robust apoptosis through engagement of the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway. In addition, were specifically induced/repressed, respectively following SP-2509 treatment only in our hypersensitive cell lines. Together, our findings provide key insights into the mechanisms of SP-2509 cytotoxicity as well as biomarkers that can be used to predict inhibitor sensitivity in Ewing sarcoma. .

Ewing sarcoma usually expresses the EWS/FLI fusion transcription factor oncoprotein. EWS/FLI regulates myriad genes required for Ewing sarcoma development. EWS/FLI binds GGAA-microsatellite sequences in vivo and in vitro. These sequences provide EWS/FLI-mediated activation to reporter constructs, suggesting that they function as EWS/FLI-response elements. We now demonstrate the critical role of an EWS/FLI-bound GGAA-microsatellite in regulation of the gene as well as for Ewing sarcoma proliferation and anchorage-independent growth. Clinically, genomic GGAA-microsatellites are highly variable and polymorphic. Current data suggest that there is an optimal "sweet-spot" GGAA-microsatellite length (of 18-26 GGAA repeats) that confers maximal EWS/FLI-responsiveness to target genes, but the mechanistic basis for this remains unknown. Our biochemical studies, using recombinant Δ22 (a version of EWS/FLI containing only the FLI portion), demonstrate a stoichiometry of one Δ22-monomer binding to every two consecutive GGAA-repeats on shorter microsatellite sequences. Surprisingly, the affinity for Δ22 binding to GGAA-microsatellites significantly decreased, and ultimately became unmeasureable, when the size of the microsatellite was increased to the sweet-spot length. In contrast, a fully functional EWS/FLI mutant (Mut9, which retains approximately half of the EWS portion of the fusion) showed low affinity for smaller GGAA-microsatellites but instead significantly increased its affinity at sweet-spot microsatellite lengths. Single-gene ChIP and genome-wide ChIP-sequencing (ChIP-seq) and RNA-seq studies extended these findings to the in vivo setting. Together, these data demonstrate the critical requirement of GGAA-microsatellites as EWS/FLI activating response elements in vivo and reveal an unexpected role for the EWS portion of the EWS/FLI fusion in binding to sweet-spot GGAA-microsatellites.

Data are available at http://www.bmi.osu.edu/~khuang/Data/ChIP/RNAPII/.

Trimethylation of histone 3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3) is a critical epigenetic mark for the maintenance of gene silencing. Additional accumulation of DNA methylation in target loci is thought to cooperatively support this epigenetic silencing during tumorigenesis. However, molecular mechanisms underlying the complex interplay between the two marks remain to be explored. Here we show that activation of PI3K/AKT signaling can be a trigger of this epigenetic processing at many downstream target genes. We also find that DNA methylation can be acquired at the same loci in cancer cells, thereby reinforcing permanent repression in those losing the H3K27me3 mark. Because of a link between PI3K/AKT signaling and epigenetic alterations, we conducted epigenetic therapies in conjunction with the signaling-targeted treatment. These combined treatments synergistically relieve gene silencing and suppress cancer cell growth in vitro and in xenografts. The new finding has important implications for improving targeted cancer therapies in the future. Cancer Res; 71(5);