A molecular brake that modulates spliceosome pausing at detained introns contributes to neurodegeneration

Emerging evidence suggests that intron-detaining transcripts (IDTs) are a nucleus-detained and polyadenylated mRNA pool for cell to quickly and effectively respond to environmental stimuli and stress. However, the underlying mechanisms of detained intron (DI) splicing are still largely unknown. Here, we suggest that post-transcriptional DI splicing is paused at Bact 29 state, an active spliceosome but not catalytically primed, which depends on SNIP1 (Smad Nuclear Interacting Protein 1) and RNPS1 (a serine-rich RNA binding protein) interaction. RNPS1 and Bact component preferentially dock at DIs and the RNPS1 docking is sufficient to trigger spliceosome pausing. Haploinsufficiency of Snip1 attenuates neurodegeneration and globally rescues IDT accumulation caused by a previously reported mutant U2 snRNA, a basal spliceosomal component. Snip1 conditional knockout in cerebellum decreases DI splicing efficiency and causes neurodegeneration. Therefore, we suggest that SNIP1 and RNPS1 form a molecular brake for the spliceosome pausing, and that its misregulation contributes to neurodegeneration.

U2 snRNA structure is influenced by SF3A and SF3B proteins but not by SF3B inhibitors

U2 snRNP is an essential component of the spliceosome. It is responsible for branch point recognition in the spliceosome A-complex via base-pairing of U2 snRNA with an intron to form the branch helix. Small molecule inhibitors target the SF3B component of the U2 snRNP and interfere with A-complex formation during spliceosome assembly. We previously found that the first SF3B inhibited-complex is less stable than A-complex and hypothesized that SF3B inhibitors interfere with U2 snRNA secondary structure changes required to form the branch helix. Using RNA chemical modifiers, we probed U2 snRNA structure in A-complex and SF3B inhibited splicing complexes. The reactivity pattern for U2 snRNA in the SF3B inhibited-complex is indistinguishable from that of A-complex, suggesting that they have the same secondary structure conformation, including the branch helix. This observation suggests SF3B inhibited-complex instability does not stem from an alternate RNA conformation and instead points to the inhibitors interfering with protein component interactions that normally stabilize U2 snRNP’s association with an intron. In addition, we probed U2 snRNA in the free U2 snRNP in the presence of SF3B inhibitor and again saw no differences. However, increased protection of nucleotides upstream of Stem I in the absence of SF3A and SF3B proteins suggests a change of secondary structure at the very 5′ end of U2 snRNA. Chemical probing of synthetic U2 snRNA in the absence of proteins results in similar protections and predicts a previously uncharacterized extension of Stem I. Because this stem must be disrupted for SF3A and SF3B proteins to stably join the snRNP, the structure has the potential to influence snRNP assembly and recycling after spliceosome disassembly.

SnoRNA guide activities – real and ambiguous

In eukaryotes, rRNAs and spliceosomal snRNAs are heavily modified posttranscriptionally. Pseudouridylation and 2’-O-methylation are the most abundant types of RNA modifications. They are mediated by modification guide RNAs, also known as small nucleolar (sno)RNAs and small Cajal body-specific (sca)RNAs. We used yeast and vertebrate cells to test guide activities predicted for a number of snoRNAs, based on their regions of complementarity with rRNAs. We showed that human SNORA24 is a genuine guide RNA for 18S-ψ609, despite some non-canonical base-pairing with its target. At the same time, we found quite a few snoRNAs that have the ability to base-pair with rRNAs and can induce predicted modifications in artificial substrate RNAs, but do not modify the same target sequence within endogenous rRNA molecules. Furthermore, certain fragments of rRNAs can be modified by the endogenous yeast modification machinery when inserted into an artificial backbone RNA, even though the same sequences are not modified in endogenous yeast rRNAs. In Xenopus cells a guide RNA generated from scaRNA, but not from snoRNA, could induce an additional pseudouridylation of U2 snRNA at position 60; both guide RNAs were equally active on a U2 snRNA-specific substrate in yeast cells. Thus, posttranscriptional modification of functionally important RNAs, such as rRNAs and snRNAs, is highly regulated and more complex than simply strong base-pairing between a guide RNA and substrate RNA. We discuss possible regulatory roles for these unexpected modifications.

SnoRNA guide activities–real and ambiguous

In eukaryotes, rRNAs and spliceosomal snRNAs are heavily modified posttranscriptionally. Pseudouridylation and 2′-O-methylation are the most abundant types of RNA modifications. They are mediated by modification guide RNAs, also known as small nucleolar (sno)RNAs and small Cajal body-specific (sca)RNAs. We used yeast and vertebrate cells to test guide activities predicted for a number of snoRNAs, based on their regions of complementarity with rRNAs. We showed that human SNORA24 is a genuine guide RNA for 18S-ψ609, despite some non-canonical base-pairing with its target. At the same time, we found quite a few snoRNAs that have the ability to base-pair with rRNAs and can induce predicted modifications in artificial substrate RNAs, but do not modify the same target sequence within endogenous rRNA molecules. Furthermore, certain fragments of rRNAs can be modified by the endogenous yeast modification machinery when inserted into an artificial backbone RNA, even though the same sequences are not modified in endogenous yeast rRNAs. In Xenopus cells a guide RNA generated from scaRNA, but not from snoRNA, could induce an additional pseudouridylation of U2 snRNA at position 60; both guide RNAs were equally active on a U2 snRNA-specific substrate in yeast cells. Thus, posttranscriptional modification of functionally important RNAs, such as rRNAs and snRNAs, is highly regulated and more complex than simply strong base-pairing between a guide RNA and substrate RNA. We discuss possible regulatory roles for these unexpected modifications.

U2 snRNA structure is influenced by SF3A and SF3B proteins but not by SF3B inhibitors

U2 snRNP is an essential component of the spliceosome. It is responsible for branch point recognition in the spliceosome A-complex via base-pairing of U2 snRNA with an intron to form the branch helix. Small molecule inhibitors target the SF3B component of the U2 snRNP and interfere with A-complex formation during spliceosome assembly. We previously found that the first SF3B inhibited-complex is less stable than A-complex and hypothesized that SF3B inhibitors interfere with U2 snRNA secondary structure changes required to form the branch helix. Using RNA chemical modifiers, we probed U2 snRNA structure in A-complex and SF3B inhibited splicing complexes. The reactivity pattern for U2 snRNA in the SF3B inhibited-complex is indistinguishable from that of A-complex, suggesting that they have the same secondary structure conformation, including the branch helix. This observation suggests SF3B inhibited-complex instability does not stem from an alternate RNA conformation and instead points to the inhibitors interfering with protein component interactions that normally stabilize U2 snRNP's association with an intron. In addition, we probed U2 snRNA in the free U2 snRNP in the presence of SF3B inhibitor and again saw no differences. However, increased protection of nucleotides upstream of Stem I in the absence of SF3A and SF3B proteins suggests a change of secondary structure at the very 5′ end of U2 snRNA. Chemical probing of synthetic U2 snRNA in the absence of proteins results in similar protections and predicts a previously uncharacterized extension of Stem I. Because this stem must be disrupted for SF3A and SF3B proteins to stably join the snRNP, the structure has the potential to influence snRNP assembly and recycling after spliceosome disassembly.

Large-scale comparative analysis of cytogenetic markers across Lepidoptera

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) allows identification of particular chromosomes and their rearrangements. Using FISH with signal enhancement via antibody amplification and enzymatically catalysed reporter deposition, we evaluated applicability of universal cytogenetic markers, namely 18S and 5S rDNA genes, U1 and U2 snRNA genes, and histone H3 genes, in the study of the karyotype evolution in moths and butterflies. Major rDNA underwent rather erratic evolution, which does not always reflect chromosomal changes. In contrast, the hybridization pattern of histone H3 genes was well conserved, reflecting the stable organisation of lepidopteran genomes. Unlike 5S rDNA and U1 and U2 snRNA genes which we failed to detect, except for 5S rDNA in a few representatives of early diverging lepidopteran lineages. To explain the negative FISH results, we used quantitative PCR and Southern hybridization to estimate the copy number and organization of the studied genes in selected species. The results suggested that their detection was hampered by long spacers between the genes and/or their scattered distribution. Our results question homology of 5S rDNA and U1 and U2 snRNA loci in comparative studies. We recommend the use of histone H3 in studies of karyotype evolution.

METTL4 catalyzes m6Am methylation in U2 snRNA to regulate pre-mRNA splicing

N 6-methylation of 2′-O-methyladenosine (Am) in RNA occurs in eukaryotic cells to generate N6,2′-O-dimethyladenosine (m6Am). Identification of the methyltransferase responsible for m6Am catalysis has accelerated studies on the function of m6Am in RNA processing. While m6Am is generally found in the first transcribed nucleotide of mRNAs, the modification is also found internally within U2 snRNA. However, the writer required for catalyzing internal m6Am formation had remained elusive. By sequencing transcriptome-wide RNA methylation at single-base-resolution, we identified human METTL4 as the writer that directly methylates Am at U2 snRNA position 30 into m6Am. We found that METTL4 localizes to the nucleus and its conserved methyltransferase catalytic site is required for U2 snRNA methylation. By sequencing human cells with overexpressed Mettl4, we determined METTL4’s in vivo target RNA motif specificity. In the absence of Mettl4 in human cells, U2 snRNA lacks m6Am thereby affecting a subset of splicing events that exhibit specific features such as 3′ splice-site weakness and an increase in exon inclusion. These findings suggest that METTL4 methylation of U2 snRNA regulates splicing of specific pre-mRNA transcripts.

RNA Splicing by the Spliceosome

The spliceosome removes introns from messenger RNA precursors (pre-mRNA). Decades of biochemistry and genetics combined with recent structural studies of the spliceosome have produced a detailed view of the mechanism of splicing. In this review, we aim to make this mechanism understandable and provide several videos of the spliceosome in action to illustrate the intricate choreography of splicing. The U1 and U2 small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs) mark an intron and recruit the U4/U6.U5 tri-snRNP. Transfer of the 5′ splice site (5′SS) from U1 to U6 snRNA triggers unwinding of U6 snRNA from U4 snRNA. U6 folds with U2 snRNA into an RNA-based active site that positions the 5′SS at two catalytic metal ions. The branch point (BP) adenosine attacks the 5′SS, producing a free 5′ exon. Removal of the BP adenosine from the active site allows the 3′SS to bind, so that the 5′ exon attacks the 3′SS to produce mature mRNA and an excised lariat intron.