Transcription Elongation Rate Affects Nascent Histone Pre-Mrna Folding and 3′ End Processing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 9, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Transcription elongation rate affects nascent histone pre-mRNA folding and 3′ end processing Tassa Saldi, Nova Fong, and David L. Bentley Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA Transcription elongation rate influences cotranscriptional pre-mRNA maturation, but how such kinetic coupling works is poorly understood. The formation of nonadenylated histone mRNA 3′ ends requires recognition of an RNA structure by stem–loop-binding protein (SLBP). We report that slow transcription by mutant RNA polymerase II (Pol II) caused accumulation of polyadenylated histone mRNAs that extend past the stem–loop processing site. UV ir- radiation, which decelerates Pol II elongation, also induced long poly(A)+ histone transcripts. Inhibition of 3′ pro- cessing by slow Pol II correlates with failure to recruit SLBP to histone genes. Chemical probing of nascent RNA structure showed that the stem–loop fails to fold in transcripts made by slow Pol II, thereby explaining the absence of SLBP and failure to process 3′ ends. These results show that regulation of transcription speed can modulate pre- mRNA processing by changing nascent RNA structure and suggest a mechanism by which alternative processing could be controlled. [Keywords: transcription elongation rate; cotranscriptional RNA folding; histone mRNA 3′ end processing; stem–loop binding protein; kinetic coupling] Supplemental material is available for this article. Received December 15, 2017; revised version accepted January 23, 2018. As a gene is transcribed by RNA polymerase II (Pol II), pre- min and 5 kb/min (Danko et al. 2013; Fong et al. 2014; mRNAs undergo multiple processing steps to produce Fuchs et al. 2014). mature mRNAs, including capping, splicing, and 3′ end Another way that elongation rate could potentially af- formation. Because pre-mRNA processing occurs cotran- fect cotranscriptional RNA processing is by altering how scriptionally, these events can be affected by changes in the nascent transcript folds (Eperon et al. 1988; Pan and RNA Pol II modification and kinetics. Differential phos- Sosnick 2006; Lai et al. 2013). RNA secondary structure phorylation of the C-terminal domain (CTD) as Pol II trav- is a critical determinant of splicing (Eperon et al. 1988; els along a gene allows for spatial coupling of transcription Buratti and Baralle 2004), RNA editing (Eggington et al. with processing via regulated recruitment of factors that 2011), alternative polyadenylation (Wu and Bartel 2017), contact this domain. The polar nature of transcription and 3′ processing of replication-dependent (RD) histone means that it can impose an “order of events” on pre- mRNAs (Wang et al. 1996). Elongation rate can alter the mRNA processing. For example, selection of an upstream structure that a nascent transcript adopts by modulating 3′ splice site or poly(A) site can preclude the use of a down- the window of opportunity for upstream sequences to stream site, and the choice between alternative processing base-pair with alternative downstream complementary sites is influenced by the rate of transcription elongation. elements (Wong and Polisky 1985; Pan and Sosnick Elongation rate affects numerous alternative splicing (de 2006). In this way, RNA polymerase speed impacts the for- la Mata et al. 2003; Ip et al. 2011; Fong et al. 2014) and pol- mation of transient RNA structures, which unpair and re- yadenylation (Pinto et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2017) decisions. form multiple times as a transcript assumes its mature One way that such kinetic coupling operates is by modu- structure. Inappropriate cotranscriptional folding can re- lating the duration of the “window of opportunity” for sult in kinetic trapping of nonfunctional dead-end RNA processing at upstream sites on the transcript before com- structures (Repsilber et al. 1999; Koduvayur and Woodson peting downstream sites are made. This type of kinetic 2004). There are several well-documented examples in control can regulate alternative splicing within the range of physiological elongation rates that vary between 0.5 kb/ © 2018 Saldi et al. This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first six months after the full-issue publi- cation date (see http://genesdev.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After Corresponding author: [email protected] six months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (At- Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are tribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), as described at http://creati- online at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.310896.117. vecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. GENES & DEVELOPMENT 32:1–12 Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 0890-9369/18; www.genesdev.org 1 Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 9, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Saldi et al. Escherichia coli where transcriptional kinetics control in Results vivo RNA folding (Lewicki et al. 1993; Chao et al. 1995; Slow transcription causes accumulation of 3′ extended Pan et al. 1999; Repsilber et al. 1999; Koduvayur and poly(A)+ histone transcripts Woodson 2004; Wickiser et al. 2005), but kinetic control of a physiologically relevant RNA structure has yet to We looked for differential expression of total poly(A)+ be demonstrated in a eukaryote. transcripts in replicate paired-end RNA sequencing Perhaps the best-understood structural element in eu- (RNA-seq) data sets from HEK293 cell lines that inducibly karyotic pre-mRNA processing is the conserved stem– express α-amanitin-resistant Pol II large subunits that are loop (SL) at the 3′ end of RD histone transcripts (Birchme- either a wild-type control, wild-type Amr, or a slow mu- ier et al. 1982). This element is recognized by SL-binding tant (R749H) (Fong et al. 2014). The R749H mutation in protein (SLBP) (Wang et al. 1996), which stabilizes interac- the funnel domain results in an average elongation rate tion of U7 snRNP with the histone downstream element of 0.5 kb/min, whereas the wild-type α-amanitin-resistant (HDE) of the pre-mRNA (Schaufele et al. 1986; Mowry and mutant elongates at an average speed of 1.7 kb/min, in Steitz 1987; Dominski et al. 1999; Skrajna et al. 2017). To- good agreement with endogenous Pol II (Fong et al. gether, SLBP and U7 snRNP direct RNA cleavage 5 bases 2014). We found 1099 up-regulated (>2×; false discovery downstream from the SL. SLBP forms part of a large 3′ end rate [FDR] < 0.05) and 1480 down-regulated poly(A)+ tran- processing complex that includes factors shared with the scripts in the slow mutant treated with 2.5 µg/mL α-ama- poly(A) site cleavage machinery, such as the CPSF73 en- nitin for 45 h relative to cells expressing the wild-type donuclease and symplekin (Dominski et al. 2005; Kolev Amr Pol II (Supplemental Table S1). Strikingly, among and Steitz 2005; Yang et al. 2012). SLBP, CPSF73, symple- poly(A)+ transcripts, of the 23 RD histone transcripts ex- kin, and CstF77 localize at histone genes by chromatin pressed in our data set, every one was increased in the immunoprecipitation (ChIP), consistent with cotranscrip- R749H slow mutant, and 19 out of 23 showed statistically tional 3′ end formation (Glover-Cutter et al. 2008; Sulli- significant increases (FDR < 0.05) (Fig. 1A, black bars). Ex- van et al. 2009; Hsin et al. 2011). SLBP also interacts amination of individual RD histone genes revealed poly with the negative elongation factor (NELF) through Cap- (A)+ mRNA-seq reads that extend well past the normal binding complex (CBC), and NELF knockdown impairs mRNA 3′ end in the slow mutant (Fig. 1B, red arrows). histone mRNA 3′ end formation (Narita et al. 2007). This effect was specific to RD histone genes, as we saw Because the SL provides a binding site for SLBP, correct no consistent change in the transcript abundance or folding of this structure is absolutely essential for normal length at replication-independent histone genes (Fig. 1B 3′ processing of histone mRNAs. Substitutions that per- bottom right panel; Supplemental Fig. S1A,B). We con- turb base-pairing of the stem or alter the identity of un- firmed the increase in 3′ extended reads in R749H for a paired bases 5′ of the stem inhibit SLBP binding and 3′ subset of histone genes by quantitative RT–PCR (qRT– end processing (Williams et al. 1994; Battle and Doudna PCR) of nuclear poly(A)+ RNA (Fig. 1C). The presence of 2001; Dominski et al. 2003). When histone mRNA 3′ reads past the 3′ end of RD histone genes in R749H sug- end processing is disrupted by knockdown of SLBP, gested that slow transcription was resulting in 3′ end for- NELF, CBC, or CDK9 transcription continues past the mation at distal poly(A) sites. To confirm this, we normal termination site, and a 3′ end is formed at a distal performed 3′ RACE on several RD histone transcripts in poly(A) site (Lanzotti et al. 2002; Narita et al. 2007; Pirn- poly(A)+ RNA. As seen in Figure 1D, there was an increase gruber et al. 2009). Importantly, in terminally differentiat- in the usage of a distal poly(A) site in the slow mutant ed cells, a subset of RD histone genes somehow bypasses compared with wild type at each of the three genes tested the normal 3′ end formation site and switches to produce that was confirmed by qRT–PCR of the 3′ RACE products these long polyadenylated mRNAs (Lyons et al. 2016). (Fig. 1E). Taken together, these results show that slow In this report, we examined the effect of transcription elongation results in increased abundance of 3′ extended elongation rate on histone gene expression.