Mini-Review: Current Strategies to Knockdown Long Non-Coding Rnas Kim a Lennox and Mark a Behlke* Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, IA, 52241, USA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lennox KA, Behlke MA. J Rare Dis Res Treat. (2016) 1(3): 66-70 Journal of www.rarediseasesjournal.com Rare Diseases Research & Treatment Mini Review Open Access Mini-review: Current strategies to knockdown long non-coding RNAs Kim A Lennox and Mark A Behlke* Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, IA, 52241, USA Article Info Text Article Notes The discovery of functional long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) Received: September 12, 2016 has challenged the paradigm that most RNAs encode proteins. Accepted: November 25, 2016 LncRNAs are an abundant class of RNAs >200 nt in length that were *Correspondence: previously assumed to be transcriptional noise. It is now widely Dr. Mark A Behlke, Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., accepted that some of these lncRNAs have diverse regulatory roles Coralville, IA, 52241, USA, Tel: 319-626-8432; Fax: 319- in gene expression, can serve as structural components for shaping 626-8466, Email: [email protected] nuclear organization and can even act as decoys for other RNAs © 2016 Mark A Behlke. This article is distributed under the or proteins1-3. While tens of thousands of lncRNA transcripts have terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International been cataloged, the biological function of the majority of lncRNAs License. still remains a mystery. Determining the individual functionality Keywords of members of this recently discovered class of RNAs is important Long non-coding RNAs lncRNA for better understanding of developmental biology, evolution and Noncoding RNA genetic disease. Antisense RNAi 4 siRNA distributions that are critical for their function . Some lncRNAs CRISPR are Similarenriched to inproteins, the nucleus individual and are lncRNAs involved have in specific regulating subcellular nuclear Knockdown processes such as transcription and RNA processing. Other lncRNAs are enriched in the cytoplasm where they can impact protein localization or modulate mRNA stability and translation. Some lncRNAs are more equally distributed between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. The location of the primary reservoir of a lncRNA can impact the ability to knock down expression levels of that species. Three strategies are commonly used to knockdown or knockout lncRNAs, including: degradation of the RNA by RNA interference (RNAi), degradation of the RNA by RNase H activate antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), or gross deletion/alteration at the DNA level using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing methods (Figure 1). Each of these tools have their own advantages and disadvantages, and and the transcriptional landscape within which it resides. RNAi is a commonlysuccess can employed be influenced knockdown by the subcellular technique localization that utilizes of the the lncRNA multi- protein RNAi-induced silencing complex (RISC) to suppress mRNAs5. The human RISC loading complex (RLC), is comprised of three proteins (Dicer, TRBP and Ago2) responsible for processing longer dsRNAs into the mature siRNAs and loading these siRNAs into Ago2. It has previously been demonstrated that RNAi-mediated mRNA degradation occurs in the cytoplasm6. In a series of fractionation and co-immunoprecipitation experiments, Stalder et al. more binding with its targeted mRNA and Ago2-mediated cleavage of the mRNAspecifically occurs demonstrate primarily at that the roughcanonical endoplasmic RISC loading, reticulum, subsequent where mRNAs are translated into proteins7. RNase H-mediated antisense RNA knockdown capitalizes on the endogenous RNase H1 enzyme, Page 66 of 70 Lennox KA, Behlke MA. J Rare Dis Res Treat. 2016 1(3): 66-70 Journal of Rare Diseases Research & Treatment Figure 1: Schematic of the three common methods used to knockdown or knockout lncRNAs. RNA interference (RNAi) utilizes the multi- protein RNAi-induced silencing complex (RISC) containing a siRNA to specifically degrade the targeted RNA. Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) bind to their targeted RNA and use endogenous RNase H1, an enzyme that cleaves the RNA in an RNA/DNA heteroduplex. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing makes alterations at the genomic level by using a target specific crRNA hybridized to the tracrRNA, which is complexed to the Cas9 protein. which is most abundant in the nucleus where it is thought RNase-H mediated antisense knockdown, since RNase to function in DNA replication and repair8-11. Alternatively, H is predominantly found in the nucleus. Conversely, we steric blocking ASOs can be used to block splice junctions thought RNAi, a mostly cytoplasmic process, might be to reduce accumulation of mature lncRNA transcripts or more effective when targeting cytoplasmic populations of block access to key functional domains without triggering lncRNAs. To test this possibility, a systematic study was degradation of the target RNA12,13. Steric blocking ASOs performed in cell culture comparing the effectiveness of ASOs (20mer DNA-PS, 20mer 2’OMe-PS gapmers or 16mer LNA-PS gapmers (Exiqon), where PS = phosphorothioate morpholinoare made of backbones chemically14. modifiedBoth RNAi residues and RNase that H-activedo not linkages, LNA = locked nucleic acid and 2’OMe = 2’-O-Methyl ASOssupport rely RNase upon H1 naturally cleavage, present such as effector2’-modified molecules ribose orto RNA) or RNAi (DsiRNAs, siRNA, or Silencer® Select siRNAs degrade the lncRNA. In contrast, CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing methods rely upon a bacterial endonuclease variable localization patterns17. Nuclear lncRNAs (MALAT1 enzyme that can be targeted to desired sites in the genome (Thermoand NEAT1), Fisher cytoplasmic Scientific)) lncRNAs against (DANCR seven andlncRNAs OIP5-AS1) with or dual-localized lncRNAs (TUG1, CasC7 and HOTAIR) were stranded DNA breaks at or around the target site15,16. targeted by either ASOs (18 sites/target) or RNAi (28 sites/ byThe a cellularsite-specific repair guide machinery RNA where heals itthe generates double-stranded double- breaks, leaving small “scars” in the genome, or can even be depending on parameters such as GC content and target used to delete large blocks of DNA and thereby eliminate accessibility,target). As there sites is were a wide selected range by of using efficacy optimized between design sites the lncRNA at the genomic level. CRISPR/Cas9 methods can also be used to introduce new sequences at the target house design criteria (ASOs) to maximize the probability loci, such as transcriptional terminators that will prevent ofalgorithms comparing (RNAi) highly or activeusing siteswell-defined between stringentto the twoin- production of full-length lncRNAs. Understanding the knockdown strategies. The results were consistent with nature of the lncRNA of interest can better assist with our hypothesis: nuclear lncRNAs were more easily knocked selecting the optimal knockdown technique. down when using ASOs, while cytoplasmic targets were With an extensive background of mRNA knockdown more easily knocked down when using RNAi (Figure 2). experience, we expected that applying the same repertoire When comparing the potency of the various ASO chemical of reagents to suppress lncRNAs would be easily accomplished. However, we found that some lncRNAs and 2’OMe-PS ASOs had very similar knockdown patterns betweenmodification the strategies,different sites, it was the found 2’OMe-PS that while gapmers the DNA-PS were seemed to be a correlation that RNAi-based methods consistently more potent. This was expected, as the 2’OMe (smallwere difficult interfering to suppress, RNAs, siRNAs;and eventually or Dicer noticed substrate what RNAs, DsiRNAs) were less effective against nuclear- The 2’OMe-PS gapmer and LNA-PS gapmer ASOs typically localized lncRNA targets. We hypothesized that these showedbases increase similar the potency binding at affinity the 10 ofnM the dose; ASO however,to the target. the nuclear lncRNAs would be more easily suppressed using LNA-PS gapmers were often more potent at lower doses. Page 67 of 70 Lennox KA, Behlke MA. J Rare Dis Res Treat. 2016 1(3): 66-70 Journal of Rare Diseases Research & Treatment Nuclear lncRNAs 120 A 100 N R g 80 n i n i a 60 m e R 40 % 20 0 MALAT1 NEAT1 MALAT1 NEAT1 Cytoplasmic lncRNAs 120 A 100 N R g 80 n i ASOs n i 60 a m RNAi e R 40 % 20 0 DANCR OIP5-AS1 DANCR OIP5-AS1 Dual-localized lncRNAs 120 A 100 N R g 80 n i n i 60 a m e R 40 % 20 0 TUG1 CasC7 HOTAIR TUG1 CasC7 HOTAIR Figure 2: Overview of lncRNA knockdown results comparing method efficacy with lncRNA subcellular localization (17). Antisense oligonucleotides (LNA-PS gapmers, 2’OMe-PS gapmers or DNA-PS) or RNAi reagents (siRNAs, DsiRNAs or Silencer® Select siRNAs) were transfected into HeLa cells with Lipofectamine® 2000 for 24 h at 10 nM dose. ASOs = antisense oligonucleotides; PS = phosphorothioate linkages. There was no overall difference in activity between any of So far, we have commented on the “relative ease” of the various RNAi reagents tested. Duration of knockdown either knockdown technique to suppress their targets was not addressed in this study; suppression lasting 3-7 based on whether the lncRNA was predominantly nuclear days is typically seen in cell culture (where dilution from or cytoplasmic. A closer look at the data shows that ASOs cell division can be limiting by reducing concentration are also effective at degrading cytoplasmic RNAs (Figure of the ASOs or siRNAs), whereas knockdown for several 2). ASOs not only have the innate ability to target nuclear- weeks or even a month can be seen in non-dividing retained RNAs, but they can also degrade nascent RNAs cells in vivo18,19. While this study only examined lncRNA prior to cytoplasmic exportation. Also, a recent study knockdown in cell culture, similar relative activities examining the rate-limiting step of mRNA degradation between the different reagent classes would be expected by ASOs found that RNase H1 was also present in low in vivo if suitable delivery tools were employed. For in vivo levels in the cytoplasm23. While ASO-mediated mRNA use, a clear performance advantage would be predicted degradation occurred more rapidly in the nucleus, it also for the short LNA-PS gapmers if administered by naked IV occurred at a slower rate in the cytoplasm.