Complex transcription interwoven between and within protein-coding genes produces many thousands of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) that are greater than 200 nucleotides (nt) in length but that appear to lack protein-coding potential (Djebali et al., 2012). Nevertheless, even for the earliest discovered lncRNAs, such as mammalian H19, Xist or fruitfly roX, molecular effects and functional significance have proven difficult to establish (Gabory et al., 2010; Ilik et al., 2013; Sado and Brockdorff, 2013). Furthermore, no or only subtle mouse phenotypes were revealed by detailed loss-of-function studies of Malat1 or Evf-2. In contrast, mutation of Fendrr results in early lethality, and targeted replacement of BC1 results in seizures for some mice (Table 1). It is not possible to accurately predict from the level or extent of its expression, or its sequence composition, whether disruption of a lncRNA locus will result in an overt phenotype. This makes loss- or gain-of-function experiments crucial to understanding the roles of lncRNAs in vivo.

Many lncRNAs are known to act as primary host transcripts for classes of small non-coding RNAs (da Rocha et al., 2008; Royo and Cavaille, 2008). However, lncRNAs are also presumed to regulate the expression either of their neighbouring genes in cis, or of more distant genes in trans (Figure 1). The function of a lncRNA may be mediated by the gene's RNA product which can bind to proteins or to other nucleic acids thereby modulating their functions. This could act by competing with endogenous mRNAs for miRNA binding (Franco-Zorrilla et al., 2007; Poliseno et al., 2010; Jeck and Sharpless, 2014), providing binding sites for small RNAs that elicit transcriptional silencing (Wierzbicki et al., 2009), or through altering protein activity (Feng et al., 2006), binding or specificity (reviewed in Guttman and Rinn, 2012). Alternatively, the act of transcription per se through a lncRNA locus could be critical because of the changes this generates in chromatin structure, modification or protein binding: in this case the resultant RNA could be an incidental by-product (Petruk et al., 2006; Latos et al., 2012; Marquardt et al., 2014). In these latter cases, any technique intended to dissect mechanism must alter the act and extent of transcription rather than change RNA levels. This multiplicity of lncRNA functional mechanisms means that a toolkit of experimental strategies to dissect their modes of action will need to be added to those currently employed for investigating protein-coding genes. Protein-coding genes have been shown to contribute greatly to biological function, which is not yet the case for lncRNA loci, rendering their rigorous investigation particularly important.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Analysis of lncRNA localisation both on a tissue and subcellular level by techniques such as fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH, Chakraborty et al., 2012) can give important insights into the cell types that are important for their function, and in which subcellular compartment they act. Understanding the mechanism of action of lncRNAs often relies on identification of interacting proteins or nucleic acids by RNA-protein (e.g., crosslinking immunoprecipitation, CLIP, Huppertz et al., 2014), RNA–RNA (e.g., crosslinking analysis of synthetic hybrids, CLASH, Helwak et al., 2013) or RNA-DNA (e.g., CHART, Simon et al., 2011; Vance and Ponting, 2014 and ChIRP, Chu et al., 2011) interaction assays. However, due to the nature of the RNA molecule, many assays are prone to non-specific binding, and it is critical to ensure that appropriate controls are performed (Brockdorff, 2013). Several of these techniques have therefore been designed to identify direct interactors by crosslinking, and subsequent use of denaturing conditions to remove non-specific interactions. These techniques are clearly important in determining the mechanism of action of lncRNAs, and are critical to guide experimental genetic knockout design. However, an understanding of the functional importance of lncRNAs in the context of the whole organism still relies on manipulating their expression by genetic modification, overexpression or knockdown strategies, and analysis of the resulting phenotypes.

The earliest studied lncRNAs were those associated with imprinting, such as Airn and H19, or X chromosome regulation, such as Xist or roX1/2 (Table 1). In these cases, lncRNA expression was initially linked genetically to a known phenotype, and cell line models accurately reflected the in vivo models (Hao et al., 1993; Keniry et al., 2012; Latos et al., 2012; Helwak et al., 2013; Huppertz et al., 2014). These results highlight that the early models of lncRNAs involved in imprinting and X chromosomal dosage compensation could act as paradigms for the study of lncRNAs today (Kohtz, 2014). In the absence of a priori phenotypic associations, some lncRNAs have been chosen for study on the basis of their tissue restricted patterns of expression, sequence conservation, or cellular localisation. Others, such as MALAT1 (whose level of expression is associated with metastasis) have been selected on the basis of their suggested association with disease. Neat1 and Malat1 (also known as Neat2) are linked loci that produce highly expressed lncRNAs whose sequences are well conserved across diverse mammals and which have specific nuclear localisations (Chu et al., 2011). In cells, Neat1 was shown to be essential for nuclear paraspeckle assembly and maintenance (Clemson et al., 2009; Sasaki and Hirose, 2009; Sunwoo et al., 2009; Mao et al., 2011a, 2011b; Zhang et al., 2012) and Malat1/Neat2 binds to the Polycomb 2 (PC2) protein which is required for activating growth-control genes (Vance and Ponting, 2014). Nevertheless, in vivo disruption of either of these lncRNA loci results in viable and fertile mouse models (Table 1).

Confirmation or rejection of lncRNA functionality requires experimental evidence that clearly separates the role of the genomic locus from the role of its RNA products. Here we recommend experimental techniques that achieve this separation whilst minimising disruption of the DNA sequence. Furthermore, we propose some considerations that may assist in interpreting phenotypes arising from mutation of a lncRNA or lncRNA locus (Box 1).

In vivo, loss-of-function strategies

Different genetic loss-of-function strategies can be employed in vivo to study the function of lncRNAs (Figure 2). Prioritisation of strategy should depend on the lncRNA's known biology, including its localisation to one or more of the cytoplasm, nucleus or chromatin. In one study, the majority of human lncRNAs were enriched in the cytoplasm (van Heesch et al., 2014) and these may associate with ribosomes and, contrary to expectations, some may be translated (Guttman et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Wilhelm et al., 2014). Nuclear lncRNAs, particularly those that are chromatin-associated, could act as cis-acting transcriptional regulators, whereas cytoplasmic or nucleoplasmic lncRNAs might be predicted to function in trans; by contrast, some nucleoplasmic lncRNAs may of course be non-functional products of transcription.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Depletion of protein-coding transcripts is often achieved using RNAi-based techniques, which supply double-stranded RNA that is able to trigger post-transcriptional destabilisation of the mature mRNA and inhibit translation, predominantly in the cytoplasm. Although the presence of active RNAi factors in human cell nuclei has been proposed (Gagnon et al., 2014) the extent to which exclusively nuclear lncRNAs can be knocked down remains unclear. Whilst useful for studies of many trans-acting lncRNAs, RNAi-based knockdown acts post-transcriptionally, and therefore does not block the act of transcription, precluding analyses of lncRNAs which may produce their effects via this mechanism.

Another experimental approach is to genetically manipulate the lncRNA locus. When inserting transcriptional terminator sequences care must be taken to control for changes in spacing between DNA regulatory elements and to take account of regulatory elements that may be inadvertently inserted, such as promoters of resistance genes, since these may be able to drive expression of neighbouring genes or divert activities from nearby enhancers. Insertion of exogenous sequences can induce phenotypes (Steshina et al., 2006). Even single loxP sites can attract germline methylation that might potentially repress flanking regulatory elements (Rassoulzadegan et al., 2002). Extra controls are thus needed to identify possible gain-of-function effects arising from inserted sequences, such as reporters or selection cassettes. The advent of programmable nucleases (Kim and Kim, 2014) provides opportunities to investigate these possibilities. Transcriptional terminator sequences can vary in their efficacy depending on the genomic context into which they are inserted, which can cause termination to be highly inefficient. For example, a sequence that efficiently terminates transcription in multiple contexts in Airn, failed to do so when inserted close to a CpG island (Latos et al., 2012).

Other approaches include deletion of the full-length lncRNA locus or its promoter sequence, mutation of putative functional domains or targeted interruption between the promoter and the RNA sequence through an engineered inversion (Figure 2; Table 1). Whilst useful, such strategies may not always be successful. Promoter inversion, for instance, may not always abrogate transcription, because of the bidirectionality of promoters (Wu and Sharp, 2013), and promoter deletion may also disrupt the expression level of protein-coding transcripts with which lncRNAs share a bidirectional promoter. In all of these cases, it is important to minimise the removal or reorganisation of regulatory factor binding sites or other regulatory elements within the DNA, and to control for the addition of novel binding sites. For example, it should be borne in mind that many lncRNAs initiate within enhancers (Marques et al., 2013) and in these cases disruption of the lncRNA promoter could also cause unintended changes in gene expression. In the case of transcription terminators, to ensure effects are due to changes in RNA rather than DNA, inversions of the terminator sequence or a variety of different terminators can be used. In the experimental design it is also important to consider alternatively spliced transcripts and additional transcriptional start sites to ensure full abrogation of lncRNA expression.

Antisense oligonucleotides might provide an alternative technique for analysis of lncRNA function. They are thought to act by forming a DNA/RNA hybrid with the nascent RNA transcript, and triggering RNase H-dependent degradation of the RNA in the nucleus (Figure 2). This reduces the level of the RNA before the mature transcript is produced, but the nature and extent of off-target effects are not fully understood and may be substantial (Sahu et al., 2007). Also, it is not possible to generate stable transgenic lines, which restricts analysis to cell lines or to systems where the oligonucleotides can be supplied by injection. Other approaches to disrupting lncRNA function use morpholino antisense oligos targeting e.g. splice sites (Ulitsky et al., 2011), or locked nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotides (Sarma et al., 2010).

Recent developments in rational design of DNA binding factors using transcription activator-like effector (TALE) proteins or the clustered regularly interspersed palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system have enabled recruitment of transcriptional activation (Cheng et al., 2013) or repression domains (Cong et al., 2012; Gilbert et al., 2013) to defined sites within the genome to modulate transcription, or to directly interfere with the passage of the RNA polymerase. These techniques could be used to modulate the rate of transcriptional initiation or elongation of the lncRNA (Figure 2), but care must be taken to control for direct effects of these factors on the transcription of neighbouring genes.

Separating RNA- from DNA-sequence dependent effects

Deletion of a lncRNA genomic locus does not cleanly separate a role of the lncRNA per se from a role of other functional elements contained within the underlying DNA. Such elements might be irrelevant to the lncRNA's function, yet critical to the normal function of a neighbouring protein-coding gene. Eighteen mouse knockout lines were recently described in which genomic regions containing intergenic lncRNA loci (21.6 kb mean size, 4.8 kb–49.7 kb range) were deleted and replaced by a lacZ reporter cassette (Sauvageau et al., 2013). For 13 of these lines no overt phenotypes were reported. In contrast, strong phenotypes from 5 knockout lines were observed: Peril^−/− or Fendrr^−/− mice have reduced viability; Mdgt^−/− and linc-Pint^−/− mice show growth defects; and linc-Brn1b^−/− mice exhibit abnormal cortical anatomy. The authors conclude that these developmental disorders generated by DNA deletions demonstrate the critical roles that lncRNAs play in vivo (Sauvageau et al., 2013).

While this may be the correct interpretation, the strong phenotypes observed in these lines may derive from the engineered deletion of cis-regulatory DNA elements lying within these large DNA deletions that are critical for the normal functions of proximal protein-coding genes. For instance Fendrr is 1.4 kb from Foxf1, and Mdgt starts only 84 bp from the 5′ exon of Hoxd1 and terminates close to Hoxd3 (Figure 3). Consistent with this notion, data from the ENCODE project indicate that the genomic region deleted in Mdgt^−/− lines contains binding sites for several transcription factors and chromatin regulatory proteins (Figure 3). Whilst the authors detected no global change of neighbouring protein-coding gene expression as assessed by limited RNAseq of tissues, it is still possible that altered cell type or developmental stage specific expression of these genes escaped detection. LncRNAs are often transcribed in a highly restricted cell population and a global, high-throughput analysis of even the full embryo may not have been informative. Ultimately, the best evidence for RNA-dependent lncRNA function derives from loss-of-function, followed by complementation approaches, as for example described in Grote et al. (2013).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

This issue is also relevant for other lncRNAs transcribed from within Hox gene clusters. In the case of Hotair (Rinn et al., 2007), a several kb large deletion of the entire Hotair genomic DNA in vivo induces a subtle morphological phenotype in the spine, which was interpreted as a gain-of-function of Hoxd genes in trans (Li et al., 2013). However, Hotair is embedded in the HoxC gene cluster and topological modifications or re-arrangements in such a dense series of transcription units are likely to modify the expression of neighbouring genes. Further insights have been acquired by removing the entire HoxC locus, including both the lncRNA locus and flanking genes (Suemori and Noguchi, 2000; Schorderet and Duboule, 2011). Even when multiple alleles are available, as for Hotair, lncRNA function remains difficult to evaluate.

1. 1. Encode Project Consortium

   (2012) ENCODE - Encyclopedia of DNA elements

   Freely available at ENCODE Data Coordination Center (DCC).

   https://genome.ucsc.edu/ENCODE/

1. 1. Anguera MC
   2. Ma W
   3. Clift D
   4. Namekawa S
   5. Kelleher RJ III
   6. Lee JT

   (2011) Tsx produces a long noncoding RNA and has general functions in the germline, stem cells, and brain

   PLOS Genetics 7:e1002248.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002248

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bateman JR
   2. Lee AM
   3. Wu CT

   (2006) Site-specific transformation of Drosophila via phiC31 integrase-mediated cassette exchange

   Genetics 173:769–777.

   https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.056945

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Berghoff EG
   2. Clark MF
   3. Chen S
   4. Cajigas I
   5. Leib DE
   6. Kohtz JD

   (2013) Evf2 (Dlx6as) lncRNA regulates ultraconserved enhancer methylation and the differential transcriptional control of adjacent genes

   Development 140:4407–4416.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.099390

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bond AM
   2. Vangompel MJ
   3. Sametsky EA
   4. Clark MF
   5. Savage JC
   6. Disterhoft JF
   7. Kohtz JD

   (2009) Balanced gene regulation by an embryonic brain ncRNA is critical for adult hippocampal GABA circuitry

   Nature Neuroscience 12:1020–1027.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2371

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brockdorff N

   (2013) Noncoding RNA and Polycomb recruitment

   RNA 19:429–442.

   https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.037598.112

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Chakraborty D
   2. Kappei D
   3. Theis M
   4. Nitzsche A
   5. Ding L
   6. Paszkowski-Rogacz M
   7. Surendranath V
   8. Berger N
   9. Schulz H
   10. Saar K
   11. Hubner N
   12. Buchholz F

   (2012) Combined RNAi and localization for functionally dissecting long noncoding RNAs

   Nature Methods 9:360–362.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1894

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cheng AW
   2. Wang H
   3. Yang H
   4. Shi L
   5. Katz Y
   6. Theunissen TW
   7. Rangarajan S
   8. Shivalila CS
   9. Dadon DB
   10. Jaenisch R

   (2013) Multiplexed activation of endogenous genes by CRISPR-on, an RNA-guided transcriptional activator system

   Cell Research 23:1163–1171.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2013.122

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chu C
   2. Qu K
   3. Zhong FL
   4. Artandi SE
   5. Chang HY

   (2011) Genomic maps of long noncoding RNA occupancy reveal principles of RNA-chromatin interactions

   Molecular Cell 44:667–678.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.027

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Clemson CM
   2. Hutchinson JN
   3. Sara SA
   4. Ensminger AW
   5. Fox AH
   6. Chess A
   7. Lawrence JB

   (2009) An architectural role for a nuclear noncoding RNA: NEAT1 RNA is essential for the structure of paraspeckles

   Molecular Cell 33:717–726.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2009.01.026

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cong L
    2. Zhou R
    3. Kuo YC
    4. Cunniff M
    5. Zhang F

    (2012) Comprehensive interrogation of natural TALE DNA-binding modules and transcriptional repressor domains

    Nature Communications 3:968.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1962

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Consortium EP

    (2012) An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome

    Nature 489:57–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11247

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. da Rocha ST
    2. Edwards CA
    3. Ito M
    4. Ogata T
    5. Ferguson-Smith AC

    (2008) Genomic imprinting at the mammalian Dlk1-Dio3 domain

    Trends in Genetics 24:306–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2008.03.011

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Delpretti S
    2. Montavon T
    3. Leleu M
    4. Joye E
    5. Tzika A
    6. Milinkovitch M
    7. Duboule D

    (2013) Multiple enhancers regulate Hoxd genes and the Hotdog LncRNA during cecum budding

    Cell Reports 5:137–150.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.002

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dimitrova N
    2. Zamudio JR
    3. Jong RM
    4. Soukup D
    5. Resnick R
    6. Sarma K
    7. Ward AJ
    8. Raj A
    9. Lee JT
    10. Sharp PA
    11. Jacks T

    (2014) LincRNA-p21 activates p21 in cis to promote polycomb target gene expression and to enforce the G1/S checkpoint

    Molecular Cell 54:777–790.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.04.025

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Djebali S
    2. Davis CA
    3. Merkel A
    4. Dobin A
    5. Lassmann T
    6. Mortazavi A
    7. Tanzer A
    8. Lagarde J
    9. Lin W
    10. Schlesinger F
    11. Xue C
    12. Marinov GK
    13. Khatun J
    14. Williams BA
    15. Zaleski C
    16. Rozowsky J
    17. Roder M
    18. Kokocinski F
    19. Abdelhamid RF
    20. Alioto T
    21. Antoshechkin I
    22. Baer MT
    23. Bar NS
    24. Batut P
    25. Bell K
    26. Bell I
    27. Chakrabortty S
    28. Chen X
    29. Chrast J
    30. Curado J
    31. Derrien T
    32. Drenkow J
    33. Dumais E
    34. Dumais J
    35. Duttagupta R
    36. Falconnet E
    37. Fastuca M
    38. Fejes-Toth K
    39. Ferreira P
    40. Foissac S
    41. Fullwood MJ
    42. Gao H
    43. Gonzalez D
    44. Gordon A
    45. Gunawardena H
    46. Howald C
    47. Jha S
    48. Johnson R
    49. Kapranov P
    50. King B
    51. Kingswood C
    52. Luo OJ
    53. Park E
    54. Persaud K
    55. Preall JB
    56. Ribeca P
    57. Risk B
    58. Robyr D
    59. Sammeth M
    60. Schaffer L
    61. See LH
    62. Shahab A
    63. Skancke J
    64. Suzuki AM
    65. Takahashi H
    66. Tilgner H
    67. Trout D
    68. Walters N
    69. Wang H
    70. Wrobel J
    71. Yu Y
    72. Ruan X
    73. Hayashizaki Y
    74. Harrow J
    75. Gerstein M
    76. Hubbard T
    77. Reymond A
    78. Antonarakis SE
    79. Hannon G
    80. Giddings MC
    81. Ruan Y
    82. Wold B
    83. Carninci P
    84. Guigo R
    85. Gingeras TR

    (2012) Landscape of transcription in human cells

    Nature 489:101–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11233

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Eissmann M
    2. Gutschner T
    3. Hammerle M
    4. Gunther S
    5. Caudron-Herger M
    6. Gross M
    7. Schirmacher P
    8. Rippe K
    9. Braun T
    10. Zornig M
    11. Diederichs S

    (2012) Loss of the abundant nuclear non-coding RNA MALAT1 is compatible with life and development

    RNA Biology 9:1076–1087.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/rna.21089

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Ernst J
    2. Kellis M

    (2012) ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization

    Nature Methods 9:215–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1906

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Feng J
    2. Bi C
    3. Clark BS
    4. Mady R
    5. Shah P
    6. Kohtz JD

    (2006) The Evf-2 noncoding RNA is transcribed from the Dlx-5/6 ultraconserved region and functions as a Dlx-2 transcriptional coactivator

    Genes & Development 20:1470–1484.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1416106

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Fitzpatrick GV
    2. Soloway PD
    3. Higgins MJ

    (2002) Regional loss of imprinting and growth deficiency in mice with a targeted deletion of KvDMR1

    Nature Genetics 32:426–431.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng988

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Franco-Zorrilla JM
    2. Valli A
    3. Todesco M
    4. Mateos I
    5. Puga MI
    6. Rubio-Somoza I
    7. Leyva A
    8. Weigel D
    9. Garcia JA
    10. Paz-Ares J

    (2007) Target mimicry provides a new mechanism for regulation of microRNA activity

    Nature Genetics 39:1033–1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng2079

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Gabory A
    2. Jammes H
    3. Dandolo L

    (2010) The H19 locus: role of an imprinted non-coding RNA in growth and development

    BioEssays 32:473–480.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.200900170

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gagnon KT
    2. Li L
    3. Chu Y
    4. Janowski BA
    5. Corey DR

    (2014) RNAi factors are present and active in human cell nuclei

    Cell Reports 6:211–221.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.12.013

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gilbert LA
    2. Larson MH
    3. Morsut L
    4. Liu Z
    5. Brar GA
    6. Torres SE
    7. Stern-Ginossar N
    8. Brandman O
    9. Whitehead EH
    10. Doudna JA
    11. Lim WA
    12. Weissman JS
    13. Qi LS

    (2013) CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes

    Cell 154:442–451.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.044

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Grote P
    2. Wittler L
    3. Hendrix D
    4. Koch F
    5. Wahrisch S
    6. Beisaw A
    7. Macura K
    8. Blass G
    9. Kellis M
    10. Werber M
    11. Herrmann BG

    (2013) The tissue-specific lncRNA Fendrr is an essential regulator of heart and body wall development in the mouse

    Developmental Cell 24:206–214.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2012.12.012

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Guttman M
    2. Rinn JL

    (2012) Modular regulatory principles of large non-coding RNAs

    Nature 482:339–346.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10887

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Guttman M
    2. Russell P
    3. Ingolia NT
    4. Weissman JS
    5. Lander ES

    (2013) Ribosome profiling provides evidence that large noncoding RNAs do not encode proteins

    Cell 154:240–251.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.009

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hao Y
    2. Crenshaw T
    3. Moulton T
    4. Newcomb E
    5. Tycko B

    (1993) Tumour-suppressor activity of H19 RNA

    Nature 365:764–767.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/365764a0

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Helwak A
    2. Kudla G
    3. Dudnakova T
    4. Tollervey D

    (2013) Mapping the human miRNA interactome by CLASH reveals frequent noncanonical binding

    Cell 153:654–665.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.043

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Huarte M
    2. Guttman M
    3. Feldser D
    4. Garber M
    5. Koziol MJ
    6. Kenzelmann-Broz D
    7. Khalil AM
    8. Zuk O
    9. Amit I
    10. Rabani M
    11. Attardi LD
    12. Regev A
    13. Lander ES
    14. Jacks T
    15. Rinn JL

    (2010) A large intergenic noncoding RNA induced by p53 mediates global gene repression in the p53 response

    Cell 142:409–419.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.040

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Huppertz I
    2. Attig J
    3. D'Ambrogio A
    4. Easton LE
    5. Sibley CR
    6. Sugimoto Y
    7. Tajnik M
    8. Konig J
    9. Ule J

    (2014) iCLIP: protein-RNA interactions at nucleotide resolution

    Methods 65:274–287.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.10.011

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Ilik IA
    2. Quinn JJ
    3. Georgiev P
    4. Tavares-Cadete F
    5. Maticzka D
    6. Toscano S
    7. Wan Y
    8. Spitale RC
    9. Luscombe N
    10. Backofen R
    11. Chang HY
    12. Akhtar A

    (2013) Tandem stem-loops in roX RNAs act together to mediate X chromosome dosage compensation in Drosophila

    Molecular Cell 51:156–173.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.07.001

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jeck WR
    2. Sharpless NE

    (2014) Detecting and characterizing circular RNAs

    Nature Biotechnology 32:453–461.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2890

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Keniry A
    2. Oxley D
    3. Monnier P
    4. Kyba M
    5. Dandolo L
    6. Smits G
    7. Reik W

    (2012) The H19 lincRNA is a developmental reservoir of miR-675 that suppresses growth and Igf1r

    Nature Cell Biology 14:659–665.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2521

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kim H
    2. Kim JS

    (2014) A guide to genome engineering with programmable nucleases

    Nature Reviews Genetics 15:321–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3686

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kim MS
    2. Pinto SM
    3. Getnet D
    4. Nirujogi RS
    5. Manda SS
    6. Chaerkady R
    7. Madugundu AK
    8. Kelkar DS
    9. Isserlin R
    10. Jain S
    11. Thomas JK
    12. Muthusamy B
    13. Leal-Rojas P
    14. Kumar P
    15. Sahasrabuddhe NA
    16. Balakrishnan L
    17. Advani J
    18. George B
    19. Renuse S
    20. Selvan LD
    21. Patil AH
    22. Nanjappa V
    23. Radhakrishnan A
    24. Prasad S
    25. Subbannayya T
    26. Raju R
    27. Kumar M
    28. Sreenivasamurthy SK
    29. Marimuthu A
    30. Sathe GJ
    31. Chavan S
    32. Datta KK
    33. Subbannayya Y
    34. Sahu A
    35. Yelamanchi SD
    36. Jayaram S
    37. Rajagopalan P
    38. Sharma J
    39. Murthy KR
    40. Syed N
    41. Goel R
    42. Khan AA
    43. Ahmad S
    44. Dey G
    45. Mudgal K
    46. Chatterjee A
    47. Huang TC
    48. Zhong J
    49. Wu X
    50. Shaw PG
    51. Freed D
    52. Zahari MS
    53. Mukherjee KK
    54. Shankar S
    55. Mahadevan A
    56. Lam H
    57. Mitchell CJ
    58. Shankar SK
    59. Satishchandra P
    60. Schroeder JT
    61. Sirdeshmukh R
    62. Maitra A
    63. Leach SD
    64. Drake CG
    65. Halushka MK
    66. Prasad TS
    67. Hruban RH
    68. Kerr CL
    69. Bader GD
    70. Iacobuzio-Donahue CA
    71. Gowda H
    72. Pandey A

    (2014) A draft map of the human proteome

    Nature 509:575–581.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13302

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kohtz JD

    (2014) Long non-coding RNAs learn the importance of being in vivo

    Frontiers in Genetics 5:45.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00045

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Latos PA
    2. Pauler FM
    3. Koerner MV
    4. Senergin HB
    5. Hudson QJ
    6. Stocsits RR
    7. Allhoff W
    8. Stricker SH
    9. Klement RM
    10. Warczok KE
    11. Aumayr K
    12. Pasierbek P
    13. Barlow DP

    (2012) Airn transcriptional overlap, but not its lncRNA products, induces imprinted Igf2r silencing

    Science 338:1469–1472.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228110

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lewis EB

    (1978) A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila

    Nature 276:565–570.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/276565a0

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Li L
    2. Liu B
    3. Wapinski OL
    4. Tsai MC
    5. Qu K
    6. Zhang J
    7. Carlson JC
    8. Lin M
    9. Fang F
    10. Gupta RA
    11. Helms JA
    12. Chang HY

    (2013) Targeted disruption of Hotair leads to homeotic transformation and gene derepression

    Cell Reports 5:3–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.003

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Mao YS
    2. Sunwoo H
    3. Zhang B
    4. Spector DL

    (2011a) Direct visualization of the co-transcriptional assembly of a nuclear body by noncoding RNAs

    Nature Cell Biology 13:95–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2140

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Mao YS
    2. Zhang B
    3. Spector DL

    (2011b) Biogenesis and function of nuclear bodies

    Trends in Genetics 27:295–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2011.05.006

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Marahrens Y
    2. Panning B
    3. Dausman J
    4. Strauss W
    5. Jaenisch R

    (1997) Xist-deficient mice are defective in dosage compensation but not spermatogenesis

    Genes & Development 11:156–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.2.156

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Marquardt S
    2. Raitskin O
    3. Wu Z
    4. Liu F
    5. Sun Q
    6. Dean C

    (2014) Functional consequences of splicing of the antisense transcript COOLAIR on FLC transcription

    Molecular Cell 54:156–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.03.026

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Marques AC
    2. Hughes J
    3. Graham B
    4. Kowalczyk MS
    5. Higgs DR
    6. Ponting CP

    (2013) Chromatin signatures at transcriptional start sites separate two equally populated yet distinct classes of intergenic long noncoding RNAs

    Genome Biology 14:R131.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-11-r131

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Meller VH
    2. Rattner BP

    (2002) The roX genes encode redundant male-specific lethal transcripts required for targeting of the MSL complex

    EMBO Journal 21:1084–1091.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.5.1084

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Nagano T
    2. Mitchell JA
    3. Sanz LA
    4. Pauler FM
    5. Ferguson-Smith AC
    6. Feil R
    7. Fraser P

    (2008) The air noncoding RNA epigenetically silences transcription by targeting G9a to chromatin

    Science 322:1717–1720.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163802

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Ip JY
    3. Shioi G
    4. Tripathi V
    5. Zong X
    6. Hirose T
    7. Prasanth KV

    (2012) Malat1 is not an essential component of nuclear speckles in mice

    RNA 18:1487–1499.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.033217.112

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Naganuma T
    3. Shioi G
    4. Hirose T

    (2011) Paraspeckles are subpopulation-specific nuclear bodies that are not essential in mice

    Journal of Cell Biology 193:31–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201011110

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Pease B
    2. Borges AC
    3. Bender W

    (2013) Noncoding RNAs of the ultrabithorax domain of the Drosophila Bithorax complex

    Genetics 195:1253–1264.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.155036

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Petruk S
    2. Sedkov Y
    3. Riley KM
    4. Hodgson J
    5. Schweisguth F
    6. Hirose S
    7. Jaynes JB
    8. Brock HW
    9. Mazo A

    (2006) Transcription of bxd noncoding RNAs promoted by trithorax represses Ubx in cis by transcriptional interference

    Cell 127:1209–1221.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.10.039

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Poliseno L
    2. Salmena L
    3. Zhang J
    4. Carver B
    5. Haveman WJ
    6. Pandolfi PP

    (2010) A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology

    Nature 465:1033–1038.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09144

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Rassoulzadegan M
    2. Magliano M
    3. Cuzin F

    (2002) Transvection effects involving DNA methylation during meiosis in the mouse

    EMBO Journal 21:440–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.3.440

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Riley KJ
    2. Steitz JA

    (2013) The “Observer Effect” in genome-wide surveys of protein-RNA interactions

    Molecular Cell 49:601–604.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2013.01.030

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Rinn JL
    2. Kertesz M
    3. Wang JK
    4. Squazzo SL
    5. Xu X
    6. Brugmann SA
    7. Goodnough LH
    8. Helms JA
    9. Farnham PJ
    10. Segal E
    11. Chang HY

    (2007) Functional demarcation of active and silent chromatin domains in human HOX loci by noncoding RNAs

    Cell 129:1311–1323.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.022

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Ripoche MA
    2. Kress C
    3. Poirier F
    4. Dandolo L

    (1997) Deletion of the H19 transcription unit reveals the existence of a putative imprinting control element

    Genes & Development 11:1596–1604.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.12.1596

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Royo H
    2. Cavaille J

    (2008) Non-coding RNAs in imprinted gene clusters

    Biology of the Cell 100:149–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/BC20070126

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Sado T
    2. Brockdorff N

    (2013) Advances in understanding chromosome silencing by the long non-coding RNA Xist

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 368:20110325.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0325

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sahu NK
    2. Shilakari G
    3. Nayak A
    4. Kohli DV

    (2007) Antisense technology: a selective tool for gene expression regulation and gene targeting

    Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 8:291–304.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/138920107782109985

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sarma K
    2. Levasseur P
    3. Aristarkhov A
    4. Lee JT

    (2010) Locked nucleic acids (LNAs) reveal sequence requirements and kinetics of Xist RNA localization to the X chromosome

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 107:22196–22201.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009785107

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sasaki YT
    2. Hirose T

    (2009) How to build a paraspeckle

    Genome Biology 10:227.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2009-10-7-227

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Sauvageau M
    2. Goff LA
    3. Lodato S
    4. Bonev B
    5. Groff AF
    6. Gerhardinger C
    7. Sanchez-Gomez DB
    8. Hacisuleyman E
    9. Li E
    10. Spence M
    11. Liapis SC
    12. Mallard W
    13. Morse M
    14. Swerdel MR
    15. D'Ecclessis MF
    16. Moore JC
    17. Lai V
    18. Gong G
    19. Yancopoulos GD
    20. Frendewey D
    21. Kellis M
    22. Hart RP
    23. Valenzuela DM
    24. Arlotta P
    25. Rinn JL

    (2013) Multiple knockout mouse models reveal lincRNAs are required for life and brain development

    eLife 2:e01749.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01749

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Schorderet P
    2. Duboule D

    (2011) Structural and functional differences in the long non-coding RNA hotair in mouse and human

    PLOS Genetics 7:e1002071.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002071

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Senner CE
    2. Nesterova TB
    3. Norton S
    4. Dewchand H
    5. Godwin J
    6. Mak W
    7. Brockdorff N

    (2011) Disruption of a conserved region of Xist exon 1 impairs Xist RNA localisation and X-linked gene silencing during random and imprinted X chromosome inactivation

    Development 138:1541–1550.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.056812

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Simon MD
    2. Wang CI
    3. Kharchenko PV
    4. West JA
    5. Chapman BA
    6. Alekseyenko AA
    7. Borowsky ML
    8. Kuroda MI
    9. Kingston RE

    (2011) The genomic binding sites of a noncoding RNA

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 108:20497–20502.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113536108

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Sipos L
    2. Kozma G
    3. Molnar E
    4. Bender W

    (2007) In situ dissection of a Polycomb response element in Drosophila melanogaster

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 104:12416–12421.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703144104

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Sleutels F
    2. Zwart R
    3. Barlow DP

    (2002) The non-coding Air RNA is required for silencing autosomal imprinted genes

    Nature 415:810–813.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/415810a

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Steshina EY
    2. Carr MS
    3. Glick EA
    4. Yevtodiyenko A
    5. Appelbe OK
    6. Schmidt JV

    (2006) Loss of imprinting at the Dlk1-Gtl2 locus caused by insertional mutagenesis in the Gtl2 5' region

    BMC Genetics 7:44.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-7-44

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Suemori H
    2. Noguchi S

    (2000) Hox C cluster genes are dispensable for overall body plan of mouse embryonic development

    Developmental biology 220:333–342.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2000.9651

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Sunwoo H
    2. Dinger ME
    3. Wilusz JE
    4. Amaral PP
    5. Mattick JS
    6. Spector DL

    (2009) MEN epsilon/beta nuclear-retained non-coding RNAs are up-regulated upon muscle differentiation and are essential components of paraspeckles

    Genome Research 19:347–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.087775.108

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Ulitsky I
    2. Shkumatava A
    3. Jan CH
    4. Sive H
    5. Bartel DP

    (2011) Conserved function of lincRNAs in vertebrate embryonic development despite rapid sequence evolution

    Cell 147:1537–1550.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.11.055

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. van Heesch S
    2. van Iterson M
    3. Jacobi J
    4. Boymans S
    5. Essers PB
    6. de Bruijn E
    7. Hao W
    8. Macinnes AW
    9. Cuppen E
    10. Simonis M

    (2014) Extensive localization of long noncoding RNAs to the cytosol and mono- and polyribosomal complexes

    Genome Biology 15:R6.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-1-r6

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Vance KW
    2. Ponting CP

    (2014) Transcriptional regulatory functions of nuclear long noncoding RNAs

    Trends in Genetics 30:348–355.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.001

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Wierzbicki AT
    2. Ream TS
    3. Haag JR
    4. Pikaard CS

    (2009) RNA polymerase V transcription guides ARGONAUTE4 to chromatin

    Nature Genetics 41:630–634.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.365

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Wilhelm M
    2. Schlegl J
    3. Hahne H
    4. Moghaddas Gholami A
    5. Lieberenz M
    6. Savitski MM
    7. Ziegler E
    8. Butzmann L
    9. Gessulat S
    10. Marx H
    11. Mathieson T
    12. Lemeer S
    13. Schnatbaum K
    14. Reimer U
    15. Wenschuh H
    16. Mollenhauer M
    17. Slotta-Huspenina J
    18. Boese JH
    19. Bantscheff M
    20. Gerstmair A
    21. Faerber F
    22. Kuster B

    (2014) Mass-spectrometry-based draft of the human proteome

    Nature 509:582–587.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13319

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Wu X
    2. Sharp PA

    (2013) Divergent transcription: a driving force for new gene origination?

    Cell 155:990–996.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.048

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Zakany J
    2. Kmita M
    3. Alarcon P
    4. de la Pompa JL
    5. Duboule D

    (2001) Localized and transient transcription of Hox genes suggests a link between patterning and the segmentation clock

    Cell 106:207–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00436-6

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Zhang B
    2. Arun G
    3. Mao YS
    4. Lazar Z
    5. Hung G
    6. Bhattacharjee G
    7. Xiao X
    8. Booth CJ
    9. Wu J
    10. Zhang C
    11. Spector DL

    (2012) The lncRNA Malat1 is dispensable for mouse development but its transcription plays a cis-regulatory role in the adult

    Cell Reports 2:111–123.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.06.003

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Zhong J
    2. Chuang SC
    3. Bianchi R
    4. Zhao W
    5. Lee H
    6. Fenton AA
    7. Wong RK
    8. Tiedge H

    (2009) BC1 regulation of metabotropic glutamate receptor-mediated neuronal excitability

    Journal of Neuroscience 29:9977–9986.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3893-08.2009

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Zhu F
    2. Gamboa M
    3. Farruggio AP
    4. Hippenmeyer S
    5. Tasic B
    6. Schule B
    7. Chen-Tsai Y
    8. Calos MP

    (2014) DICE, an efficient system for iterative genomic editing in human pluripotent stem cells

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:e34.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1290

    • Google Scholar

Thank you for sending your work entitled “Considerations when investigating lncRNA function in vivo” for consideration at eLife. Your article has been favorably peer reviewed by Detlef Weigel and two outside reviewers.

There has been considerable recent excitement about the role of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in gene regulation. A major difficulty in studying lncRNA function genetically is that they can overlap with other elements of the genome that have proven (in the case of antisense RNA) or potential separate functions (such as insulators, enhancers, etc). Therefore, simple knockout experiments, using either insertion of large foreign sequences or sequence deletions may produce misleading results.

The article provides several examples from the literature that clearly illustrate how studies of the same lncRNA locus can come to different conclusions. The article is timely given the apparent lack of defined “gold standards” for this kind of work. A variety of approaches for the functional analysis of lncRNA loci is discussed, highlighting the pitfalls that can be encountered when trying to distinguish the contributions of genomic DNA from the act of transcription or the RNA product itself to the observed phenotypes. The difficulties associated with distinguishing cis versus trans effects of lncRNAs are discussed and rigorous and standardized approaches to evaluating lncRNA function in vivo are proposed. The article will thus serve as an important guide to those performing genetic analyses of lncRNA loci.

The discussion is overall very balanced and the reviewers had only a few suggestions:

1) Include either at the beginning or at the end a series of bullet points, with an introductory sentence that lncRNA functional evidence should include at least x out of y of these types of evidence.

2) Mention the need for appropriate controls, when genetic manipulations, e.g., in ES or similar cells, are followed by selection of clones derived from single cells. ES and other cultured cells (e.g., derived from tumors) are genetically not perfectly stable, and one needs to ensure that phenotypes are not due to second-site mutations. Multiple clones or transgenic rescue experiments should be the norm (obviously this applies not only to lncRNA analyses).

3) It would be best to distinguish true “loss of function”, in which transcription is completely abolished, from “reduction of function”, where a truncated transcript is produced or RNAi is used. To this end, Figure 2 should be amended.

4) A brief paragraph that mentions flanking cell biological (e.g., FISH) and biochemical (e.g., RNP analysis) approaches for evaluating lncRNA function would be worthwhile.

1) Include either at the beginning or at the end a series of bullet points, with an introductory sentence that lncRNA functional evidence should include at least x out of y of these types of evidence.

The intention of Box 1 “Considerations when interpreting phenotypes resulting from lncRNA mutation” was to provide such suggestions. However, we believe that each lncRNA has to be considered on its own merits, depending on its mechanism of action and it is therefore not possible to define a set of general guidelines that would be applicable to all cases. We have therefore deliberately given a set of “considerations” rather than “guidelines”.

2) Mention the need for appropriate controls, when genetic manipulations, e.g., in ES or similar cells, are followed by selection of clones derived from single cells. ES and other cultured cells (e.g., derived from tumors) are genetically not perfectly stable, and one needs to ensure that phenotypes are not due to second-site mutations. Multiple clones or transgenic rescue experiments should be the norm (obviously this applies not only to lncRNA analyses).

We agree with the reviewers that this is an important point, since genetic background will have a large effect, especially when the phenotypes are subtle, and that this can vary substantially between different clones or lines. We have added this concept to the text.

3) It would be best to distinguish true “loss of function”, in which transcription is completely abolished, from “reduction of function”, where a truncated transcript is produced or RNAi is used. To this end, Figure 2 should be amended.

We have amended Figure 2 and the text to make this clear.

4) A brief paragraph that mentions flanking cell biological (e.g., FISH) and biochemical (e.g., RNP analysis) approaches for evaluating lncRNA function would be worthwhile.

We have added a paragraph describing some of the complimentary techniques that can be used to evaluate lncRNA mechanism, and how these may be used to guide mutant design.

Author details

1. Andrew R Bassett

   MRC Functional Genomics Unit, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Present address

   Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   ARB, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   andrew.bassett@path.ox.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

2. Asifa Akhtar

   Department of Chromatin Regulation, Max-Planck-Institut für Immunbiologie und Epigenetik, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

   Contribution

   AA, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   AA: Reviewing Editor, eLife.

3. Denise P Barlow

   CeMM, Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

   DPB, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

4. Adrian P Bird

   Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   APB, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

5. Neil Brockdorff

   Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   NB, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

6. Denis Duboule

   School of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   DD, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

7. Anne Ephrussi

   Developmental Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany

   Contribution

   AE, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5061-4620

8. Anne C Ferguson-Smith

   Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   ACF-S, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   ACF-S: Reviewing Editor, eLife.

9. Thomas R Gingeras

   Functional Genomics Group, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, United States

   Contribution

   TRG, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   TRG: Reviewing Editor, eLife.

10. Wilfried Haerty

    MRC Functional Genomics Unit, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    WH, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared.

11. Douglas R Higgs

    MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    DRH, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared.

12. Eric A Miska

    Wellcome Trust Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    EAM, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared.

13. Chris P Ponting

    MRC Functional Genomics Unit, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    CPP, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article

    For correspondence

    chris.ponting@dpag.ox.ac.uk

    Competing interests

    AA: Reviewing Editor, eLife.

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0202-7816

• 11,684

  views

• 1,947

  downloads

• 295

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.