Cross-talk between PRMT1-mediated methylation and ubiquitylation on RBM15 controls RNA splicing

  1. Li Zhang
  2. Ngoc-Tung Tran
  3. Hairui Su
  4. Rui Wang
  5. Yuheng Lu
  6. Haiping Tang
  7. Sayura Aoyagi
  8. Ailan Guo
  9. Alireza Khodadadi-Jamayran
  10. Dewang Zhou
  11. Kun Qian
  12. Todd Hricik
  13. Jocelyn Côté
  14. Xiaosi Han
  15. Wenping zhou
  16. Suparna Laha
  17. Omar Abdel-Wahab
  18. Ross L Levine
  19. Glen Raffel
  20. Yanyan Liu
  21. Dongquan Chen
  22. Haitao Li
  23. Tim Townes
  24. Hengbin Wang
  25. Haiteng Deng
  26. Yujun George Zheng
  27. Christina Leslie
  28. Minkui Luo
  29. Xinyang Zhao  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
  2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  3. Tsinghua University, China
  4. Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., United States
  5. The University of Georgia, United States
  6. University of Ottawa, Canada
  7. Zhengzhou - Henan Cancer Hospital, China
  8. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
  9. Tsinghua University, United States

Abstract

RBM15, an RNA binding protein, determines cell-fate specification of many tissues including blood. We demonstrate that RBM15 is methylated by protein arginine methyltransferase 1 (PRMT1) at residue R578 leading to its degradation via ubiquitylation by an E3 ligase (CNOT4). Overexpression of PRMT1 in acute megakaryocytic leukemia cell lines blocks megakaryocyte terminal differentiation by downregulation of RBM15 protein level. Restoring RBM15 protein level rescues megakaryocyte terminal differentiation blocked by PRMT1 overexpression. At the molecular level, RBM15 binds to pre-mRNA intronic regions of genes important for megakaryopoiesis such as GATA1, RUNX1, TAL1 and c-MPL. Furthermore, preferential binding of RBM15 to specific intronic regions recruits the splicing factor SF3B1 to the same sites for alternative splicing. Therefore, PRMT1 regulates alternative RNA splicing via reducing RBM15 protein concentration. Targeting PRMT1 may be a curative therapy to restore megakaryocyte differentiation for acute megakaryocytic leukemia.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Li Zhang

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ngoc-Tung Tran

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hairui Su

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Rui Wang

    Program of Molecular Pharmacology, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yuheng Lu

    Computational Biology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Haiping Tang

    School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Sayura Aoyagi

    Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., Danvers, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ailan Guo

    Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., Danvers, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Alireza Khodadadi-Jamayran

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dewang Zhou

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Kun Qian

    Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Todd Hricik

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jocelyn Côté

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Xiaosi Han

    Department of Neurology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Wenping zhou

    Department of Internal Medicine, Zhengzhou - Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Suparna Laha

    Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Omar Abdel-Wahab

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Ross L Levine

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Glen Raffel

    Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Yanyan Liu

    Department of Internal Medicine, Zhengzhou - Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Dongquan Chen

    Division of Preventive Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Haitao Li

    School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Tim Townes

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Hengbin Wang

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Haiteng Deng

    School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Yujun George Zheng

    Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Christina Leslie

    Computational Biology Program, Sloan Kettering Institute,, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Minkui Luo

    Program of Molecular Pharmacology, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Xinyang Zhao

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, UAB Stem Cell Institute, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    zhaox88@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Zhang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,186
    views
  • 1,476
    downloads
  • 139
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Li Zhang
  2. Ngoc-Tung Tran
  3. Hairui Su
  4. Rui Wang
  5. Yuheng Lu
  6. Haiping Tang
  7. Sayura Aoyagi
  8. Ailan Guo
  9. Alireza Khodadadi-Jamayran
  10. Dewang Zhou
  11. Kun Qian
  12. Todd Hricik
  13. Jocelyn Côté
  14. Xiaosi Han
  15. Wenping zhou
  16. Suparna Laha
  17. Omar Abdel-Wahab
  18. Ross L Levine
  19. Glen Raffel
  20. Yanyan Liu
  21. Dongquan Chen
  22. Haitao Li
  23. Tim Townes
  24. Hengbin Wang
  25. Haiteng Deng
  26. Yujun George Zheng
  27. Christina Leslie
  28. Minkui Luo
  29. Xinyang Zhao
(2015)
Cross-talk between PRMT1-mediated methylation and ubiquitylation on RBM15 controls RNA splicing
eLife 4:e07938.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07938

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07938

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Mai Nguyen, Elda Bauda ... Cecile Morlot
    Research Article

    Teichoic acids (TA) are linear phospho-saccharidic polymers and important constituents of the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria, either bound to the peptidoglycan as wall teichoic acids (WTA) or to the membrane as lipoteichoic acids (LTA). The composition of TA varies greatly but the presence of both WTA and LTA is highly conserved, hinting at an underlying fundamental function that is distinct from their specific roles in diverse organisms. We report the observation of a periplasmic space in Streptococcus pneumoniae by cryo-electron microscopy of vitreous sections. The thickness and appearance of this region change upon deletion of genes involved in the attachment of TA, supporting their role in the maintenance of a periplasmic space in Gram-positive bacteria as a possible universal function. Consequences of these mutations were further examined by super-resolved microscopy, following metabolic labeling and fluorophore coupling by click chemistry. This novel labeling method also enabled in-gel analysis of cell fractions. With this approach, we were able to titrate the actual amount of TA per cell and to determine the ratio of WTA to LTA. In addition, we followed the change of TA length during growth phases, and discovered that a mutant devoid of LTA accumulates the membrane-bound polymerized TA precursor.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.