Identification of Pol IV and RDR2-dependent precursors of 24 nt siRNAs guiding de novo DNA methylation in Arabidopsis

  1. Todd Blevins
  2. Ram Podicheti
  3. Vibhor Mishra
  4. Michelle Marasco
  5. Jing Wang
  6. Douglas Rusch
  7. Haixu Tang
  8. Craig S Pikaard  Is a corresponding author
  1. Université de Strasbourg, France
  2. Indiana University, United States
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Indiana University, United States

Abstract

In Arabidopsis thaliana, abundant 24 nt siRNAs guide the cytosine methylation and silencing of transposons and a subset of genes. 24 nt siRNA biogenesis requires nuclear RNA Polymerase IV (Pol IV), RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE 2 (RDR2) and DICER-LIKE3 (DCL3). However, siRNA precursors are mostly undefined. We identified Pol IV and RDR2-dependent RNAs (P4R2 RNAs) that accumulate in dcl3 mutants and are diced into 24 nt RNAs by DCL3 in vitro. P4R2 RNAs are mostly 26-45 nt and initiate with a purine adjacent to a pyrimidine, characteristics shared by Pol IV transcripts generated in vitro. RDR2 terminal transferase activity, also demonstrated in vitro, may account for occasional non-templated nucleotides at P4R2 RNA 3' termini. 24 nt siRNAs primarily correspond to the 5' or 3' ends of P4R2 RNAs, suggesting a model whereby siRNAs are generated from either end of P4R2 duplexes by single dicing events.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Todd Blevins

    : Institut de Biologie Moléculaire des Plantes du CNRS, UPR2357, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ram Podicheti

    Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Vibhor Mishra

    Department of Biology and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michelle Marasco

    Department of Biology and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jing Wang

    Department of Biology and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Douglas Rusch

    Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Haixu Tang

    School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Craig S Pikaard

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    For correspondence
    cpikaard@indiana.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Blevins 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

  • 4,163
    views
  • 1,176
    downloads
  • 219
    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. Todd Blevins
  2. Ram Podicheti
  3. Vibhor Mishra
  4. Michelle Marasco
  5. Jing Wang
  6. Douglas Rusch
  7. Haixu Tang
  8. Craig S Pikaard
(2015)
Identification of Pol IV and RDR2-dependent precursors of 24 nt siRNAs guiding de novo DNA methylation in Arabidopsis
eLife 4:e09591.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09591

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09591

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Valentin Babosha, Natalia Klimenko ... Oksana Maksimenko
    Research Article

    The male-specific lethal complex (MSL), which consists of five proteins and two non-coding roX RNAs, is involved in the transcriptional enhancement of X-linked genes to compensate for the sex chromosome monosomy in Drosophila XY males compared with XX females. The MSL1 and MSL2 proteins form the heterotetrameric core of the MSL complex and are critical for the specific recruitment of the complex to the high-affinity ‘entry’ sites (HAS) on the X chromosome. In this study, we demonstrated that the N-terminal region of MSL1 is critical for stability and functions of MSL1. Amino acid deletions and substitutions in the N-terminal region of MSL1 strongly affect both the interaction with roX2 RNA and the MSL complex binding to HAS on the X chromosome. In particular, substitution of the conserved N-terminal amino-acids 3–7 in MSL1 (MSL1GS) affects male viability similar to the inactivation of genes encoding roX RNAs. In addition, MSL1GS binds to promoters such as MSL1WT but does not co-bind with MSL2 and MSL3 to X chromosomal HAS. However, overexpression of MSL2 partially restores the dosage compensation. Thus, the interaction of MSL1 with roX RNA is critical for the efficient assembly of the MSL complex on HAS of the male X chromosome.