Biogenesis of phased siRNAs on membrane-bound polysomes in Arabidopsis

  1. Shengben Li
  2. Brandon Le
  3. Xuan Ma
  4. Shaofang Li
  5. Chenjiang You
  6. Yu Yu
  7. Bailong Zhang
  8. Lin Liu
  9. Lei Gao
  10. Ting Shi
  11. Yonghui Zhao
  12. Beixin Mo
  13. Xiaofeng Cao
  14. Xuemei Chen  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Riverside, United States
  2. Shenzhen University, China
  3. Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, China

Abstract

Small RNAs are central players in RNA silencing, yet their cytoplasmic compartmentalization and the effects it may have on their activities have not been studied at the genomic scale. Here we report that Arabidopsis microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are distinctly partitioned between the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and cytosol. All miRNAs are associated with membrane-bound polysomes (MBPs) as opposed to polysomes in general. The MBP association is functionally linked to a deeply conserved and tightly regulated activity of miRNAs - production of phased siRNAs (phasiRNAs) from select target RNAs. The phasiRNA precursor RNAs, thought to be noncoding, are on MBPs and are occupied by ribosomes in a manner that supports miRNA-triggered phasiRNA production, suggesting that ribosomes on the rough ER impact siRNA biogenesis. This study reveals global patterns of cytoplasmic partitioning of small RNAs and expands the known functions of ribosomes and ER.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shengben Li

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Brandon Le

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Xuan Ma

    Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory for Plant Epigenetics, College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Shaofang Li

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Chenjiang You

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Yu Yu

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Bailong Zhang

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Lin Liu

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lei Gao

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ting Shi

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yonghui Zhao

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Beixin Mo

    Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory for Plant Epigenetics, College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Xiaofeng Cao

    State Key Laboratory of Plant Genomics and National Center for Plant Gene Research, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Beijing, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Xuemei Chen

    Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Institute of Integrative Genome Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
    For correspondence
    xuemei.chen@ucr.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5209-1157

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Xuemei Chen

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF3046)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Institutes of Health (GM061146)

  • Xuemei Chen

Guangdong Innovation Research Team Funds (2014ZT05S078)

  • Xuemei Chen

National Science Foundation of China (91440105)

  • Xuemei Chen

Shenzhen municipality (JCYJ20151116155209176)

  • Shengben Li

Shenzhen municipality (KQCX2015033110464302)

  • Shengben Li

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2016, Li 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

  • 4,993
    views
  • 1,420
    downloads
  • 106
    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. Shengben Li
  2. Brandon Le
  3. Xuan Ma
  4. Shaofang Li
  5. Chenjiang You
  6. Yu Yu
  7. Bailong Zhang
  8. Lin Liu
  9. Lei Gao
  10. Ting Shi
  11. Yonghui Zhao
  12. Beixin Mo
  13. Xiaofeng Cao
  14. Xuemei Chen
(2016)
Biogenesis of phased siRNAs on membrane-bound polysomes in Arabidopsis
eLife 5:e22750.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22750

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22750

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Artem K Velichko, Nadezhda V Petrova ... Omar L Kantidze
    Research Article

    We investigated the role of the nucleolar protein Treacle in organizing and regulating the nucleolus in human cells. Our results support Treacle’s ability to form liquid-like phase condensates through electrostatic interactions among molecules. The formation of these biomolecular condensates is crucial for segregating nucleolar fibrillar centers from the dense fibrillar component and ensuring high levels of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene transcription and accurate rRNA processing. Both the central and C-terminal domains of Treacle are required to form liquid-like condensates. The initiation of phase separation is attributed to the C-terminal domain. The central domain is characterized by repeated stretches of alternatively charged amino acid residues and is vital for condensate stability. Overexpression of mutant forms of Treacle that cannot form liquid-like phase condensates compromises the assembly of fibrillar centers, suppressing rRNA gene transcription and disrupting rRNA processing. These mutant forms also fail to recruit DNA topoisomerase II binding protein 1 (TOPBP1), suppressing the DNA damage response in the nucleolus.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Gülnihal Kavaklioglu, Alexandra Podhornik ... Christian Seiser
    Research Article

    Repression of retrotransposition is crucial for the successful fitness of a mammalian organism. The domesticated transposon protein L1TD1, derived from LINE-1 (L1) ORF1p, is an RNA-binding protein that is expressed only in some cancers and early embryogenesis. In human embryonic stem cells, it is found to be essential for maintaining pluripotency. In cancer, L1TD1 expression is highly correlative with malignancy progression and as such considered a potential prognostic factor for tumors. However, its molecular role in cancer remains largely unknown. Our findings reveal that DNA hypomethylation induces the expression of L1TD1 in HAP1 human tumor cells. L1TD1 depletion significantly modulates both the proteome and transcriptome and thereby reduces cell viability. Notably, L1TD1 associates with L1 transcripts and interacts with L1 ORF1p protein, thereby facilitating L1 retrotransposition. Our data suggest that L1TD1 collaborates with its ancestral L1 ORF1p as an RNA chaperone, ensuring the efficient retrotransposition of L1 retrotransposons, rather than directly impacting the abundance of L1TD1 targets. In this way, L1TD1 might have an important role not only during early development but also in tumorigenesis.