The novel lncRNA lnc-NR2F1 is pro-neurogenic and mutated in human neurodevelopmental disorders

  1. Cheen Euong Ang
  2. Qing Ma
  3. Orly L Wapinski
  4. ShengHua Fan
  5. Ryan A Flynn
  6. Qian Yi Lee
  7. Bradley Coe
  8. Masahiro Onoguchi
  9. Victor Hipolito Olmos
  10. Brian T Do
  11. Lynn Dukes-Rimsky
  12. Jin Xu
  13. Koji Tanabe
  14. LiangJiang Wang
  15. Ulrich Elling
  16. Josef M Penninger
  17. Yang Zhao
  18. Kun Qu
  19. Evan E Eichler
  20. Anand Srivastava
  21. Marius Wernig  Is a corresponding author
  22. Howard Y Chang  Is a corresponding author
  1. Stanford University, United States
  2. Greenwood Genetic Center, United States
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States
  4. Clemson University, United States
  5. Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Science, Austria

Abstract

Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been shown to act as important cell biological regulators including cell fate decisions but are often ignored in human genetics. Combining differential lncRNA expression during neuronal lineage induction with copy number variation morbidity maps of a cohort of children with autism spectrum disorder/intellectual disability versus healthy controls revealed focal genomic mutations affecting several lncRNA candidate loci. Here we find that a t(5:12) chromosomal translocation in a family manifesting neurodevelopmental symptoms disrupts specifically lnc-NR2F1. We further show that lnc-NR2F1 is an evolutionarily conserved lncRNA functionally enhances induced neuronal cell maturation and directly occupies and regulates transcription of neuronal genes including autism-associated genes. Thus, integrating human genetics and functional testing in neuronal lineage induction is a promising approach for discovering candidate lncRNAs involved in neurodevelopmental diseases.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE115079.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cheen Euong Ang

    Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Qing Ma

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Orly L Wapinski

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. ShengHua Fan

    J C Self Research Institute of Human Genetics, Greenwood Genetic Center, Greenwood, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ryan A Flynn

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Qian Yi Lee

    Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9200-0910
  7. Bradley Coe

    Department of Genome Sciences, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Masahiro Onoguchi

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Victor Hipolito Olmos

    Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Brian T Do

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lynn Dukes-Rimsky

    J C Self Research Institute of Human Genetics, Greenwood Genetic Center, Greenwood, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jin Xu

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0944-9835
  13. Koji Tanabe

    Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. LiangJiang Wang

    Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ulrich Elling

    Vienna Biocenter, Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Josef M Penninger

    Vienna Biocenter, Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8194-3777
  17. Yang Zhao

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Kun Qu

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Evan E Eichler

    Department of Genome Sciences, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8246-4014
  20. Anand Srivastava

    J C Self Research Institute of Human Genetics, Greenwood Genetic Center, Greenwood, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Marius Wernig

    Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    wernig@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Howard Y Chang

    Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    howchang@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9459-4393

Funding

NIH Office of the Director (RC4-NS073015)

  • Marius Wernig
  • Howard Y Chang

NIH Office of the Director (P50-HG007735)

  • Howard Y Chang

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

  • Marius Wernig
  • Howard Y Chang

NIH Office of the Director (RO1-HD39331)

  • Anand Srivastava

Self Regional Healthcare Foundation

  • Anand Srivastava

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Anne E West, Duke University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mouse work was performed according to IACUC approved protocols at Stanford University (APLAC-21565). Samples in the paper were obtained without determining their sex. All animals were housed in an animal facility with a 12hr light/dark cycle.

Human subjects: The study protocol, consent form, consent to publish and privacy practices were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Self Regional Healthcare, Greenwood, SC (Reference number Pro00074882).

Version history

  1. Received: September 9, 2018
  2. Accepted: January 7, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 10, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 19, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Ang 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

  • 5,353
    views
  • 847
    downloads
  • 58
    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. Cheen Euong Ang
  2. Qing Ma
  3. Orly L Wapinski
  4. ShengHua Fan
  5. Ryan A Flynn
  6. Qian Yi Lee
  7. Bradley Coe
  8. Masahiro Onoguchi
  9. Victor Hipolito Olmos
  10. Brian T Do
  11. Lynn Dukes-Rimsky
  12. Jin Xu
  13. Koji Tanabe
  14. LiangJiang Wang
  15. Ulrich Elling
  16. Josef M Penninger
  17. Yang Zhao
  18. Kun Qu
  19. Evan E Eichler
  20. Anand Srivastava
  21. Marius Wernig
  22. Howard Y Chang
(2019)
The novel lncRNA lnc-NR2F1 is pro-neurogenic and mutated in human neurodevelopmental disorders
eLife 8:e41770.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41770

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41770

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Lisa Baumgartner, Jonathan J Ipsaro ... Julius Brennecke
    Research Advance

    Members of the diverse heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) family play crucial roles in heterochromatin formation and maintenance. Despite the similar affinities of their chromodomains for di- and tri-methylated histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9me2/3), different HP1 proteins exhibit distinct chromatin-binding patterns, likely due to interactions with various specificity factors. Previously, we showed that the chromatin-binding pattern of the HP1 protein Rhino, a crucial factor of the Drosophila PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA) pathway, is largely defined by a DNA sequence-specific C2H2 zinc finger protein named Kipferl (Baumgartner et al., 2022). Here, we elucidate the molecular basis of the interaction between Rhino and its guidance factor Kipferl. Through phylogenetic analyses, structure prediction, and in vivo genetics, we identify a single amino acid change within Rhino’s chromodomain, G31D, that does not affect H3K9me2/3 binding but disrupts the interaction between Rhino and Kipferl. Flies carrying the rhinoG31D mutation phenocopy kipferl mutant flies, with Rhino redistributing from piRNA clusters to satellite repeats, causing pronounced changes in the ovarian piRNA profile of rhinoG31D flies. Thus, Rhino’s chromodomain functions as a dual-specificity module, facilitating interactions with both a histone mark and a DNA-binding protein.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Yifei Weng, Shiyi Zhou ... Coleen T Murphy
    Research Article

    Cognitive decline is a significant health concern in our aging society. Here, we used the model organism C. elegans to investigate the impact of the IIS/FOXO pathway on age-related cognitive decline. The daf-2 Insulin/IGF-1 receptor mutant exhibits a significant extension of learning and memory span with age compared to wild-type worms, an effect that is dependent on the DAF-16 transcription factor. To identify possible mechanisms by which aging daf-2 mutants maintain learning and memory with age while wild-type worms lose neuronal function, we carried out neuron-specific transcriptomic analysis in aged animals. We observed downregulation of neuronal genes and upregulation of transcriptional regulation genes in aging wild-type neurons. By contrast, IIS/FOXO pathway mutants exhibit distinct neuronal transcriptomic alterations in response to cognitive aging, including upregulation of stress response genes and downregulation of specific insulin signaling genes. We tested the roles of significantly transcriptionally-changed genes in regulating cognitive functions, identifying novel regulators of learning and memory. In addition to other mechanistic insights, a comparison of the aged vs young daf-2 neuronal transcriptome revealed that a new set of potentially neuroprotective genes is upregulated; instead of simply mimicking a young state, daf-2 may enhance neuronal resilience to accumulation of harm and take a more active approach to combat aging. These findings suggest a potential mechanism for regulating cognitive function with age and offer insights into novel therapeutic targets for age-related cognitive decline.