A Tudor domain protein, SIMR-1, promotes siRNA production at piRNA-targeted mRNAs in C. elegans

Abstract

piRNAs play a critical role in the regulation of transposons and other germline genes. In Caenorhabditis elegans, regulation of piRNA target genes is mediated by the mutator complex, which synthesizes high levels of siRNAs through the activity of an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. However, the steps between mRNA recognition by the piRNA pathway and siRNA amplification by the mutator complex are unknown. Here, we identify the Tudor domain protein, SIMR-1, as acting downstream of piRNA production and upstream of mutator complex-dependent siRNA biogenesis. Interestingly, SIMR-1 also localizes to distinct subcellular foci adjacent to P granules and Mutator foci, two phase-separated condensates that are the sites of piRNA-dependent mRNA recognition and mutator complex-dependent siRNA amplification, respectively. Thus, our data suggests a role for multiple perinuclear condensates in organizing the piRNA pathway and promoting mRNA regulation by the mutator complex.

Data availability

High-throughput sequencing data for RNA-sequencing libraries generated during this study are available through Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE138220 for preliminary simr-1 small RNA, and simr-1 mRNA sequencing data, GSE134573 for mut-16 small RNA and mRNA sequencing data, and GSE145217 for prg-1 and ergo-1 small RNA sequencing data).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kevin I Manage

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1992-0782
  2. Alicia K Rogers

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Dylan C Wallis

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Celja J Uebel

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0362-1238
  5. Dorian C Anderson

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dieu An H Nguyen

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Katerina Arca

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kristen C Brown

    Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ricardo J Cordeiro Rodrigues

    Biology of Non-coding RNA Group, Institute of Molecular Biology, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Bruno F M de Albuquerque

    Biology of Non-coding RNA Group, Institute of Molecular Biology, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8483-6822
  11. Rene F Ketting

    Biology of Non-coding RNA Group, Institute of Molecular Biology, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Taiowa A Montgomery

    Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Carolyn Marie Phillips

    Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    cphil@usc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6228-6468

Funding

National Cancer Institute (K22 CA177897)

  • Carolyn Marie Phillips

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35 GM119656)

  • Carolyn Marie Phillips

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32 GM118289)

  • Dieu An H Nguyen

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35 GM119775)

  • Taiowa A Montgomery

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KE1888/1-1)

  • Rene F Ketting

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KE1888/1-2)

  • Rene F Ketting

Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences)

  • Carolyn Marie Phillips

National Science Foundation (DGE 1418060)

  • Celja J Uebel

University of Southern California (Dornsife College Chemistry-Biology Interface trainee)

  • Celja J Uebel

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

Copyright

© 2020, Manage 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

  • 3,757
    views
  • 439
    downloads
  • 50
    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. Kevin I Manage
  2. Alicia K Rogers
  3. Dylan C Wallis
  4. Celja J Uebel
  5. Dorian C Anderson
  6. Dieu An H Nguyen
  7. Katerina Arca
  8. Kristen C Brown
  9. Ricardo J Cordeiro Rodrigues
  10. Bruno F M de Albuquerque
  11. Rene F Ketting
  12. Taiowa A Montgomery
  13. Carolyn Marie Phillips
(2020)
A Tudor domain protein, SIMR-1, promotes siRNA production at piRNA-targeted mRNAs in C. elegans
eLife 9:e56731.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56731

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56731

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.