1. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

HNRNPM controls circRNA biogenesis and splicing fidelity to sustain cancer cell fitness

  1. Jessica SY Ho
  2. Federico Di Tullio
  3. Megan Schwarz
  4. Diana Low
  5. Danny Incarnato
  6. Florence Gay
  7. Tommaso Tabaglio
  8. JingXian Zhang
  9. Heike Wollmann
  10. Leilei Chen
  11. Omer An
  12. Tim Hon Man Chan
  13. Alexander Hall Hickman
  14. Simin Zheng
  15. Vladimir Roudko
  16. Sujun Chen
  17. Alcida Karz
  18. Musaddeque Ahmed
  19. Housheng Hansen He
  20. Benjamin D Greenbaum
  21. Salvatore Oliviero
  22. Michela Serresi
  23. Gaetano Gargiulo
  24. Karen M Mann
  25. Eva Hernando
  26. David Mulholland
  27. Ivan Marazzi
  28. Dave Keng Boon Wee
  29. Ernesto Guccione  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
  2. Icahn School of Medicine, United States
  3. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States
  4. IIGM (Italian Institute for Genomic Medicine), Italy
  5. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
  6. Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  7. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore
  8. School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
  9. University of Toronto, Canada
  10. NYU, United States
  11. Italian Institute for Genomic Medicine, Italy
  12. Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine, Germany
  13. H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute;, United States
  14. Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore., Singapore
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 294
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e59654 doi: 10.7554/eLife.59654

Abstract

High spliceosome activity is a dependency for cancer cells, making them more vulnerable to perturbation of the splicing machinery compared to normal cells. To identify splicing factors important for prostate cancer (PCa) fitness, we performed pooled shRNA screens in vitro and in vivo. Our screens identified HNRNPM as a regulator of PCa cell growth. RNA- and eCLIP-sequencing identified HNRNPM binding to transcripts of key homeostatic genes. HNRNPM binding to its targets prevents aberrant exon inclusion and back-splicing events. In both linear and circular mis-spliced transcripts, HNRNPM preferentially binds to GU-rich elements in long flanking proximal introns. Mimicry of HNRNPM dependent linear splicing events using splice-switching-antisense-oligonucleotides (SSOs) was sufficient to inhibit PCa cell growth. This suggests that PCa dependence on HNRNPM is likely a result of mis-splicing of key homeostatic coding and non-coding genes. Our results have further been confirmed in other solid tumors. Taken together, our data reveal a role for HNRNPM in supporting cancer cell fitness. Inhibition of HNRNPM activity is therefore a potential therapeutic strategy in suppressing growth of PCa and other solid tumors.

Data availability

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in this study are present in the paper and/or its Supplementary Materials. eCLIP and RNA-Sequencing data supporting the findings of this study have been deposited into the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus under accessions GSE113786.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jessica SY Ho

    Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Federico Di Tullio

    Icahn School of Medicine, NY, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Megan Schwarz

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Diana Low

    Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Danny Incarnato

    IIGM (Italian Institute for Genomic Medicine), Torino, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Florence Gay

    Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tommaso Tabaglio

    Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. JingXian Zhang

    Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Heike Wollmann

    Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Leilei Chen

    Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Omer An

    Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tim Hon Man Chan

    Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Alexander Hall Hickman

    Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Simin Zheng

    School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Vladimir Roudko

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Sujun Chen

    University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Alcida Karz

    NYU, NY, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Musaddeque Ahmed

    University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Housheng Hansen He

    University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Benjamin D Greenbaum

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Salvatore Oliviero

    Italian Institute for Genomic Medicine, Torino, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3405-765X
  22. Michela Serresi

    Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Gaetano Gargiulo

    Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Karen M Mann

    H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute;, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Eva Hernando

    NYU, NY, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. David Mulholland

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Ivan Marazzi

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Dave Keng Boon Wee

    Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore., Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Ernesto Guccione

    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    ernesto.guccione@mssm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7764-5307

Funding

National Cancer Institute (R01CA197910)

  • David Mulholland

National Medical Research Council (NMRC/OFIRG/0032/2017)

  • Dave Keng Boon Wee
  • Ernesto Guccione

National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF-CRP17-2017-06)

  • Dave Keng Boon Wee
  • Ernesto Guccione

National Cancer Institute (R01CA249204)

  • Ernesto Guccione

ISMMS

  • Ernesto Guccione

Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA Team Science Award)

  • Eva Hernando
  • Ernesto Guccione

Lee Kuan Postdoctural Fellowship

  • Simin Zheng

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Juan Valcárcel, Centre de Regulació Genòmica (CRG), Spain

Publication history

  1. Received: June 4, 2020
  2. Accepted: May 30, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 2, 2021 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2021, Ho 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

  • 294
    Page views
  • 79
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Graham Gower et al.
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Studies in a variety of species have shown evidence for positively selected variants introduced into a population via introgression from another, distantly related population—a process known as adaptive introgression. However, there are few explicit frameworks for jointly modelling introgression and positive selection, in order to detect these variants using genomic sequence data. Here, we develop an approach based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs). CNNs do not require the specification of an analytical model of allele frequency dynamics and have outperformed alternative methods for classification and parameter estimation tasks in various areas of population genetics. Thus, they are potentially well suited to the identification of adaptive introgression. Using simulations, we trained CNNs on genotype matrices derived from genomes sampled from the donor population, the recipient population and a related non-introgressed population, in order to distinguish regions of the genome evolving under adaptive introgression from those evolving neutrally or experiencing selective sweeps. Our CNN architecture exhibits 95% accuracy on simulated data, even when the genomes are unphased, and accuracy decreases only moderately in the presence of heterosis. As a proof of concept, we applied our trained CNNs to human genomic datasets—both phased and unphased—to detect candidates for adaptive introgression that shaped our evolutionary history.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Brent A Wilkerson et al.
    Research Article Updated

    This study provides transcriptomic characterization of the cells of the crista ampullaris, sensory structures at the base of the semicircular canals that are critical for vestibular function. We performed single-cell RNA-seq on ampullae microdissected from E16, E18, P3, and P7 mice. Cluster analysis identified the hair cells, support cells and glia of the crista as well as dark cells and other nonsensory epithelial cells of the ampulla, mesenchymal cells, vascular cells, macrophages, and melanocytes. Cluster-specific expression of genes predicted their spatially restricted domains of gene expression in the crista and ampulla. Analysis of cellular proportions across developmental time showed dynamics in cellular composition. The new cell types revealed by single-cell RNA-seq could be important for understanding crista function and the markers identified in this study will enable the examination of their dynamics during development and disease.