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

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

Version history

  1. Received: June 4, 2020
  2. Accepted: May 30, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 2, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 6, 2021 (version 2)

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

  • 2,101
    views
  • 323
    downloads
  • 23
    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. 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
(2021)
HNRNPM controls circRNA biogenesis and splicing fidelity to sustain cancer cell fitness
eLife 10:e59654.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59654

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59654

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Jean-David Larouche, Céline M Laumont ... Claude Perreault
    Research Article

    Transposable elements (TEs) are repetitive sequences representing ~45% of the human and mouse genomes and are highly expressed by medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). In this study, we investigated the role of TEs on T-cell development in the thymus. We performed multiomic analyses of TEs in human and mouse thymic cells to elucidate their role in T-cell development. We report that TE expression in the human thymus is high and shows extensive age- and cell lineage-related variations. TE expression correlates with multiple transcription factors in all cell types of the human thymus. Two cell types express particularly broad TE repertoires: mTECs and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). In mTECs, transcriptomic data suggest that TEs interact with transcription factors essential for mTEC development and function (e.g., PAX1 and REL), and immunopeptidomic data showed that TEs generate MHC-I-associated peptides implicated in thymocyte education. Notably, AIRE, FEZF2, and CHD4 regulate small yet non-redundant sets of TEs in murine mTECs. Human thymic pDCs homogenously express large numbers of TEs that likely form dsRNA, which can activate innate immune receptors, potentially explaining why thymic pDCs constitutively secrete IFN ɑ/β. This study highlights the diversity of interactions between TEs and the adaptive immune system. TEs are genetic parasites, and the two thymic cell types most affected by TEs (mTEcs and pDCs) are essential to establishing central T-cell tolerance. Therefore, we propose that orchestrating TE expression in thymic cells is critical to prevent autoimmunity in vertebrates.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Pianpian Zhao, Zhifeng Sheng ... Hou-Feng Zheng
    Research Article

    The ‘diabetic bone paradox’ suggested that type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients would have higher areal bone mineral density (BMD) but higher fracture risk than individuals without T2D. In this study, we found that the genetically predicted T2D was associated with higher BMD and lower risk of fracture in both weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) and two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. We also identified ten genomic loci shared between T2D and fracture, with the top signal at SNP rs4580892 in the intron of gene RSPO3. And the higher expression in adipose subcutaneous and higher protein level in plasma of RSPO3 were associated with increased risk of T2D, but decreased risk of fracture. In the prospective study, T2D was observed to be associated with higher risk of fracture, but BMI mediated 30.2% of the protective effect. However, when stratified by the T2D-related risk factors for fracture, we observed that the effect of T2D on the risk of fracture decreased when the number of T2D-related risk factors decreased, and the association became non-significant if the T2D patients carried none of the risk factors. In conclusion, the genetically determined T2D might not be associated with higher risk of fracture. And the shared genetic architecture between T2D and fracture suggested a top signal around RSPO3 gene. The observed effect size of T2D on fracture risk decreased if the T2D-related risk factors could be eliminated. Therefore, it is important to manage the complications of T2D to prevent the risk of fracture.