Abstract

S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) is the methyl donor for nearly all cellular methylation events. Cells regulate intracellular SAM levels through intron detention of MAT2A, the only SAM synthetase expressed in most cells. The N6-adenosine methyltransferase METTL16 promotes splicing of the MAT2A detained intron by an unknown mechanism. Using an unbiased CRISPR knock-out screen, we identified CFIm25 (NUDT21) as a regulator of MAT2A intron detention and intracellular SAM levels. CFIm25 is a component of the cleavage factor Im (CFIm) complex that regulates poly(A) site selection, but we show it promotes MAT2A splicing independent of poly(A) site selection. CFIm25-mediated MAT2A splicing induction requires the RS domains of its binding partners, CFIm68 and CFIm59 as well as binding sites in the detained intron and 3´ UTR. These studies uncover mechanisms that regulate MAT2A intron detention and reveal a previously undescribed role for CFIm in splicing and SAM metabolism.

Data availability

Raw and unedited CRISPR screen data is deposited on GEO (GSE172217). Raw and unedited Poly(A)-ClickSeq data is deposited on GEO (GSE158591). Analysis of Poly(A)-ClickSeq is found in Supplementary File 2.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anna M Scarborough

    Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3621-234X
  2. Juliana N Flaherty

    Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Irving, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9745-6762
  3. Olga V Hunter

    Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kuanqing Liu

    Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ashwani Kumar

    Eugine McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Chao Xing

    Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1838-0502
  7. Benjamin P Tu

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5545-9183
  8. Nicholas K Conrad

    Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    nicholas.conrad@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8562-0895

Funding

Welch Foundation (I-1915-20170325)

  • Nicholas K Conrad

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM127311)

  • Nicholas K Conrad

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM127311-S1)

  • Juliana N Flaherty

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32 GM007062)

  • Anna M Scarborough

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35 GM136370)

  • Benjamin P Tu

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

Copyright

© 2021, Scarborough 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

  • 2,291
    views
  • 365
    downloads
  • 29
    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. Anna M Scarborough
  2. Juliana N Flaherty
  3. Olga V Hunter
  4. Kuanqing Liu
  5. Ashwani Kumar
  6. Chao Xing
  7. Benjamin P Tu
  8. Nicholas K Conrad
(2021)
SAM homeostasis is regulated by CFIm-mediated splicing of MAT2A
eLife 10:e64930.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64930

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64930

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.