Schizosaccharomyces pombe Rtf2 is important for replication fork barrier activity of RTS1 via splicing of Rtf1

  1. Alice M Budden
  2. Murat Eravci
  3. Adam T Watson
  4. Eduard Campillo-Funollet
  5. Antony W Oliver
  6. Karel Naiman  Is a corresponding author
  7. Antony M Carr  Is a corresponding author
  1. Genome Damage and Stability Centre, University of Sussex, United Kingdom
  2. Department of Biochemistry and Biomedicine, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

Decision letter

  1. Akira Shinohara
    Reviewing Editor; Osaka University, Japan
  2. Detlef Weigel
    Senior Editor; Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen, Germany
  3. Akira Shinohara
    Reviewer; Osaka University, Japan
  4. Sarah Lambert
    Reviewer; Institut Curie, France
  5. Jie Ren
    Reviewer; Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "S. pombe Rtf2 is Important for Replication Fork Barrier Activity of RTS1 via Splicing of Rtf1" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Akira Shinohara as Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Jessica Tyler as the Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in the review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Sarah Lambert (Reviewer #2); Jie Ren (Reviewer #3).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

Importantly, to strengthen your conclusion in the paper, we recommend one experiment described below. And also you see the comments from three independent reviewers.

Importantly, you showed expression of Rtf1 protein with an insertion of 15 amino acids from the second intron in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3E, page 12, lines 487-488), which is non-functional for activity at RTS1. Please demonstrate that Rtf1 with extra 15 amino acids from the intron 2 (e.g. by inserting the 15 amino acid sequence in Rtf1delta-int construct in Figure 4) is NOT functional either by in vivo complementation assay (Pu-seq and/or ura4 reversion assay), or ChIP to the RTS1 site, or by in vitro biochemical analysis of DNA binding for purified wild-type Rtf1 protein and Rtf1 with the extra 15 amino acids.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Please provide results that indicate the molecular mechanism of Rtf2 controlling the splicing of Rtf1 RNA.

1. Although the authors showed the splicing of only the second (and sixth) intron of Rtf1 RNA is defective in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3D), the authors introduced an intronless RTF1 gene rather than the RTF1 without the second intron for their complementation assay (Figure 4). It would be important to check whether Rtf1 cDNA with intron2 does not complement the rtf1 deletion and/or rtf2 deletion.

2. In the same line to point #1, the authors need to introduce the second intron of the RTF1 gene to a reporter gene to check the dependency of the intron removal on the Rtf2.

3. The authors showed the expression of Rtf1 protein with 15 amino acids from the second intron in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3E, page 12, lines 487-488), which is non-functional for RTS1 activity. It is important to confirm this claim by experimentation as in point #1. In another word, it is critical to show that Rtf1 with extra 15 amino acids from the intron 2 is NOT functional either by simple complementation assay or biochemical analysis of DNA binding for purified wild-type Rtf1 protein and Rtf1 with the extra 15 amino acids.

4. An RT-PCR product for the removal of Rtf2 second intron in the rtf2 mutant migrates a bit faster on the gel than the product of the "retained" (Figure 3D). The authors need to confirm the DNA sequence of the retained products in both strains.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78554.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

Importantly, to strengthen your conclusion in the paper, we recommend one experiment described below. And also you see the comments from three independent reviewers.

Importantly, you showed expression of Rtf1 protein with an insertion of 15 amino acids from the second intron in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3E, page 12, lines 487-488), which is non-functional for activity at RTS1. Please demonstrate that Rtf1 with extra 15 amino acids from the intron 2 (e.g. by inserting the 15 amino acid sequence in Rtf1delta-int construct in Figure 4) is NOT functional either by in vivo complementation assay (Pu-seq and/or ura4 reversion assay), or ChIP to the RTS1 site, or by in vitro biochemical analysis of DNA binding for purified wild-type Rtf1 protein and Rtf1 with the extra 15 amino acids.

We have carried out an experiment where we express the Rtf2 with the extra 15 amino acids and demonstrate this is non-functional. It is now presented in a new Supplementary Figure.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Please provide results that indicate the molecular mechanism of Rtf2 controlling the splicing of Rtf1 RNA.

We believe this to be beyond the scope of the manuscript (and the intellectual expertise of the laboratory).

1. Although the authors showed the splicing of only the second (and sixth) intron of Rtf1 RNA is defective in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3D), the authors introduced an intronless RTF1 gene rather than the RTF1 without the second intron for their complementation assay (Figure 4). It would be important to check whether Rtf1 cDNA with intron2 does not complement the rtf1 deletion and/or rtf2 deletion.

We did not perform this experiment. The cDNA sequencing clearly shows that the major form of rtf1 mRNA in rtf2D cells contains only intron 2. Our demonstration (new supplementary figure) that the Rtf1 which contains the resulting additional amino acids is non-functional confirms the conclusions we draw from the presented data.

2. In the same line to point #1, the authors need to introduce the second intron of the RTF1 gene to a reporter gene to check the dependency of the intron removal on the Rtf2.

Our data suggest that introns that are retained in rtf2D cells when the intron is adjacent to an exon with a low G/C content. A reasonable hypothesis would be that Rtf2-depenedance is influenced by the downstream exon. Thus, we would predict that simply introducing an intron 2 into a random exon would not necessarily result in retention.

3. The authors showed the expression of Rtf1 protein with 15 amino acids from the second intron in the rtf2 mutant (Figure 3E, page 12, lines 487-488), which is non-functional for RTS1 activity. It is important to confirm this claim by experimentation as in point #1. In another word, it is critical to show that Rtf1 with extra 15 amino acids from the intron 2 is NOT functional either by simple complementation assay or biochemical analysis of DNA binding for purified wild-type Rtf1 protein and Rtf1 with the extra 15 amino acids.

A complementation experiment has been done and is presented in a new supplementary figure.

4. An RT-PCR product for the removal of Rtf2 second intron in the rtf2 mutant migrates a bit faster on the gel than the product of the "retained" (Figure 3D). The authors need to confirm the DNA sequence of the retained products in both strains.

The sequence of the retained product is evident from the sequencing of the cDNA. We do not understand why sequencing the product of a PCR reaction would add any further information.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78554.sa2

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. Alice M Budden
  2. Murat Eravci
  3. Adam T Watson
  4. Eduard Campillo-Funollet
  5. Antony W Oliver
  6. Karel Naiman
  7. Antony M Carr
(2023)
Schizosaccharomyces pombe Rtf2 is important for replication fork barrier activity of RTS1 via splicing of Rtf1
eLife 12:e78554.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78554

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78554