Abstract

N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA modification impacts mRNA fate primarily via reader proteins, which dictate processes in development, stress, and disease. Yet little is known about m6A function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which occurs solely during early meiosis. Here we perform a multifaceted analysis of the m6A reader protein Pho92/Mrb1. Cross-linking immunoprecipitation analysis reveals that Pho92 associates with the 3’end of meiotic mRNAs in both an m6A-dependent and independent manner. Within cells, Pho92 transitions from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, and associates with translating ribosomes. In the nucleus Pho92 associates with target loci through its interaction with transcriptional elongator Paf1C. Functionally, we show that Pho92 promotes and links protein synthesis to mRNA decay. As such, the Pho92-mediated m6A-mRNA decay is contingent on active translation and the CCR4-NOT complex. We propose that the m6A reader Pho92 is loaded co-transcriptionally to facilitate protein synthesis and subsequent decay of m6A modified transcripts, and thereby promotes meiosis.

Data availability

The miCLIP, iCLIP and RNA-seq RAW and processed data are available to review GEO accession GSE193561:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE193561

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Radhika A Varier

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    radhikaav@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1302-3159
  2. Theodora Sideri

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5674-0804
  3. Charlotte Capitanchik

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Zornitsa Manova

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alice Rossi

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raghu R Edupuganti

    Department of Molecular Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Imke Ensinck

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Vincent WC Chan

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6638-5498
  10. Harshil Patel

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Joanna Kirkpatrick

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter Faull

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ambrosius P Snijders

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Michiel Vermeulen

    Department of Molecular Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Markus Ralser

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jernej Ule

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2452-4277
  17. Nicholas M Luscombe

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Folkert Jacobus van Werven

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    folkert.vanwerven@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6685-2084

Funding

Wellcome Trust (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Cancer Research UK (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Medical Research Council (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Wellcome Trust (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Cancer Research UK (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (FC001134)

  • Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  • Markus Ralser

Cancer Research UK (FC001134)

  • Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  • Markus Ralser

Dutch Cancer Society

  • Raghu R Edupuganti
  • Michiel Vermeulen

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

Copyright

© 2022, Varier 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

  • 1,806
    views
  • 300
    downloads
  • 20
    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. Radhika A Varier
  2. Theodora Sideri
  3. Charlotte Capitanchik
  4. Zornitsa Manova
  5. Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  6. Alice Rossi
  7. Raghu R Edupuganti
  8. Imke Ensinck
  9. Vincent WC Chan
  10. Harshil Patel
  11. Joanna Kirkpatrick
  12. Peter Faull
  13. Ambrosius P Snijders
  14. Michiel Vermeulen
  15. Markus Ralser
  16. Jernej Ule
  17. Nicholas M Luscombe
  18. Folkert Jacobus van Werven
(2022)
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) reader Pho92 is recruited co-transcriptionally and couples translation to mRNA decay to promote meiotic fitness in yeast
eLife 11:e84034.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84034

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84034

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Gabriella O Estevam, Edmond Linossi ... James S Fraser
    Research Article

    Mutations in the kinase and juxtamembrane domains of the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase are responsible for oncogenesis in various cancers and can drive resistance to MET-directed treatments. Determining the most effective inhibitor for each mutational profile is a major challenge for MET-driven cancer treatment in precision medicine. Here, we used a deep mutational scan (DMS) of ~5764 MET kinase domain variants to profile the growth of each mutation against a panel of 11 inhibitors that are reported to target the MET kinase domain. We validate previously identified resistance mutations, pinpoint common resistance sites across type I, type II, and type I ½ inhibitors, unveil unique resistance and sensitizing mutations for each inhibitor, and verify non-cross-resistant sensitivities for type I and type II inhibitor pairs. We augment a protein language model with biophysical and chemical features to improve the predictive performance for inhibitor-treated datasets. Together, our study demonstrates a pooled experimental pipeline for identifying resistance mutations, provides a reference dictionary for mutations that are sensitized to specific therapies, and offers insights for future drug development.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kira Breunig, Xuifen Lei ... Luiz O Penalva
    Research Article

    RNA binding proteins (RBPs) containing intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are present in diverse molecular complexes where they function as dynamic regulators. Their characteristics promote liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the formation of membraneless organelles such as stress granules and nucleoli. IDR-RBPs are particularly relevant in the nervous system and their dysfunction is associated with neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumor development. Serpine1 mRNA-binding protein 1 (SERBP1) is a unique member of this group, being mostly disordered and lacking canonical RNA-binding domains. We defined SERBP1’s interactome, uncovered novel roles in splicing, cell division and ribosomal biogenesis, and showed its participation in pathological stress granules and Tau aggregates in Alzheimer’s brains. SERBP1 preferentially interacts with other G-quadruplex (G4) binders, implicated in different stages of gene expression, suggesting that G4 binding is a critical component of SERBP1 function in different settings. Similarly, we identified important associations between SERBP1 and PARP1/polyADP-ribosylation (PARylation). SERBP1 interacts with PARP1 and its associated factors and influences PARylation. Moreover, protein complexes in which SERBP1 participates contain mostly PARylated proteins and PAR binders. Based on these results, we propose a feedback regulatory model in which SERBP1 influences PARP1 function and PARylation, while PARylation modulates SERBP1 functions and participation in regulatory complexes.