eIF3 engages with 3’-UTR termini of highly translated mRNAs

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors perform irCLIP of neuronal progenitor cells to profile eIF3-RNA interactions upon short-term neuronal differentiation. The data shows that eIF3 mostly interacts with 3'-UTRs - specifically, the poly-A signal. There appears to be a general correlation between eIF3 binding to 3'-UTRs and ribosome occupancy, which might suggest that eIF3 binding promotes protein synthesis, possibly through inducing mRNA closed-loop formation.

Strengths:

The study provides a wealth of new data on eIF3-mRNA interactions and points to the potential new concept that eIF3-mRNA interactions are polyadenylation-dependent and correlate with ribosome occupancy.

Weaknesses:

(1) A main limitation is the correlative nature of the study. Whereas the evidence that eIF3 interacts with 3-UTRs is solid, the biological role of the interactions remains entirely unknown. Similarly, the claim that eIF3 interactions with 3'-UTR termini require polyadenylation but are independent of poly(A) binding proteins lacks support as it solely relies on the absence of observable eIF3 binding to poly-A (-) histone mRNAs and a seeming failure to detect PABP binding to eIF3 by co-immunoprecipitation and Western blotting. In contrast, LC-MS data in Supplementary File 1 show ready co-purification of eIF3 with PABP.

(2) Another question concerns the relevance of the cellular model studied. irCLIP is performed on neuronal progenitor cells subjected to neuronal induction for 2 hours. This short-term induction leads to a very modest - perhaps 10% - and very transient 1-hour-long increase in translation, although this is not carefully quantified. The cellular phenotype also does not appear to change and calling the cells treated with differentiation media for 2 hours "differentiated NPCs" seems a bit misleading. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the minor "burst" of translation coincides with minor effects on eIF3-mRNA interactions most of which seem to be driven by mRNA levels. Based on the ~15-fold increase in ID2 mRNA coinciding with a ~5-fold increase in ribosome occupancy (RPF), ID2 TE actually goes down upon neuronal induction.

(3) The overlap in eIF3-mRNA interactions identified here and in the authors' previous reports is minimal. Some of the discrepancies may be related to the not well-justified approach for filtering data prior to assessing overlap. Still, the fundamentally different binding patterns - eIF3 mostly interacting with 5'-UTRs in the authors' previous report and other studies versus the strong preference for 3'-UTRs shown here - are striking. In the Discussion, it is speculated that the different methods used - PAR-CLIP versus irCLIP - lead to these fundamental differences. Unfortunately, this is not supported by any data, even though it would be very important for the translation field to learn whether different CLIP methodologies assess very different aspects of eIF3-mRNA interactions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper documents the role of eIF3 in translational control during neural progenitor cell (NPC) differentiation. eIF3 predominantly binds to the 3' UTR termini of mRNAs during NPC differentiation, adjacent to the poly(A) tails, and is associated with efficiently translated mRNAs, indicating a role for eIF3 in promoting translation.

Strengths:

The manuscript is strong in addressing molecular mechanisms by using a combination of next-generation sequencing and crosslinking techniques, thus providing a comprehensive dataset that supports the authors' claims. The manuscript is methodologically sound, with clear experimental designs.

Weaknesses:

(1) The study could benefit from further exploration into the molecular mechanisms by which eIF3 interacts with 3' UTR termini. While the correlation between eIF3 binding and high translation levels is established, the functionality of these interactions needs validation. The authors should consider including experiments that test whether eIF3 binding sites are necessary for increased translation efficiency using reporter constructs.

(2) The authors mention that the eIF3 3' UTR termini crosslinking pattern observed in their study was not reported in previous PAR-CLIP studies performed in HEK293T cells (Lee et al., 2015) and Jurkat cells (De Silva et al., 2021). They attribute this difference to the different UV wavelengths used in Quick-irCLIP (254 nm) and PAR-CLIP (365 nm with 4-thiouridine). While the explanation is plausible, it remains a caveat that different UV crosslinking methods may capture different eIF3 modules or binding sites, depending on the chemical propensities of the amino acid-nucleotide crosslinks at each wavelength. Without addressing this caveat in more detail, the authors cannot generalize their findings, and thus, the title of the paper, which suggests a broad role for eIF3, may be misleading. Previous studies have pointed to an enrichment of eIF3 binding at the 5' UTRs, and the divergence in results between studies needs to be more explicitly acknowledged.

(3) While the manuscript concludes that eIF3's interaction with 3' UTR termini is independent of poly(A)-binding proteins, transient or indirect interactions should be tested using assays such as PLA (Proximity Ligation Assay), which could provide more insights.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Mestre-Fos and colleagues, authors have analyzed the involvement of eIF3 binding to mRNA during differentiation of neural progenitor cells (NPC). The authors bring a lot of interesting observations leading to a novel function for eIF3 at the 3'UTR.

During the translational burst that occurs during NPC differentiation, analysis of eIF3-associated mRNA by Quick-irCLIP reveals the unexpected binding of this initiation factor at the 3'UTR of most mRNA. Further analysis of alternative polyadenylation by APAseq highlights the close proximity of the eIF3-crosslinking position and the poly(A) tail. Furthermore, this interaction is not detected in Poly(A)-less transcripts. Using Riboseq, the authors then attempted to correlate eIF3 binding with the translation efficacy of mRNA, which would suggest a common mechanism of translational control in these cells. These observations indicate that eIF3-binding at the 3'UTR of mRNA, near the poly(A) tail, may participate to the closed-loop model of mRNA translation, bridging 5' and 3', and allowing ribosomes recycling. However, authors failed to detect interactions of eIF3, with either PABP or Paip1 or 40S subunit proteins, which is quite unexpected.

Strength:

The well-written manuscript presents an attractive concept regarding the mechanism of eIF3 function at the 3'UTR. Most mRNA in NPC seems to have eIF3 binding at the 3'UTR and only a few at the 5'end where it's commonly thought to bind. In a previous study from the Cate lab, eIF3 was reported to bind to a small region of the 3'UTR of the TCRA and TCRB mRNA, which was responsible for their specific translational stimulation, during T cell activation. Surprisingly in this study, the eIF3 association with mRNA occurs near polyadenylation signals in NPC, independently of cell differentiation status. This compelling evidence suggests a general mechanism of translation control by eIF3 in NPC. This observation brings back the old concept of mRNA circularization with new arguments, independent of PABP and eIF4G interaction. Finally, the discussion adequately describes the potential technical limitations of the present study compared to previous ones by the same group, due to the use of Quick-irCLIP as opposed to the PAR-CLIP/thiouridine.

Weaknesses:

(1) These data were obtained from an unusual cell type, limiting the generalizability of the model.

(2) This study lacks a clear explanation for the increased translation associated with NPC differentiation, as eIF3 binding is observed in both differentiated and undifferentiated NPC. For example, I find a kind of inconsistency between changes in Riboseq density (Figure 3B) and changes in protein synthesis (Figure 1D). Thus, the title overstates a modest correlation between eIF3 binding and important changes in protein synthesis.

(3) This is illustrated by the candidate selection that supports this demonstration. Looking at Figure 3B, ID2, and SNAT2 mRNA are not part of the High TE transcripts (in red). In contrast, the increase in mRNA abundance could explain a proportionally increased association with eIF3 as well as with ribosomes. The example of increased protein abundance of these best candidates is overall weak and uncertain.

(4) Despite several attempts (chemical and UV cross-linking) to identify eIF3 partners in NPC such as PABP, PAIP1, or proteins from the 40S, the authors could not provide any evidence for such a mechanism consistent with the closed-loop model. Overall, this rather descriptive study lacks mechanistic insight (eIF3 binding partners).

(5) Finally, the authors suspect a potential impact of technical improvement provided by Quick-irCLIP, that could have been addressed rather than discussed.

Author response:

eLife Assessment

This valuable study reveals extensive binding of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 3 (eIF3) to the 3' untranslated regions (UTRs) of efficiently translated mRNAs in human pluripotent stem cell-derived neuronal progenitor cells. The authors provide solid evidence to support their conclusions, although this study may be enhanced by addressing potential biases of techniques employed to study eIF3:mRNA binding and providing additional mechanistic detail. This work will be of significant interest to researchers exploring post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression, including cellular, molecular, and developmental biologists, as well as biochemists.

We thank the reviewers for their positive views of the results we present, along with the constructive feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript, with which we generally agree. We acknowledge our results will require a deeper exploration of the molecular mechanisms behind eIF3 interactions with 3'-UTR termini and experiments to identify the molecular partners involved. Additionally, given that NPC differentiation toward mature neurons is a process that takes around 3 weeks, we recognize the importance of examining eIF3-mRNA interactions in NPCs that have undergone differentiation over longer periods than the 2-hr time point selected in this study. Finally, considering the molecular complexity of the 13-subunit human eIF3, we agree that a direct comparison between Quick-irCLIP and PAR-CLIP will be highly beneficial and will determine whether different UV crosslinking wavelengths report on different eIF3 molecular interactions. Additional comments are given below to the identified weaknesses.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors perform irCLIP of neuronal progenitor cells to profile eIF3-RNA interactions upon short-term neuronal differentiation. The data shows that eIF3 mostly interacts with 3'-UTRs - specifically, the poly-A signal. There appears to be a general correlation between eIF3 binding to 3'-UTRs and ribosome occupancy, which might suggest that eIF3 binding promotes protein synthesis, possibly through inducing mRNA closed-loop formation.

Strengths:

The study provides a wealth of new data on eIF3-mRNA interactions and points to the potential new concept that eIF3-mRNA interactions are polyadenylation-dependent and correlate with ribosome occupancy.

Weaknesses:

(1) A main limitation is the correlative nature of the study. Whereas the evidence that eIF3 interacts with 3-UTRs is solid, the biological role of the interactions remains entirely unknown. Similarly, the claim that eIF3 interactions with 3'-UTR termini require polyadenylation but are independent of poly(A) binding proteins lacks support as it solely relies on the absence of observable eIF3 binding to poly-A (-) histone mRNAs and a seeming failure to detect PABP binding to eIF3 by co-immunoprecipitation and Western blotting. In contrast, LC-MS data in Supplementary File 1 show ready co-purification of eIF3 with PABP.

We agree the molecular mechanisms underlying the crosslinking between eIF3 and the end of mRNA 3’-UTRs remains to be determined. We also agree that the lack of interaction seen between eIF3 and PABP in Westerns, even from HEK293T cells, is a puzzle. The low sequence coverage in the LC-MS data gave us pause about making a strong statement that these represent direct eIF3 interactions, given the similar background levels of some ribosomal proteins.

(2) Another question concerns the relevance of the cellular model studied. irCLIP is performed on neuronal progenitor cells subjected to neuronal induction for 2 hours. This short-term induction leads to a very modest - perhaps 10% - and very transient 1-hour-long increase in translation, although this is not carefully quantified. The cellular phenotype also does not appear to change and calling the cells treated with differentiation media for 2 hours "differentiated NPCs" seems a bit misleading. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the minor "burst" of translation coincides with minor effects on eIF3-mRNA interactions most of which seem to be driven by mRNA levels. Based on the ~15-fold increase in ID2 mRNA coinciding with a ~5-fold increase in ribosome occupancy (RPF), ID2 TE actually goes down upon neuronal induction.

We agree that it will be interesting to look at eIF3-mRNA interactions at longer time points after induction of NPC differentiation. However, the pattern of eIF3 crosslinking to the end of 3’-UTRs occurs in both time points reported here, which is likely to be the more general finding in what we present.

(3) The overlap in eIF3-mRNA interactions identified here and in the authors' previous reports is minimal. Some of the discrepancies may be related to the not well-justified approach for filtering data prior to assessing overlap. Still, the fundamentally different binding patterns - eIF3 mostly interacting with 5'-UTRs in the authors' previous report and other studies versus the strong preference for 3'-UTRs shown here - are striking. In the Discussion, it is speculated that the different methods used - PAR-CLIP versus irCLIP - lead to these fundamental differences. Unfortunately, this is not supported by any data, even though it would be very important for the translation field to learn whether different CLIP methodologies assess very different aspects of eIF3-mRNA interactions.

We agree the more interesting aspect of what we observe is the difference in location of eIF3 crosslinking, i.e. the end of 3’-UTRs rather than 5’-UTRs or the pan-mRNA pattern we observed in T cells. The reviewer is right that it will be important in the future to compare PAR-CLIP and Quick-irCLIP side-by-side to begin to unravel the differences we observe with the two approaches.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper documents the role of eIF3 in translational control during neural progenitor cell (NPC) differentiation. eIF3 predominantly binds to the 3' UTR termini of mRNAs during NPC differentiation, adjacent to the poly(A) tails, and is associated with efficiently translated mRNAs, indicating a role for eIF3 in promoting translation.

Strengths:

The manuscript is strong in addressing molecular mechanisms by using a combination of next-generation sequencing and crosslinking techniques, thus providing a comprehensive dataset that supports the authors' claims. The manuscript is methodologically sound, with clear experimental designs.

Weaknesses:

(1) The study could benefit from further exploration into the molecular mechanisms by which eIF3 interacts with 3' UTR termini. While the correlation between eIF3 binding and high translation levels is established, the functionality of these interactions needs validation. The authors should consider including experiments that test whether eIF3 binding sites are necessary for increased translation efficiency using reporter constructs.

We agree with the reviewer that the molecular mechanism by which eIF3 interacts with the 3’-UTR termini remains unclear, along with its biological significance, i.e. how it contributes to translation levels. We think it could be useful to try reporters in, perhaps, HEK293T cells in the future to probe the mechanism in more detail.

(2) The authors mention that the eIF3 3' UTR termini crosslinking pattern observed in their study was not reported in previous PAR-CLIP studies performed in HEK293T cells (Lee et al., 2015) and Jurkat cells (De Silva et al., 2021). They attribute this difference to the different UV wavelengths used in Quick-irCLIP (254 nm) and PAR-CLIP (365 nm with 4-thiouridine). While the explanation is plausible, it remains a caveat that different UV crosslinking methods may capture different eIF3 modules or binding sites, depending on the chemical propensities of the amino acid-nucleotide crosslinks at each wavelength. Without addressing this caveat in more detail, the authors cannot generalize their findings, and thus, the title of the paper, which suggests a broad role for eIF3, may be misleading. Previous studies have pointed to an enrichment of eIF3 binding at the 5' UTRs, and the divergence in results between studies needs to be more explicitly acknowledged.

We agree with the reviewer that the two methods of crosslinking will require a more detailed head-to-head comparison in the future. However, we do think the title is justified by the fact that we see crosslinking to the termini of 3’-UTRs across thousands of transcripts in each condition. Furthermore, the 3’-UTR crosslinking is enriched on mRNAs with higher ribosome protected fragment counts (RPF) in differentiated cells, Figure 3F.

(3) While the manuscript concludes that eIF3's interaction with 3' UTR termini is independent of poly(A)-binding proteins, transient or indirect interactions should be tested using assays such as PLA (Proximity Ligation Assay), which could provide more insights.

This is a good idea, but would require a substantial effort better suited to a future publication. We think our observations are interesting enough to the field to stimulate future experimentation that we may or may not be most capable of doing in our lab.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Mestre-Fos and colleagues, authors have analyzed the involvement of eIF3 binding to mRNA during differentiation of neural progenitor cells (NPC). The authors bring a lot of interesting observations leading to a novel function for eIF3 at the 3'UTR.

During the translational burst that occurs during NPC differentiation, analysis of eIF3-associated mRNA by Quick-irCLIP reveals the unexpected binding of this initiation factor at the 3'UTR of most mRNA. Further analysis of alternative polyadenylation by APAseq highlights the close proximity of the eIF3-crosslinking position and the poly(A) tail. Furthermore, this interaction is not detected in Poly(A)-less transcripts. Using Riboseq, the authors then attempted to correlate eIF3 binding with the translation efficacy of mRNA, which would suggest a common mechanism of translational control in these cells. These observations indicate that eIF3-binding at the 3'UTR of mRNA, near the poly(A) tail, may participate to the closed-loop model of mRNA translation, bridging 5' and 3', and allowing ribosomes recycling. However, authors failed to detect interactions of eIF3, with either PABP or Paip1 or 40S subunit proteins, which is quite unexpected.

Strength:

The well-written manuscript presents an attractive concept regarding the mechanism of eIF3 function at the 3'UTR. Most mRNA in NPC seems to have eIF3 binding at the 3'UTR and only a few at the 5'end where it's commonly thought to bind. In a previous study from the Cate lab, eIF3 was reported to bind to a small region of the 3'UTR of the TCRA and TCRB mRNA, which was responsible for their specific translational stimulation, during T cell activation. Surprisingly in this study, the eIF3 association with mRNA occurs near polyadenylation signals in NPC, independently of cell differentiation status. This compelling evidence suggests a general mechanism of translation control by eIF3 in NPC. This observation brings back the old concept of mRNA circularization with new arguments, independent of PABP and eIF4G interaction. Finally, the discussion adequately describes the potential technical limitations of the present study compared to previous ones by the same group, due to the use of Quick-irCLIP as opposed to the PAR-CLIP/thiouridine.

Weaknesses:

(1) These data were obtained from an unusual cell type, limiting the generalizability of the model.

We agree that unraveling the mechanism employed by eIF3 at the mRNA 3’-UTR termini might be better studied in a stable cell line rather than in primary cells.

(2) This study lacks a clear explanation for the increased translation associated with NPC differentiation, as eIF3 binding is observed in both differentiated and undifferentiated NPC. For example, I find a kind of inconsistency between changes in Riboseq density (Figure 3B) and changes in protein synthesis (Figure 1D). Thus, the title overstates a modest correlation between eIF3 binding and important changes in protein synthesis.

We thank the reviewer for this question. Riboseq data and RNASeq data are not on absolute scales when comparing across cell conditions. They are normalized internally, so increases in for example RPF in Figure 3B are relative to the bulk RPF in a given condition. By contrast, the changes in protein synthesis measured in Figure 1D is closer to an absolute measure of protein synthesis.

(3) This is illustrated by the candidate selection that supports this demonstration. Looking at Figure 3B, ID2, and SNAT2 mRNA are not part of the High TE transcripts (in red). In contrast, the increase in mRNA abundance could explain a proportionally increased association with eIF3 as well as with ribosomes. The example of increased protein abundance of these best candidates is overall weak and uncertain.

We agree that using TE as the criterion for defining increased eIF3 association would not be correct. By “highly translated” we only mean to convey the extent of protein synthesis, i.e. increases in ribosome protected fragments (RPF), rather than the translational efficiency.

(4) Despite several attempts (chemical and UV cross-linking) to identify eIF3 partners in NPC such as PABP, PAIP1, or proteins from the 40S, the authors could not provide any evidence for such a mechanism consistent with the closed-loop model. Overall, this rather descriptive study lacks mechanistic insight (eIF3 binding partners).

We agree that it will be important to identify the molecular mechanism used by eIF3 to engage the termini of mRNA 3’-UTRs. Nevertheless, the identification of eIF3 crosslinking to that location in mRNAs is new, and we think will stimulate new experiments in the field.

(5) Finally, the authors suspect a potential impact of technical improvement provided by Quick-irCLIP, that could have been addressed rather than discussed.

We agree a side-by-side comparison of eIF3 crosslinks captured by PAR-CLIP versus Quick-irCLIP will be an important experiment to do. However, NPCs or other primary cells may not be the best system for the comparison. We think using an established cell line might be more informative, to control for effects such as 4-thiouridine toxicity.