An ancient competition for the conserved branchpoint sequence influences physiological and evolutionary outcomes in splicing

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors aimed to show that SF1 and QKI compete for the intron branch point sequence ACUAA and provide evidence that QKI represses inclusion when bound to it.

Major strengths of this manuscript include:
(1) Identification of the ACUAA-like motif in exons regulated by QKI and SF1.
(2) The use of the splicing reporter and mutant analysis to show that upstream and downstream ACUAAC elements in intron 10 of RAI are required for repressing splicing.
(3) The use of proteomic to identify proteins in C2C12 nuclear extract that binds to the wild type and mutant sequence.
(4) The yeast studies showing that ectopic lethality when Qki5 expression was induced, due to increased mis-splicing of transcripts that contain the ACUAA element.

The authors conclusively show that the ACUAA sequence is bound by QKI and provide strong evidence that this leads to differences in exons inclusion and exclusion. In animal cells, and especially in human, branchpoint sequences are degenerate but seem to be recognized by specific splicing factors. Although a subset of splicing factors shows tissue-specific expression patterns most don't, suggesting that yet-to-be-identified mechanisms regulate splicing. This work suggests that an alternate mechanism could be related to the binding affinity of specific RNA binding factors for branchpoint sequences coupled with the level of these different splicing factors in a given cell.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Pereira de Castro and coworkers are studying potential competition between a more standard splicing factor SF1, and an alternative splicing factor called QK1. This is interesting because they bind to overlapping sequence motifs and could potentially have opposing effects on promoting the splicing reaction. To test this idea, the authors KD either SF1 or QK1 in mammalian cells and uncover several exons whose splicing regulation follows the predicted pattern of being promoted for splicing by SF1 and repressed by QK1. Importantly, these have introns enriched in SF1 and QK1 motifs. The authors then focus on one exon in particular with two tandem motifs to study the mechanism of this in greater detail and their results confirm the competition model. Mass spec analysis largely agrees with their proposal; however, it is complicated by the apparently quick transition of SF1-bound complexes to later splicing intermediates. An inspired experiment in yeast shows how QK1 competition could potentially have a detrimental impact on splicing in an orthogonal system. Overall, these results show how splicing regulation can be achieved by competition between a "core" and alternative splicing factor and provide additional insight into the complex process of branch site recognition. The manuscript is exceptionally clear and the figures and data are very logically presented. The work will be valuable to those in the splicing field who are interested in both mechanism and bioinformatics approaches to deconvolve any apparent "splicing code" being used by cells to regulate gene expression. Criticisms are minor and the most important of them stem from overemphasis on parts of the manuscript on the evolutionary angle when evolution itself wasn't analyzed per se.

Strengths:

(1) The main discovery of the manuscript involving evidence for SF1/QK1 competition is quite interesting and important for this field. This evidence has been missing and may change how people think about branch site recognition.

(2) The experiments and the rationale behind them are exceptionally clearly and logically presented. This was wonderful!

(3) The experiments are carried out to a high standard and well-designed controls are included.

(4) The extrapolation of the result to yeast in order to show the potentially devastating consequences of the QK1 competition was very exciting and creative.

Weaknesses:

Overall the weaknesses are relatively minor and involve cases where clarification is necessary, some additional analysis could bolster the arguments, and suggestions for focusing the manuscript on its strengths.

(1) The title (Ancient...evolutionary outcomes), abstract, and some parts of the discussion focus heavily on the evolutionary implications of this work. However, evolutionary analysis was not performed in these studies (e.g., when did QK1 and SF1 proteins arise and/or diverge? How does this line up with branch site motifs and evolution of U2? Any insight from recent work from Scott Roy et al?). I think this aspect either needs to be bolstered with experimental work/data or this should be tamped down in the manuscript. I suggest highlighting the idea expressed in the sentence "A nuanced implication of this model is that loss-of-function...". To me, this is better supported by the data and potentially by some analysis of mutations associated with human disease.

(2) One paper that I didn't see cited was that by Tanackovic and Kramer (Mol Biol Cell 2005). This paper is relevant because they KD SF1 and found it nonessential for splicing in vivo. Do their results have implications for those here? How do the results of the KD compare? Could QK1 competition have influenced their findings (or does their work influence the "nuanced implication" model referenced above?)?

(3) Can the authors please provide a citation for the statement "degeneracy is observed to a higher degree in organisms with more alternative splicing"? Does recent evolutionary analysis support this?

(4) For the data in Figure 3, I was left wondering if NMD was confounding this analysis. Can the authors respond to this and address this concern directly?

(5) To me, the idea that an engaged U2 snRNP was pulled down in Figure 4F would be stronger if the snRNA was detected. Was that able to be observed by northern or primer extension? Would SF1 be enriched if the U2 snRNA was degraded by RNaseH in the NE?

(6) I'm wondering how additive the effects of QK1 and SF1 are... In Figure 2, if QK1 and SF1 are both knocked down, is the splicing of exon 11 restored to "wt" levels?

(7) The first discussion section has two paragraphs that begin "How does competition between SF1..." and "Relatively little is known about how...". I found the discussion and speculation about localization, paraspekles, and lncRNAs interesting but a bit detracting from the strengths of the manuscript. I would suggest shortening these two paragraphs into a single one.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors were trying to establish whether competition between the RNA-binding proteins SF1 and QKI controlled splicing outcomes. These two proteins have similar binding sites and protein sequences, but SF1 lacks a dimerization motif and seems to bind a single version of the binding sequence. Importantly, these binding sequences correspond to branchpoint consensus sequences, with SF1 binding leading to productive splicing, but QKI binding leading instead to association with paraspeckle proteins. They show that in human cells SF1 generally activates exons and QKI represses, and a large group of the jointly regulated exons (43% of joint targets) are reciprocally controlled by SF1 and QKI. They focus on one of these exons RAI14 that shows this reciprocal pattern of regulation, and has 2 repeats of the binding site that make it a candidate for joint regulation, and confirm regulation within a minigene context. The authors used the assembly of proteins within nuclear extracts to explain the effect of QKI versus SF1 binding. Finally, the authors show that the expression of QKI is lethal in yeast, and causes splicing defects.

How this fits in the field. This study is interesting and provides a conceptual advance by providing a general rule on how SF1 and QKI interact in relation to binding sites, and the relative molecular fates followed, so is very useful. Most of the analysis seems to focus on one example, although the molecular analysis and global work significantly add to the picture from the previously published paper about NUMB joint regulation by QKI and SF (Zong et al, cited in text as reference 50, that looked at SF1 and QKI binding in relation to a duplicated binding site/branchpoint sequence in NUMB).

Strengths:

The data presented are strong and clear. The ideas discussed in this paper are of wide interest, and present a simple model where two binding sites generate a potentially repressive QKI response, whereas exons that have a single upstream sequence are just regulated by SF1. The assembly of splicing complexes on RNAs derived from RAI14 in nuclear extracts, followed by mass spec gave interesting mechanistic insight into what was occurring as a result of QKI versus SF1 binding.

Weaknesses:

I did not think the title best summarises the take-home message and could be perhaps a bit more modest. Although the authors investigated splicing patterns in yeast and human cells, yeast do not have QKI so there is no ancient competition in that case, and the study did not really investigate physiological or evolutionary outcomes in splicing, although it provides interesting speculation on them. Also as I understood it, the important issue was less conserved branchpoints in higher eukaryotes enabling alternative splicing, rather than competition for the conserved branchpoint sequence. So despite the the data being strong and properly analysed and discussed in the paper, could the authors think whether they fit best with the take-home message provided in the title? Just as a suggestion (I am sure the authors can do a better job), maybe "molecular competition between variant branchpoint sequences predict physiological and evolutionary outcomes in splicing"?

Although the authors do provide some global data, most of the detailed analysis is of RAI14. It would have been useful to examine members of the other quadrants in Figure 1C as well for potential binding sites to give a reason why these are not co-regulated in the same way as RAI14. How many of the RAI14 quadrants had single/double sites (the motif analysis seemed to pull out just one), and could one of the non-reciprocally regulated exons be moved into a different quadrant by addition or subtraction of a binding site or changing the branchpoint (using a minigene approach for example).