Human Lantern Ribozymes: Smallest Known Self-cleaving Ribozymes

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The overall analysis and discovery of the common motif are important and exciting. Very few human/primate ribozymes have been published and this manuscript presents a relatively detailed analysis of two of them. The minimized domains appear to be some of the smallest known self-cleaving ribozymes.

Strengths:
The manuscript is rooted in deep mutational analysis of the OR4K15 and LINE1 and subsequently in modeling of a huge active site based on the closely-related core of the TS ribozyme. The experiments support the HTS findings and provide convincing evidence that the ribozymes are structurally related to the core of the TS ribozyme, which has not been found in primates prior to this work.

Weaknesses:
1. Given that these two ribozymes have not been described outside of a single figure in a Science Supplement, it is important to show their locations in the human genome, present their sequence and structure conservation among various species, particularly primates, and test and discuss the activity of variants found in non-human organisms. Furthermore, OR4K15 exists in three copies on three separate chromosomes in the human genome, with slight variations in the ribozyme sequence. All three of these variants should be tested experimentally and their activity should be presented. A similar analysis should be presented for the naturally-occurring variants of the LINE1 ribozyme. These data are a rich source for comparison with the deep mutagenesis presented here. Inserting a figure (1) that would show the genomic locations, directions, and conservation of these ribozymes and discussing them in light of this new presentation would greatly improve the manuscript. As for the biological roles of known self-cleaving ribozymes in humans, there is a bioRxiv manuscript on the role of the CPEB3 ribozyme in mammalian memory formation (doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.07.543953), and an analysis of the CPEB3 functional conservation throughout mammals (Bendixsen et al. MBE 2021). Furthermore, the authors missed two papers that presented the discovery of human hammerhead ribozymes that reside in introns (by de la PeÃ{plus minus}a and Breaker), which should also be cited. On the other hand, the Clec ribozyme was only found in rodents and not primates and is thus not a human ribozyme and should be noted as such.

2. The authors present the story as a discovery of a new RNA catalytic motif . This is unfounded. As the authors point out, the catalytic domain is very similar to the Twister Sister (or "TS") ribozyme. In fact, there is no appreciable difference between these and TS ribozymes, except for the missing peripheral domains. For example, the env33 sequence in the Weinberg et al. 2015 NCB paper shows the same sequences in the catalytic core as the LINE1 ribozyme, making the LINE1 ribozyme a TS-like ribozyme in every way, except for the missing peripheral domains. Thus these are not new ribozymes and should not have a new name. A more appropriate name should be TS-like or TS-min ribozymes. Renaming the ribozymes to lanterns is misleading.

3. In light of 2) the story should be refocused on the fact the authors discovered that the OR4K15 and LINE1 are both TS-like ribozymes. That is very exciting and is the real contribution of this work to the field.

4. Given the slow self-scission of the OR4K15 and LINE1 ribozymes, the discussion of the minimal domains should be focused on the role of peripheral domains in full-length TS ribozymes. Peripheral domains have been shown to greatly speed up hammerhead, HDV, and hairpin ribozymes. This is an opportunity to show that the TS ribozymes can do the same and the authors should discuss the contribution of peripheral domains to the ribozyme structure and activity. There is extensive literature on the contribution of a tertiary contact on the speed of self-scission in hammerhead ribozymes, in hairpin ribozyme it's centered on the 4-way junction vs 2-way junction structure, and in HDVs the contribution is through the stability of the J1/2 region, where the stability of the peripheral domain can be directly translated to the catalytic enhancement of the ribozymes.

5. The argument that these are the smallest self-cleaving ribozymes is debatable. LÃ1/4nse et al (NAR 2017) found some very small hammerhead ribozymes that are smaller than those presented here, but the authors suggest only working as dimers. The human ribozymes described here should be analyzed for dimerization as well (e.g., by native gel analysis) particularly because the authors suggest that there are no peripheral domains that stabilize the fold. Furthermore, Riccitelli et al. (Biochemistry) minimized the HDV-like ribozymes and found some in metagenomic sequences that are about the same size as the ones presented here. Both of these papers should be cited and discussed.

6. The authors present homology modeling of the OR4K15 and LINE1 ribozymes based on the crystal structures of the TS ribozymes. This is another point that supports the fact that these are not new ribozyme motifs. Furthermore, the homology model should be carefully discussed as a model and not a structure. In many places in the text and the supplement, the models are presented as real structures. The wording should be changed to carefully state that these are models based on sequence similarity to TS ribozymes. Fig 3 would benefit from showing the corresponding structures of the TS ribozymes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This manuscript applies a mutational scanning analysis to identify the secondary structure of two previously suggested self-cleaving ribozyme candidates in the human genome. Through this analysis, minimal structured and conserved regions with imminent importance for the ribozyme's activity are suggested and further biochemical evidence for cleavage activity are presented. Additionally, the study reveals a close resemblance of these human ribozyme candidates to the known self-cleaving ribozyme class of twister sister RNAs. Despite the high conservation of the catalytic core between these RNAs, it is suggested that the human ribozyme examples constitute a new ribozyme class. Evidence for this however is not conclusive.

Strengths:
The deep mutational scanning performed in this study allowed the elucidation of important regions within the proposed LINE-1 and OR4K15 ribozyme sequences. Part of the ribozyme sequences could be assigned a secondary structure supported by covariation and highly conserved nucleotides were uncovered. This enabled the identification of LINE-1 and OR4K15 core regions that are in essence identical to previously described twister sister self-cleaving RNAs.

Weaknesses:
I am skeptical of the claim that the described catalytic RNAs are indeed a new ribozyme class. The studied LINE-1 and OR4K15 ribozymes share striking features with the known twister sister ribozyme class (e.g. Figure 3A) and where there are differences they could be explained by having tested only a partial sequence of the full RNA motif. It appears plausible, that not the entire "functional region" was captured and experimentally assessed by the authors.

They identify three twister sister ribozymes by pattern-based similarity searches using RNA-Bob. Also comparing the consensus sequence of the relevant region in twister sister and the two ribozymes in this paper underlines the striking similarity between these RNAs. Given that the authors only assessed partial sequences of LINE-1 and OR4K15, I find it highly plausible that further accessory sequences have been missed that would clearly reveal that "lantern ribozymes" actually belong to the twister sister ribozyme class. This is also the reason I do not find the modeled structural data and biochemical data results convincing, as the differences observed could always be due to some accessory sequences and parts of the ribozyme structure that are missing.

Highly conserved nucleotides in the catalytic core, the need for direct contacts to divalent metal ions for catalysis, the preference of Mn2+ oder Mg2+ for cleavage, the plateau in observed rate constants at ~100mM Mg2+, are all characteristics that are identical between the proposed lantern ribozymes and the known twister sister class.

The difference in cleavage speed between twister sister (~5 min-1) and proposed lantern ribozymes could be due to experimental set-up (true single-turnover kinetics?) or could be explained by testing LINE-1 or OR4K15 ribozymes without needed accessory sequences. In the case of the minimal hammerhead ribozyme, it has been previously observed that missing important tertiary contacts can lead to drastically reduced cleavage speeds.