Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorAaron FrankArrakis Therapeutics, Waltham, United States of America
- Senior EditorAmy AndreottiIowa State University, Ames, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
This important study nicely integrates a breadth of experimental and computational data to address fundamental aspects of RNA methylation by an important for biology and health RNA methyltransferases (MTases).
Strengths:
The authors offer compelling and strong evidence, based on carefully performed work with appropriate and well-established techniques to shed light on aspects of the methyl transfer mechanism of the methyltransferase-like protein 3 (METTL3), which is part of the methyltransferase-like proteins 3 & 14 (METTL3-14) complex.
Weaknesses:
The significance of this foundational work is somewhat diminished mostly due to mostly efficient communication of certain aspects of this work. Parts of the manuscript are somewhat uneven and don't quite mesh well with one another. The manuscript could be enhanced by careful revision and significant textual and figure edits.
Examples of recommended edits that would improve clarity and allow accessibility to a broader audience are highlighted in some detail below.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Caflisch and coworkers investigate the methyltransferase activity of the complex of methyltransferase-like proteins 3 and 14 (METTL3-14). To obtain a high-resolution description of the complete catalytic cycle they have carefully designed a combination of experiments and simulations. Starting from the identification of bisubstrate analogues (BAs) as binders to stabilise a putative transition state of the reaction, they have determined multiple crystal structures and validated relevant interactions by mutagenesis and enzymatic assays.
Using the resolved structure and classical MD simulations they obtained a kinetic picture of the binding and release of the substrates. Of note, they accumulated very good statistics on these processes using 16 simulation replicates over a time scale of 500 ns. To compare the time scale of the release of the products with that of the catalytic step they performed state-of-the-art QM/MM free energy calculations (testing multiple levels of theory) and obtained a free energy barrier that indicates how the release of the product is slower than the catalytic step.
Strengths:
All the work proceeds through clear hypothesis testing based on a combination of literature and new results. Eventually, this allows them to present in Figure 10 a detailed step-by-step description of the catalytic cycle. The work is very well crafted and executed.
Weaknesses:
To fulfill its potential of guiding similar studies for other systems as well as to allow researchers to dig into their vast work, the authors should share the results of their simulations (trajectories, key structures, input files, protocols, and analysis) using repositories like Zenodo, the plumed-nest, figshare or alike.
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
The manuscript by Coberski et al describes a combined experimental and computational study aimed to shed light on the catalytic mechanism in a methyltransferase that transfers a methyl group from S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) to a substrate adenosine to form N6-methyladenosine (m6A).
Strengths:
The authors determine crystal structures in complex with so-called bi-substrate analogs that can bridge across the SAM and adenosine binding sites and mimic a transition state or intermediate of the methyl-transfer reaction. The crystal structures suggest dynamical motions of the substrate(s) that are examined further using classical MD simulations. The authors then use QM/MM calculations to study the methyl-transfer process. Together with biochemical assays of ligand/substrate binding and enzyme turnover, the authors use this information to suggest what the key steps are in the catalytic cycle. The manuscript is in most places easy to read.
Weaknesses:
My main suggestion for the authors is that they show better how their conclusions are supported by the data. This includes how the electron density maps for example support the key interactions and water molecules in the active site and a better error analysis of the computational analyses.