Peer review process
Revised: This Reviewed Preprint has been revised by the authors in response to the previous round of peer review; the eLife assessment and the public reviews have been updated where necessary by the editors and peer reviewers.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorThomas GingerasCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, United States of America
- Senior EditorAdèle MarstonUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
Thayer et al build upon their prior findings that ASAR long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are chromatin-associated and are implicated in control of replication timing. To explore the mechanism of function of ASAR transcripts, they leveraged the ENCODE RNA binding protein eCLIP datasets to show that a 7kb region of ASAR6-141 is bound by multiple hnRNP proteins. Deletion of this 7kb region resulted in delayed chromosome 6 replication. Furthermore, ectopic integration of the ASAR6-141 7kb region into autosomes or the inactive X-chromosome also resulted in delayed chromosome replication. They then use RNA FISH experiments to show that knockdown of these hnRNP proteins disrupts ASAR6-141 localization to chromatin and in turn replication timing.
Strengths:
Given prior publications showing HNRNPU to be important for chromatin retention of XIST and Firre, this work expands upon our understanding on the role of hnRNP proteins in lncRNA function.
Weaknesses:
The work presented is mechanistically interesting, however, one must be careful with the over interpretation that hnRNP proteins can regular chromosome replication directly.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
This paper reports a role for a substantial number of RNA binding proteins (RBPs), in particular hnRNPs, in the function of ASAR "genes". ASARs are (very) long, non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) that control allelic expression imbalance (e.g.: mono-allelic expression) and replication timing of their resident chromosomes. These relatively novel "genes" have recently been identified on all human autosomes and are of broad significance given their critical importance for basic chromosomal functions and stability. However, the mechanism(s) of ASAR function remain unclear. ASARs exhibit some functional relatedness to Xist RNA, including persistent association of the expressed RNA with its resident chromosome, and similarities in the composition of RNA sequences associated with ASARs, in particular Line1 RNAs. Recent findings that certain hnRNPs control the chromosome territory retention of Cot1-bearing RNAs (which includes Line1) led the authors to test hypothesis that hnRNPs might regulate ASARs.
Specific new findings in this paper:
-Analysis of eCLIP (RNA-protein interaction) ENCODE data shows numerous interactions of the ASAR6-141 RNA with RBPs, including hnRNPs (e.g.: HNRNPU) that have been implicated in the retention of RNAs within local chromosome territories.
-most of these interactions can be mapped to a 7kb region of the 185kb ASAR6-141 RNA
-deletion of this 7kb region is sufficient to induce the DMC/DRT phenotype associated with deletion of the entire ASAR region
-ectopic integration into mouse autosomes of the 7kb region is sufficient to cause DMC/DRT of the targeted autosome, and a similar effect upon ectopic integration into inactive X. This raises the question about integration into the active X, which was not mentioned. Is integration into the active X observed? Is it possible that integration might alter Xist expression confounding this interpretation?
-Knockdown of RBPs that bind the 7kb region causes dissociation of ASAR6-141 RNA from its chromosome territory, and, remarkably, dissociation of Xist RNA from inactive X, and mis-colocalization of the ASAR6-141 and Xist RNAs. Depletion of these RBPs causes DMC/DRT on all autosomes.
Strengths:
These are compelling results suggesting shared mechanism(s) in the regulation of ASARs and Xist RNAs by RBPs that bind Cot1 sequences in these lncRNAs. The identification of these RBPs as shared effectors of ASARs and Xist that are required for RNA territory localization mechanistically links previously independent phenomena.
The data are convincing and support the conclusions. The replication timing method is low resolution and is only a relative measure but seems adequate for the task at hand. The FISH experiments are convincing. The quality of the images is impressive.
Links to other subfields like X-inactivation and RNA association with chromosome territories provide novel context and protein players, new phenotypes to examine
Weaknesses:
The exact effects of knockdown experiments are unclear and may be indirect, which is acknowledged.
The mechanism is not much clearer than before.