Full-length direct RNA sequencing uncovers stress-granule dependent RNA decay upon cellular stress

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors employed direct RNA sequencing with nanopores, enhanced by 5' end adaptor ligation, to comprehensively interrogate the human transcriptome at single-molecule and nucleotide resolution. They conclude that cellular stress induces prevalent 5' end RNA decay that is coupled to translation and ribosome occupancy. Contrary to the literature, they found that, unlike typical RNA decay models in normal conditions, stress-induced RNA decay is dependent on XRN1 but does not depend on the removal of the poly(A) tail. The findings presented are interesting but a substantial amount of work is needed to fully establish these paradigm-shifting findings.

Strengths:

These are paradigm-shifting observations using cutting-edge technologies.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions do not appear to be fully supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript "Full-length direct RNA sequencing uncovers stress-granule dependent RNA decay upon cellular stress", Dar, Malla, and colleagues use direct RNA sequencing on nanopores to characterize the transcriptome after arsenite and oxidative stress. They observe a population of transcripts that are shortened during stress. The authors hypothesize that this shortening is mediated by the 5'-3' exonuclease XRN1, as XRN1 knockdown results in longer transcripts. Interestingly, the authors do not observe a polyA-tail shortening, which is typically thought to precede decapping and XRN1-mediated transcript decay. Finally, the authors use G3BP1 knockout cells to demonstrate that stress granule formation is required for the observed transcript shortening.

The manuscript contains intriguing findings of interest to the mRNA decay community. That said, it appears that the authors at times overinterpret the data they get from a handful of direct RNA sequencing experiments. To bolster some of the statements additional experiments might be desirable.

A selection of comments:

(1) Considering that the authors compare the effects of stress, stress granule formation, and XRN1 loss on transcriptome profiles, it would be desirable to use a single-cell system (and validated in a few more). Most of the direct RNAseq is performed in HeLa cells, but the experiments showing that stress granule formation is required come from U2OS cells, while short RNAseq data showing loss of coverage on mRNA 5'ends is reanalyzed from HEK293 cells. It may be plausible that the same pathways operate in all those cells, but it is not rigorously demonstrated.

(2) An interesting finding of the manuscript is that polyA tail shortening is not observed prior to transcript shortening. The authors would need to demonstrate that their approach is capable of detecting shortened polyA tails. Using polyA purified RNA to look at the status of polyA tail length may not be ideal (as avidity to oligodT beads may increase with polyA tail length and therefore the authors bias themselves to longer tails anyway). At the very least, the use of positive controls would be desirable; e.g. knockdown of CCR4/NOT.

(3) The authors use a strategy of ligating an adapter to 5' phosphorylated RNA (presumably the breakdown fragments) to be able to distinguish true mRNA fragments from artifacts of abortive nanopore sequencing. This is a fantastic approach to curating a clean dataset. Unfortunately, the authors don't appear to go through with discarding fragments that are not adapter-ligated (presumably to increase the depth of analysis; they do offer Figure 1e that shows similar changes in transcript length for fragments with adapter, compared to Figure 1d). It would be good to know how many reads in total had the adapter. Furthermore, it would be good to know what percentage of reads without adapters are products of abortive sequencing. What percentage of reads had 5'OH ends (could be answered by ligating a different adapter to kinase-treated transcripts). More read curation would also be desirable when building the metagene analysis - why do the authors include every 3'end of sequenced reads (their RNA purification scheme requires a polyA tail, so non-polyadenylated fragments are recovered in a non-quantitative manner and should be discarded).

(4) The authors should come to a clear conclusion about what "transcript shortening" means. Is it exonucleolytic shortening from the 5'end? They cannot say much about the 3'ends anyway (see above). Or are we talking about endonucleolytic cuts leaving 5'P that then can be attached by XRN1 (again, what is the ratio of 5'P and 5'OH fragments; also, what is the ratio of shortened to full-length RNA)?

(5) The authors should clearly explain how they think the transcript shortening comes about. They claim it does not need polyA shortening, but then do not explain where the XRN1 substrate comes from. Does their effect require decapping? Or endonucleolytic attacks?

(6) XRN1 KD results in lengthened transcripts. That is not surprising as XRN1 is an exonuclease - and XRN1 does not merely rescue arsenite stress-mediated transcript shortening, but results in a dramatic transcript lengthening.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work by Dar et al. examines RNA metabolism under cellular stress, focusing on stress-granule-dependent RNA decay. It employs direct RNA sequencing with a Nanopore-based method, revealing that cellular stress induces prevalent 5' end RNA decay that is coupled to translation and ribosome occupancy but is independent of the shortening of the poly(A) tail. This decay, however, is dependent on XRN1 and enriched in the stress granule transcriptome. Notably, inhibiting stress granule formation in G3BP1/2-null cells restores the RNA length to the same level as wild-type. It suppresses stress-induced decay, identifying RNA decay as a critical determinant of RNA metabolism during cellular stress and highlighting its dependence on stress-granule formation.

This is an exciting and novel discovery. I am not an expert in sequencing technologies or sequencing data analysis, so I will limit my comments purely to biology and not technical points. The PI is a leader in applying innovative sequencing methods to studying mRNA decay.

One aspect that appeared overlooked is that poly(A) tail shortening per se does lead to decapping. It is shortening below a certain threshold of 8-10 As that triggers decapping. Therefore, I found the conclusion that poly(A) tail shortening is not required for stress-induced decay to be somewhat premature. For a robust test of this hypothesis, the authors should consider performing their analysis in conditions where CNOT7/8 is knocked down with siRNA.

Similarly, as XRN1 requires decapping to take place, it necessitates the experiment where a dominant-negative DCP2 mutant is over-expressed.

Are G3BP1/2 stress granules required for stress-induced decay or simply sites for storage? This part seems unclear. A very worthwhile test here would be to assess in XRN1-null background.

Finally, the authors speculate that the mechanism of stress-induced decay may have evolved to relieve translational load during stress. But why degrade the 5' end when removing the cap may be sufficient? This returns to the question of assessing the role of decapping in this mechanism.