Target-specific requirements for RNA interference can arise through restricted RNA amplification despite the lack of specialized pathways

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The goal of Knudsen-Palmer et al. was to define a biological set of rules that dictate the differential RNAi-mediated silencing of distinct target genes, motivated by facilitating the long-term development of effective RNAi-based drugs/therapeutics. To achieve this, the authors use a combination of computational modeling and RNAi function assays to reveal several criteria for effective RNAi-mediated silencing. This work provides insights into how (1) cis-regulatory elements influence the RNAi-mediated regulation of genes; (2) it is determined that genes can "recover" from RNAi-silencing signals in an animal; and 3) pUGylation occurs exclusively downstream of the dsRNA trigger sequence, suggesting 3º siRNAs are not produced. In addition, the authors show that the speed at which RNAi-silencing is triggered does not correlate with the longevity of the silencing. These insights are significant because they suggest that if we understand the rules by which RNAi pathways effectively silence genes with different transcription/processing levels then we can design more effective synthetic RNAi-based therapeutics targeting endogenous genes. The conclusions of this study are mostly supported by the data, but there are some aspects that need to be clarified.

(1) The methods do not describe the "aged RNAi plates feeding assay" in Figure 2E. The figure legend states that "aged RNAi plates" were used to trigger weaker RNAi, but the detail explaining the experiment is insufficient. How aged is aged? If the goal was to effectively reduce the dsRNA load available to the animals, why not quantitatively titrate the dsRNA provided? Were worms previously fed on the plates, or was simply a lawn of bacteria grown until presumably the IPTG on the plate was exhausted?

(2) Is the data presented in Figure 2F completed using the "aged RNAi plates" to achieve the partial silencing of dpy-7 observed? Clarification of this point would be helpful.

(3) Throughout the manuscript the authors refer to "non-dividing cells" when discussing animals' ability to recover from RNA silencing. It is not clear what the authors specifically mean with the phrase "non-dividing cells", but as this is referred to in one of their major findings, it should be clarified. Do they mean the cells are somatic cells in aged animals, thus if they are "non-dividing" the siRNA pools within the cells cannot be diluted by cell division? Based on the methods, the animals of RNAi assays were L4/Young adults that were scored over 8 days after the initial pulse of dsRNA feeding. If this is the case, wouldn't these animals be growing into gravid adults after the feeding, and thus have dividing cells as they grew?

(4) What are the typical expression levels/turnover of unc-22 and bli-1? Based on the results from the altered cis-regulatory regions of bli-1 and unc-22 in Figure 5, it seems like the transcription/turnover rates of each of these genes could also be used as a proof of principle for testing the model proposed in Figure 4. The strength of the model would be further increased if the RNAi sensitivity of unc-22 reflects differences in its transcription/turnover rates compared to bli-1.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Knudsen-Palmer et al. describes and models the contribution of MUT-16 and RDE-10 in the silencing through RNAi by the Argonaute protein NRDE-3 or others. The authors show that MUT-16 and RDE-10 constitute an intersecting network that can be redundant or not depending on the gene being targeted by RNAi. In addition, the authors provide evidence that increasing dsRNA processing can compensate for NRDE-3 mutants. Overall, the authors provide convincing evidence to understand the factors involved in RNAi in C. elegans by using a genetic approach.

Major Strengths:

The author's work presents a compelling case for understanding the intricacies of RNA interference (RNAi) within the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans through a meticulous genetic approach. By harnessing genetic manipulation, they delve into the role of MUT-16 and RDE-10 in RNAi, offering a nuanced understanding of the molecular mechanisms at play in two independent case study targets (unc-22 and bli-1).

Major Weaknesses:

(1) It is unclear how the molecular mechanisms of amplification are different under the MUT-16 and RDE-10 branches of the regulatory pathway, since they are clearly distinct proteins structurally. It would be interesting to do some small-RNA-seq of products generated from unc-22 and bli-1, on wild-type conditions and some of the mutants studied (eg. mut-16, rde-10 and mut-16 + rde-10). That would provide some insights into whether the products of the 2 amplifications are the same in all conditions, just changing in abundance, or whether they are distinct in sequence patterns.

(2) In the same line, Figure 5 aims to provide insights into the sequence determinants that influence the RNAi of bli-1. It is unclear whether the changes in transcript stability dictated by the 3'UTR are the sole factor governing the preference for the MUT-16 and RDE-10 branches of the regulatory pathway. In line with the mutant jam297, it might be interesting to test whether factors like codon optimality, splicing, ... of the ORF region upstream from bli-1-dsRNA can affect its sensitivity to the MUT-16 and RDE-10 branches of the regulatory pathway.