PDGFRα signaling regulates Srsf3 transcript binding to affect PI3K signaling and endosomal trafficking

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In their manuscript "PDGFRRa signaling regulates Srsf3 transcript binding to affect PI3K signaling and endosomal trafficking" Forman and colleagues use iMEPM cells to characterize the effects of PDGF signaling on alternative splicing. They first perform RNA-seq using a one-hour stimulation with Pdgf-AA in control and Srsf3 knockdown cells. While Srsf3 manipulation results in a sizeable number of DE genes, PDGF does not. They then turn to examine alternative splicing, due to findings from this lab. They find that both PDGF and Srsf3 contribute much more to splicing than transcription. They find that the vast majority of PDGF-mediated alternative splicing depends upon Srsf3 activity and that skipped exons are the most common events with PDGF stimulation typically promoting exon skipping in the presence of Srsf3. They used eCLIP to identify RNA regions bound to Srsf3. Under both PDGF conditions, the majority of peaks were in exons with +PDGF having a substantially greater number of these peaks. Interestingly, they find differential enrichment of sequence motifs and GC content in stimulated versus unstimulated cells. They examine 2 transcripts encoding PI3K pathway (enriched in their GO analysis) members: Becn1 and Wdr81. They then go on to examine PDGFRRa and Rab5, an endosomal marker, colocalization. They propose a model in which Srsf3 functions downstream of PDGFRRa signaling to, in part, regulate PDGFRa trafficking to the endosome. The findings are novel and shed light on the mechanisms of PDGF signaling and will be broadly of interest. This lab previously identified the importance of PDGF naling on alternative splicing. The combination of RNA-seq and eCLIP is an exceptional way to comprehensively analyze this effect. The results will be of great utility to those studying PDGF signaling or neural crest biology. There are some concerns that should be considered, however.

(1) It took some time to make sense of the number of DE genes across the results section and Figure 1. The authors give the total number of DE genes across Srsf3 control and loss conditions as 1,629 with 1,042 of them overlapping across Pdgf treatment. If the authors would add verbiage to the point that this leaves 1,108 unique genes in the dataset, then the numbers in Figure 1D would instantly make sense. The same applies to PDGF in Figure 1F and the Venn diagrams in Figure 2.

(2) The percentage of skipped exons in the +PSI on the righthand side of Figure 2F is not readable.

(3) It would be useful to have more information regarding the motif enrichment in Figure 3. What is the extent of enrichment? The authors should also provide a more complete list of enriched motifs, perhaps as a supplement.

(4) It is unclear what subset of transcripts represent the "overlapping datasets" on lines 280-315. The authors state that there are 149 unique overlapping transcripts, but the Venn diagram shows 270. Also, it seems that the most interesting transcripts are the 233 that show alternative splicing and are bound by Srsf3. Would the results shown in Figure 5 change if the authors focused on these transcripts?

(5) In general, there is little validation of the sequencing results, performing qPCR on Arhgap12 and Cep55. The authors should additionally validate the PI3K pathway members that they analyze. Related, is Becn1 expression downregulated in the absence of Srsf3, as would be predicted if it is undergoing NMD?

(6) What is the alternative splicing event for Acap3?

(7) The insets in Figure 6 C"-H" are useful but difficult to see due to their small size. Perhaps these could be made as their own figure panels.

(8) In Figure 6A, it is not clear which groups have statistically significant differences. A clearer visualization system should be used.

(9) Similarly in Figure 6B, is 15 vs 60 minutes in the shSrsf3 group the only significant difference? Is there a difference between scramble and shSrsf3 at 15 minutes? Is there a difference between 0 and 15 minutes for either group?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript builds upon the work of a previous study published by the group (Dennison, 2021) to further elucidate the coregulatory axis of Srsf3 and PDGFRa on craniofacial development. The authors in this study investigated the molecular mechanisms by which PDGFRa signaling activates the RNA-binding protein Srsf3 to regulate alternative splicing (AS) and gene expression (GE) necessary for craniofacial development. PDGFRa signaling-mediated Srsf3 phosphorylation drives its translocation into the nucleus and affects binding affinity to different proteins and RNA, but the exact molecular mechanisms were not known. The authors performed RNA sequencing on immortalized mouse embryonic mesenchyme (MEPM) cells treated with shRNA targeting 3' UTR of Srsf3 or scramble shRNA (to probe AS and DE events that are Srsf3 dependent) and with and without PDGF-AA ligand treatment (to probe AS and DE events that are PDGFRa signaling dependent). They found that PDGFRa signaling has more effect on AS than on DE. A matching eCLIP-seq experiment was performed to investigate how Srsf3 binding sites change with and without PDGFRa signaling.

Strengths:

(1) The work builds well upon the previous data and the authors employ a variety of appropriate techniques to answer their research questions.

(2) The authors show that Srsf3 binding pattern within the transcript as well as binding motifs change significantly upon PDGFRa signaling, providing a mechanistic explanation for the significant changes in AS.

(3) By combining RNA-seq and eCLIP datasets together, the authors identified a list of genes that are directly bound by Srsf3 and undergo changes in GE and/or AS. Two examples are Becn1 and Wdr81, which are involved in early endosomal trafficking.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors identify two genes whose AS are directly regulated by Srsf3 and involved in endosomal trafficking; however, they do not validate the differential AS results and whether changes in these genes can affect endosomal trafficking. In Figure 6, they show that PDGFRa signaling is involved in endosome size and Rab5 colocalization, but do not show how Srsf3 and the two genes are involved.

(2) The proposed model does not account for other proteins mediating the activation of Srsf3 after Akt phosphorylation. How do we know this is a direct effect (and not a secondary or tertiary effect)?