Genes flanking Xist in mouse and human are separated on the X chromosome in American marsupials

X inactivation, the transcriptional silencing of one of the two X chromosomes in female mammals, achieves dosage compensation of X-linked genes relative to XY males. In eutherian mammals X inactivation is regulated by the X-inactive specific transcript (Xist), a cis-acting non-coding RNA that triggers silencing of the chromosome from which it is transcribed. Marsupial mammals also undergo X inactivation but the mechanism is relatively poorly understood. We set out to analyse the X chromosome in Monodelphis domestica and Didelphis virginiana, focusing on characterizing the interval defined by the Chic1 and Slc16a2 genes that in eutherians flank the Xist locus. The synteny of this region is retained on chicken chromosome 4 where other loci belonging to the evolutionarily ancient stratum of the human X chromosome, the so-called X conserved region (XCR), are also located. We show that in both M. domestica and D. virginiana an evolutionary breakpoint has separated the Chic1 and Slc16a2 loci. Detailed analysis of opossum genomic sequences revealed linkage of Chic1 with the Lnx3 gene, recently proposed to be the evolutionary precursor of Xist, and Fip1, the evolutionary precursor of Tsx, a gene located immediately downstream of Xist in eutherians. We discuss these findings in relation to the evolution of Xist and X inactivation in mammals

Long non-coding RNAs: spatial amplifiers that control nuclear structure and gene expression

Over the past decade, it has become clear that mammalian genomes encode thousands of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), many of which are now implicated in diverse biological processes. Recent work studying the molecular mechanisms of several key examples — including Xist, which orchestrates X chromosome inactivation — has provided new insights into how lncRNAs can control cellular functions by acting in the nucleus. Here we discuss emerging mechanistic insights into how lncRNAs can regulate gene expression by coordinating regulatory proteins, localizing to target loci and shaping three-dimensional (3D) nuclear organization. We explore these principles to highlight biological challenges in gene regulation, in which lncRNAs are well-suited to perform roles that cannot be carried out by DNA elements or protein regulators alone, such as acting as spatial amplifiers of regulatory signals in the nucleus

Transcription Initiation Activity Sets Replication Origin Efficiency in Mammalian Cells

Genomic mapping of DNA replication origins (ORIs) in mammals provides a powerful means for understanding the regulatory complexity of our genome. Here we combine a genome-wide approach to identify preferential sites of DNA replication initiation at 0.4% of the mouse genome with detailed molecular analysis at distinct classes of ORIs according to their location relative to the genes. Our study reveals that 85% of the replication initiation sites in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells are associated with transcriptional units. Nearly half of the identified ORIs map at promoter regions and, interestingly, ORI density strongly correlates with promoter density, reflecting the coordinated organisation of replication and transcription in the mouse genome. Detailed analysis of ORI activity showed that CpG island promoter-ORIs are the most efficient ORIs in ES cells and both ORI specification and firing efficiency are maintained across cell types. Remarkably, the distribution of replication initiation sites at promoter-ORIs exactly parallels that of transcription start sites (TSS), suggesting a co-evolution of the regulatory regions driving replication and transcription. Moreover, we found that promoter-ORIs are significantly enriched in CAGE tags derived from early embryos relative to all promoters. This association implies that transcription initiation early in development sets the probability of ORI activation, unveiling a new hallmark in ORI efficiency regulation in mammalian cells

Differentiating Protein-Coding and Noncoding RNA: Challenges and Ambiguities

The assumption that RNA can be readily classified into either protein-coding or non-protein–coding categories has pervaded biology for close to 50 years. Until recently, discrimination between these two categories was relatively straightforward: most transcripts were clearly identifiable as protein-coding messenger RNAs (mRNAs), and readily distinguished from the small number of well-characterized non-protein–coding RNAs (ncRNAs), such as transfer, ribosomal, and spliceosomal RNAs. Recent genome-wide studies have revealed the existence of thousands of noncoding transcripts, whose function and significance are unclear. The discovery of this hidden transcriptome and the implicit challenge it presents to our understanding of the expression and regulation of genetic information has made the need to distinguish between mRNAs and ncRNAs both more pressing and more complicated. In this Review, we consider the diverse strategies employed to discriminate between protein-coding and noncoding transcripts and the fundamental difficulties that are inherent in what may superficially appear to be a simple problem. Misannotations can also run in both directions: some ncRNAs may actually encode peptides, and some of those currently thought to do so may not. Moreover, recent studies have shown that some RNAs can function both as mRNAs and intrinsically as functional ncRNAs, which may be a relatively widespread phenomenon. We conclude that it is difficult to annotate an RNA unequivocally as protein-coding or noncoding, with overlapping protein-coding and noncoding transcripts further confounding this distinction. In addition, the finding that some transcripts can function both intrinsically at the RNA level and to encode proteins suggests a false dichotomy between mRNAs and ncRNAs. Therefore, the functionality of any transcript at the RNA level should not be discounted