Co-transcriptional recruitment of the U1 snRNP

It is currently believed that the splicing of most pre-mRNAs occurs, at least in part, co-transcriptionally. In order to validate this principle in yeast and establish an experimental system for monitoring spliceosome assembly in vivo, I have employed the chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay to study co-transcriptional splicing events. Here, I use ChIP to examine key questions with respect to the recent proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. In my thesis, I address: 1) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5¡¦ splice site of each intron, is recruited co-transcriptionally in vivo and 2) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. U1 snRNP accumulates on downstream positions of genes containing introns but not within promoter regions or along intronless genes. More specifically, accumulation correlated with the presence and position of the intron, indicating that the intron is necessary for co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention (Kotovic et al., 2003). In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II (Komarnitsky et al., 2000; Schroeder et al., 2000), the U1 snRNP is poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP is dependent on RNA synthesis and is abolished by intron removal. Microarray data reveals that intron-containing genes are preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP furthermore indicating recruitment specificity to introns. Because U1 snRNP levels decrease on downstream regions of intron-containing genes with long second exons, our lab is expanding the study to 3¡¦ splice site factors in hopes to address co-transcriptional splicing. In my thesis, I also focus on questions pertaining to the requirements for recruitment of the U1 snRNP to sites of transcription. To test the proposal that the cap-binding complex (CBC) promotes U1 snRNP recognition of the 5¡¦ splice site (Colot et al., 1996), I use a ?´CBC mutant strain and determine U1 snRNP accumulation by ChIP. Surprisingly, lack of the CBC has no effect on U1 snRNP recruitment. The U1 snRNP component Prp40p has been identified as playing a pivotal role in not only cross-intron bridging (Abovich and Rosbash, 1997), but also as a link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment (Morris and Greenleaf, 2000). My data shows that Prp40p recruitment mirrors that of other U1 snRNP proteins, in that it is not detected on promoter regions, suggesting that Prp40p does not constitutively bind the phosphorylated C-terminal domain (CTD) of Pol II as previously proposed. This physical link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment is further tested in Prp40p mutant strains, in which U1 snRNP is detected at normal levels. Therefore, U1 snRNP recruitment to transcription units is not dependent on Prp40p activity. My data indicates that co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment is not dependent on the CBC or Prp40p and that any effects of these players on spliceosome assembly must be reflected in later spliceosome events. My data contrasts the proposed transcription factory model in which Pol II plays a central role in the recruitment of mRNA processing factors to TUs. According to my data, splicing factor recruitment acts differently than capping enzyme and 3¡¦ end processing factor recruitment; U1 snRNP does not accumulate at promoter regions of intron-containing genes or on intronless genes rather, accumulation is based on the synthesis of the intron. These experiments have lead me to propose a kinetic model with respect to the recruitment of splicing factors to active genes. In this model, U1 snRNP accumulation at the 5¡¦ splice site requires a highly dynamic web of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions to occur, ultimately leading to the recruitment and/or stabilization of the U1 snRNP

Trf4 targets ncRNAs from telomeric and rDNA spacer regions and functions in rDNA copy number control

Trf4 is the poly(A) polymerase component of TRAMP4, which stimulates nuclear RNA degradation by the exosome. We report that in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains lacking Trf4, cryptic transcripts are detected from regions of repressed chromatin at telomeres and the rDNA intergenic spacer region (IGS1-R), and at CEN3. Degradation of the IGS1-R transcript was reduced in strains lacking TRAMP components, the core exosome protein Mtr3 or the nuclear-specific exosome component Rrp6. IGS1-R has potential binding sites for the RNA-binding proteins Nrd1/Nab3, and was stabilized by mutation of Nrd1. IGS1-R passes through the replication fork barrier, a region required for rDNA copy number control. Strains lacking Trf4 showed sporadic changes in rDNA copy number, whereas loss of both Trf4 and either the histone deacetylase Sir2 or the topoisomerase Top1 caused dramatic loss of rDNA repeats. Chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses showed that Trf4 is co-transcriptionally recruited to IGS1-R, consistent with a direct role in rDNA stability. Co-transcriptional RNA binding by Trf4 may link RNA and DNA metabolism and direct immediate IGS1-R degradation by the exosome following transcription termination

Co-transcriptional recruitment of the U1 snRNP

It is currently believed that the splicing of most pre-mRNAs occurs, at least in part, co-transcriptionally. In order to validate this principle in yeast and establish an experimental system for monitoring spliceosome assembly in vivo, I have employed the chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay to study co-transcriptional splicing events. Here, I use ChIP to examine key questions with respect to the recent proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. In my thesis, I address: 1) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5¡¦ splice site of each intron, is recruited co-transcriptionally in vivo and 2) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. U1 snRNP accumulates on downstream positions of genes containing introns but not within promoter regions or along intronless genes. More specifically, accumulation correlated with the presence and position of the intron, indicating that the intron is necessary for co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention (Kotovic et al., 2003). In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II (Komarnitsky et al., 2000; Schroeder et al., 2000), the U1 snRNP is poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP is dependent on RNA synthesis and is abolished by intron removal. Microarray data reveals that intron-containing genes are preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP furthermore indicating recruitment specificity to introns. Because U1 snRNP levels decrease on downstream regions of intron-containing genes with long second exons, our lab is expanding the study to 3¡¦ splice site factors in hopes to address co-transcriptional splicing. In my thesis, I also focus on questions pertaining to the requirements for recruitment of the U1 snRNP to sites of transcription. To test the proposal that the cap-binding complex (CBC) promotes U1 snRNP recognition of the 5¡¦ splice site (Colot et al., 1996), I use a ?´CBC mutant strain and determine U1 snRNP accumulation by ChIP. Surprisingly, lack of the CBC has no effect on U1 snRNP recruitment. The U1 snRNP component Prp40p has been identified as playing a pivotal role in not only cross-intron bridging (Abovich and Rosbash, 1997), but also as a link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment (Morris and Greenleaf, 2000). My data shows that Prp40p recruitment mirrors that of other U1 snRNP proteins, in that it is not detected on promoter regions, suggesting that Prp40p does not constitutively bind the phosphorylated C-terminal domain (CTD) of Pol II as previously proposed. This physical link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment is further tested in Prp40p mutant strains, in which U1 snRNP is detected at normal levels. Therefore, U1 snRNP recruitment to transcription units is not dependent on Prp40p activity. My data indicates that co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment is not dependent on the CBC or Prp40p and that any effects of these players on spliceosome assembly must be reflected in later spliceosome events. My data contrasts the proposed transcription factory model in which Pol II plays a central role in the recruitment of mRNA processing factors to TUs. According to my data, splicing factor recruitment acts differently than capping enzyme and 3¡¦ end processing factor recruitment; U1 snRNP does not accumulate at promoter regions of intron-containing genes or on intronless genes rather, accumulation is based on the synthesis of the intron. These experiments have lead me to propose a kinetic model with respect to the recruitment of splicing factors to active genes. In this model, U1 snRNP accumulation at the 5¡¦ splice site requires a highly dynamic web of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions to occur, ultimately leading to the recruitment and/or stabilization of the U1 snRNP

Co-transcriptional recruitment of the U1 snRNP

It is currently believed that the splicing of most pre-mRNAs occurs, at least in part, co-transcriptionally. In order to validate this principle in yeast and establish an experimental system for monitoring spliceosome assembly in vivo, I have employed the chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay to study co-transcriptional splicing events. Here, I use ChIP to examine key questions with respect to the recent proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. In my thesis, I address: 1) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5¡¦ splice site of each intron, is recruited co-transcriptionally in vivo and 2) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. U1 snRNP accumulates on downstream positions of genes containing introns but not within promoter regions or along intronless genes. More specifically, accumulation correlated with the presence and position of the intron, indicating that the intron is necessary for co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention (Kotovic et al., 2003). In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II (Komarnitsky et al., 2000; Schroeder et al., 2000), the U1 snRNP is poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP is dependent on RNA synthesis and is abolished by intron removal. Microarray data reveals that intron-containing genes are preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP furthermore indicating recruitment specificity to introns. Because U1 snRNP levels decrease on downstream regions of intron-containing genes with long second exons, our lab is expanding the study to 3¡¦ splice site factors in hopes to address co-transcriptional splicing. In my thesis, I also focus on questions pertaining to the requirements for recruitment of the U1 snRNP to sites of transcription. To test the proposal that the cap-binding complex (CBC) promotes U1 snRNP recognition of the 5¡¦ splice site (Colot et al., 1996), I use a ?´CBC mutant strain and determine U1 snRNP accumulation by ChIP. Surprisingly, lack of the CBC has no effect on U1 snRNP recruitment. The U1 snRNP component Prp40p has been identified as playing a pivotal role in not only cross-intron bridging (Abovich and Rosbash, 1997), but also as a link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment (Morris and Greenleaf, 2000). My data shows that Prp40p recruitment mirrors that of other U1 snRNP proteins, in that it is not detected on promoter regions, suggesting that Prp40p does not constitutively bind the phosphorylated C-terminal domain (CTD) of Pol II as previously proposed. This physical link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment is further tested in Prp40p mutant strains, in which U1 snRNP is detected at normal levels. Therefore, U1 snRNP recruitment to transcription units is not dependent on Prp40p activity. My data indicates that co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment is not dependent on the CBC or Prp40p and that any effects of these players on spliceosome assembly must be reflected in later spliceosome events. My data contrasts the proposed transcription factory model in which Pol II plays a central role in the recruitment of mRNA processing factors to TUs. According to my data, splicing factor recruitment acts differently than capping enzyme and 3¡¦ end processing factor recruitment; U1 snRNP does not accumulate at promoter regions of intron-containing genes or on intronless genes rather, accumulation is based on the synthesis of the intron. These experiments have lead me to propose a kinetic model with respect to the recruitment of splicing factors to active genes. In this model, U1 snRNP accumulation at the 5¡¦ splice site requires a highly dynamic web of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions to occur, ultimately leading to the recruitment and/or stabilization of the U1 snRNP

Cotranscriptional Recruitment of the U1 snRNP to Intron-Containing Genes in Yeast

Evidence that pre-mRNA processing events are temporally and, in some cases, mechanistically coupled to transcription has led to the proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. Here we address two key questions raised by this proposal: (i) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5′ splice site of each intron, is recruited cotranscriptionally in vivo and, (ii) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) in yeast, we show that elevated levels of the U1 snRNP were specifically detected in gene regions containing introns and downstream of introns but not along the length of intronless genes. In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II, the U1 snRNP was poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP was dependent on RNA synthesis and was abolished by intron removal. Microarray analysis revealed that intron-containing genes were preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP. Thus, U1 snRNP accumulation at genes correlated with the presence and position of introns, indicating that introns are necessary for cotranscriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention

The histone 3 lysine 36 methyltransferase, SET2, is involved in transcriptional elongation

Existing evidence indicates that SET2, the histone 3 lysine 36 methyltransferase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a transcriptional repressor. Here we show by five main lines of evidence that SET2 is involved in transcriptional elongation. First, most, if not all, subunits of the RNAP II holoenzyme co-purify with SET2. Second, all of the co-purifying RNAP II subunit, RPO21, was phosphorylated at serines 5 and 2 of the C-terminal domain (CTD) tail, indicating that the SET2 association is specific to either the elongating or SSN3 repressed forms (or both) of RNAP II. Third, the association of SET2 with CTD phosphorylated RPO21 remained in the absence of ssn3. Fourth, in the absence of ssn3, mRNA production from gal1 required SET2. Fifth, SET2 was detected on gal1 by in vivo crosslinking after, but not before, the induction of transcription. Similarly, SET2 physically associated with the transcribed region of pdr5 but was not detected on gal1 or pdr5 promoter regions. Since SET2 is also a histone methyltransferase, these results suggest a role for histone 3 lysine 36 methylation in transcriptional elongation

Cotranscriptional spliceosome assembly and splicing are independent of the Prp40p WW domain.

Complex cellular functions involve large networks of interactions. Pre-mRNA splicing and transcription are thought to be coupled by the C-terminal domain (CTD) of the large subunit of RNA polymerase II (Pol II). In yeast, the U1 snRNP subunit Prp40 was proposed to mediate cotranscriptional recruitment of early splicing factors through binding of its WW domains to the Pol II CTD. Here we investigate the role of Prp40 in splicing with an emphasis on the role of the WW domains, which might confer protein-protein interactions among the splicing and transcriptional machineries. Affinity purification revealed that Prp40 and Snu71 form a stable heterodimer that stably associates with the U1 snRNP only in the presence of Nam8, a known regulator of 5' splice site recognition. However, the Prp40 WW domains were dispensable for yeast viability. In their absence, no defect in splicing in vivo, U1 or U2 snRNP recruitment in vivo, or early splicing complex assembly in vitro was detected. We conclude that the WW domains of Prp40 do not mediate essential coupling between U1 snRNP and Pol II. Instead, delays in cotranscriptional U5 snRNP and Prp19 recruitment and altered spliceosome formation in vitro suggest that Prp40 WW domains assist in late steps of spliceosome assembly