The RNA Polymerase Dictates ORF1 Requirement and Timing of LINE and SINE Retrotransposition

Mobile elements comprise close to one half of the mass of the human genome. Only LINE-1 (L1), an autonomous non-Long Terminal Repeat (LTR) retrotransposon, and its non-autonomous partners—such as the retropseudogenes, SVA, and the SINE, Alu—are currently active human retroelements. Experimental evidence shows that Alu retrotransposition depends on L1 ORF2 protein, which has led to the presumption that LINEs and SINEs share the same basic insertional mechanism. Our data demonstrate clear differences in the time required to generate insertions between marked Alu and L1 elements. In our tissue culture system, the process of L1 insertion requires close to 48 hours. In contrast to the RNA pol II-driven L1, we find that pol III transcribed elements (Alu, the rodent SINE B2, and the 7SL, U6 and hY sequences) can generate inserts within 24 hours or less. Our analyses demonstrate that the observed retrotransposition timing does not dictate insertion rate and is independent of the type of reporter cassette utilized. The additional time requirement by L1 cannot be directly attributed to differences in transcription, transcript length, splicing processes, ORF2 protein production, or the ability of functional ORF2p to reach the nucleus. However, the insertion rate of a marked Alu transcript drastically drops when driven by an RNA pol II promoter (CMV) and the retrotransposition timing parallels that of L1. Furthermore, the “pol II Alu transcript” behaves like the processed pseudogenes in our retrotransposition assay, requiring supplementation with L1 ORF1p in addition to ORF2p. We postulate that the observed differences in retrotransposition kinetics of these elements are dictated by the type of RNA polymerase generating the transcript. We present a model that highlights the critical differences of LINE and SINE transcripts that likely define their retrotransposition timing

Evolutionary Conservation of the Functional Modularity of Primate and Murine LINE-1 Elements

LINE-1 (L1) retroelements emerged in mammalian genomes over 80 million years ago with a few dominant subfamilies amplifying over discrete time periods that led to distinct human and mouse L1 lineages. We evaluated the functional conservation of L1 sequences by comparing retrotransposition rates of chimeric human-rodent L1 constructs to their parental L1 counterparts. Although amino acid conservation varies from ∼35% to 63% for the L1 ORF1p and ORF2p, most human and mouse L1 sequences can be functionally exchanged. Replacing either ORF1 or ORF2 to create chimeric human-mouse L1 elements did not adversely affect retrotransposition. The mouse ORF2p retains retrotransposition-competency to support both Alu and L1 mobilization when any of the domain sequences we evaluated were substituted with human counterparts. However, the substitution of portions of the mouse cys-domain into the human ORF2p reduces both L1 retrotransposition and Alu trans-mobilization by 200–1000 fold. The observed loss of ORF2p function is independent of the endonuclease or reverse transcriptase activities of ORF2p and RNA interaction required for reverse transcription. In addition, the loss of function is physically separate from the cysteine-rich motif sequence previously shown to be required for RNP formation. Our data suggest an additional role of the less characterized carboxy-terminus of the L1 ORF2 protein by demonstrating that this domain, in addition to mediating RNP interaction(s), provides an independent and required function for the retroelement amplification process. Our experiments show a functional modularity of most of the LINE sequences. However, divergent evolution of interactions within L1 has led to non-reciprocal incompatibilities between human and mouse ORF2 cys-domain sequences

Somatic mosaicism in neuronal precursor cells mediated by L1 retrotransposition

Revealing the mechanisms for neuronal somatic diversification remains a central challenge for understanding individual differences in brain organization and function. Here we show that an engineered human LINE-1 (for long interspersed nuclear element-1; also known as L1) element can retrotranspose in neuronal precursors derived from rat hippocampus neural stem cells. The resulting retrotransposition events can alter the expression of neuronal genes, which, in turn, can influence neuronal cell fate in vitro. We further show that retrotransposition of a human L1 in transgenic mice results in neuronal somatic mosaicism. The molecular mechanism of action is probably mediated through Sox2, because a decrease in Sox2 expression during the early stages of neuronal differentiation is correlated with increases in both L1 transcription and retrotransposition. Our data therefore indicate that neuronal genomes might not be static, but some might be mosaic because of de novo L1 retrotransposition events.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/62714/1/nature03663.pd

Intronic L1 Retrotransposons and Nested Genes Cause Transcriptional Interference by Inducing Intron Retention, Exonization and Cryptic Polyadenylation

Transcriptional interference has been recently recognized as an unexpectedly complex and mostly negative regulation of genes. Despite a relatively few studies that emerged in recent years, it has been demonstrated that a readthrough transcription derived from one gene can influence the transcription of another overlapping or nested gene. However, the molecular effects resulting from this interaction are largely unknown.Using in silico chromosome walking, we searched for prematurely terminated transcripts bearing signatures of intron retention or exonization of intronic sequence at their 3' ends upstream to human L1 retrotransposons, protein-coding and noncoding nested genes. We demonstrate that transcriptional interference induced by intronic L1s (or other repeated DNAs) and nested genes could be characterized by intron retention, forced exonization and cryptic polyadenylation. These molecular effects were revealed from the analysis of endogenous transcripts derived from different cell lines and tissues and confirmed by the expression of three minigenes in cell culture. While intron retention and exonization were comparably observed in introns upstream to L1s, forced exonization was preferentially detected in nested genes. Transcriptional interference induced by L1 or nested genes was dependent on the presence or absence of cryptic splice sites, affected the inclusion or exclusion of the upstream exon and the use of cryptic polyadenylation signals.Our results suggest that transcriptional interference induced by intronic L1s and nested genes could influence the transcription of the large number of genes in normal as well as in tumor tissues. Therefore, this type of interference could have a major impact on the regulation of the host gene expression

Impact of non-LTR retrotransposons in the differentiation and evolution of anatomically modern humans

Background: Transposable elements are biologically important components of eukaryote genomes. In particular, non-LTR retrotransposons (N-LTRrs) played a key role in shaping the human genome throughout evolution. In this study, we compared retrotransposon insertions differentially present in the genomes of Anatomically Modern Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and Chimpanzees, in order to assess the possible impact of retrotransposition in the differentiation of the human lineage. Results: We first identified species-specific N-LTRrs and established their distribution in present day human populations. These analyses shortlisted a group of N-LTRr insertions that were found exclusively in Anatomically Modern Humans. These insertions are associated with an increase in the number of transcriptional/splicing variants of those genes they inserted in. The analysis of the functionality of genes containing human-specific N-LTRr insertions reflects changes that occurred during human evolution. In particular, the expression of genes containing the most recent N-LTRr insertions is enriched in the brain, especially in undifferentiated neurons, and these genes associate in networks related to neuron maturation and migration. Additionally, we identified candidate N-LTRr insertions that have likely produced new functional variants exclusive to modern humans, whose genomic loci show traces of positive selection. Conclusions: Our results strongly suggest that N-LTRr impacted our differentiation as a species, most likely inducing an increase in neural complexity, and have been a constant source of genomic variability all throughout the evolution of the human lineage

The impact of transposable element activity on therapeutically relevant human stem cells

Human stem cells harbor significant potential for basic and clinical translational research as well as regenerative medicine. Currently ~ 3000 adult and ~ 30 pluripotent stem cell-based, interventional clinical trials are ongoing worldwide, and numbers are increasing continuously. Although stem cells are promising cell sources to treat a wide range of human diseases, there are also concerns regarding potential risks associated with their clinical use, including genomic instability and tumorigenesis concerns. Thus, a deeper understanding of the factors and molecular mechanisms contributing to stem cell genome stability are a prerequisite to harnessing their therapeutic potential for degenerative diseases. Chemical and physical factors are known to influence the stability of stem cell genomes, together with random mutations and Copy Number Variants (CNVs) that accumulated in cultured human stem cells. Here we review the activity of endogenous transposable elements (TEs) in human multipotent and pluripotent stem cells, and the consequences of their mobility for genomic integrity and host gene expression. We describe transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms antagonizing the spread of TEs in the human genome, and highlight those that are more prevalent in multipotent and pluripotent stem cells. Notably, TEs do not only represent a source of mutations/CNVs in genomes, but are also often harnessed as tools to engineer the stem cell genome; thus, we also describe and discuss the most widely applied transposon-based tools and highlight the most relevant areas of their biomedical applications in stem cells. Taken together, this review will contribute to the assessment of the risk that endogenous TE activity and the application of genetically engineered TEs constitute for the biosafety of stem cells to be used for substitutive and regenerative cell therapiesS.R.H. and P.T.R. are funded by the Government of Spain (MINECO, RYC-2016- 21395 and SAF2015–71589-P [S.R.H.]; PEJ-2014-A-31985 and SAF2015–71589- P [P.T.R.]). GGS is supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of the Federal Republic of Germany (FKZ2518FSB403)

The Microprocessor controls the activity of mammalian retrotransposons

More than half of the human genome is made of transposable elements whose ongoing mobilization is a driving force in genetic diversity; however, little is known about how the host regulates their activity. Here, we show that the Microprocessor (Drosha-DGCR8), which is required for microRNA biogenesis, also recognizes and binds RNAs derived from human long interspersed element 1 (LINE-1), Alu and SVA retrotransposons. Expression analyses demonstrate that cells lacking a functional Microprocessor accumulate LINE-1 mRNA and encoded proteins. Furthermore, we show that structured regions of the LINE-1 mRNA can be cleaved in vitro by Drosha. Additionally, we used a cell culture–based assay to show that the Microprocessor negatively regulates LINE-1 and Alu retrotransposition in vivo. Altogether, these data reveal a new role for the Microprocessor as a post-transcriptional repressor of mammalian retrotransposons and a defender of human genome integrity.S.R.H. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship and a Marie Curie CIG-Grant (PCIG10-GA-2011-303812). M.P. and E.E. were supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science (BIO2011-23920) and by the Sandra Ibarra Foundation (CSD2009-00080). M.P. is supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. J.L.G.-P. is supported by FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRG, CICE-FEDER-P09-CTS-4980, PeS-FEDER-PI-002, FIS-FEDER-PI11/01489 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (IECS-55007420). J.F.C. was supported by Core funding from the Medical Research Council and by the Wellcome Trust (grant 095518/B/11/Z)