Many LINE1 elements contribute to the transcriptome of human somatic cells

Over 600 LINE 1 elements are shown to be transcribed in humans; 400 of these are full-length elements in the reference genome

Differential distribution of a SINE element in the Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar genomes: Role of the LINE-encoded endonuclease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Entamoeba histolytica </it>and <it>Entamoeba dispar </it>are closely related protistan parasites but while <it>E. histolytica </it>can be invasive, <it>E. dispar </it>is completely non pathogenic. Transposable elements constitute a significant portion of the genome in these species; there being three families of LINEs and SINEs. These elements can profoundly influence the expression of neighboring genes. Thus their genomic location can have important phenotypic consequences. A genome-wide comparison of the location of these elements in the <it>E. histolytica </it>and <it>E. dispar </it>genomes has not been carried out. It is also not known whether the retrotransposition machinery works similarly in both species. The present study was undertaken to address these issues.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Here we extracted all genomic occurrences of full-length copies of EhSINE1 in the <it>E. histolytica </it>genome and matched them with the homologous regions in <it>E. dispar</it>, and vice versa, wherever it was possible to establish synteny. We found that only about 20% of syntenic sites were occupied by SINE1 in both species. We checked whether the different genomic location in the two species was due to differences in the activity of the LINE-encoded endonuclease which is required for nicking the target site. We found that the endonucleases of both species were essentially very similar, both in their kinetic properties and in their substrate sequence specificity. Hence the differential distribution of SINEs in these species is not likely to be influenced by the endonuclease. Further we found that the physical properties of the DNA sequences adjoining the insertion sites were similar in both species.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our data shows that the basic retrotransposition machinery is conserved in these sibling species. SINEs may indeed have occupied all of the insertion sites in the genome of the common ancestor of <it>E. histolytica </it>and <it>E. dispar </it>but these may have been subsequently lost from some locations. Alternatively, SINE expansion took place after the divergence of the two species. The absence of SINE1 in 80% of syntenic loci could affect the phenotype of the two species, including their pathogenic properties, which needs to be explored.</p

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

Effects of L1-ORF2 fragments on green fluorescent protein gene expression

The retrotransposon known as long interspersed nuclear element-1 (L1) is 6 kb long, although most L1s in mammalian and other eukaryotic cells are truncated. L1 contains two open reading frames, ORF1 and ORF2, that code for an RNA-binding protein and a protein with endonuclease and reverse transcriptase activities, respectively. In this work, we examined the effects of full length L1-ORF2 and ORF2 fragments on green fluorescent protein gene (GFP) expression when inserted into the pEGFP-C1 vector downstream of GFP. All of the ORF2 fragments in sense orientation inhibited GFP expression more than when in antisense orientation, which suggests that small ORF2 fragments contribute to the distinct inhibitory effects of this ORF on gene expression. These results provide the first evidence that different 280-bp fragments have distinct effects on the termination of gene transcription, and that when inserted in the antisense direction, fragment 280-9 (the 3' end fragment of ORF2) induces premature termination of transcription that is consistent with the effect of ORF2

Experimental evidence for splicing of intron-containing transcripts of plant LTR retrotransposon Ogre

Ogre elements are a distinct group of plant Ty3/gypsy-like retrotransposons characterized by several specific features, one of which is a separation of the gag-pol region into two non-overlapping open reading frames: ORF2 coding for Gag-Pro, and ORF3 coding for RT/RH-INT proteins. Previous characterization of Ogre elements from several plant species revealed that part of their transcripts lacks the region between ORF2 and ORF3, carrying one uninterrupted ORF instead. In this work, we investigated a hypothesis that this region represents an intron that is spliced out from part of the Ogre transcripts as a means for preferential production of ORF2-encoded proteins over those encoded by the complete ORF2–ORF3 region. The experiments involved analysis of transcription patterns of well-defined Ogre populations in a model plant Medicago truncatula and examination of transcripts carrying dissected pea Ogre intron expressed within a coding sequence of chimeric reporter gene. Both experimental approaches proved that the region between ORF2 and ORF3 is spliced from Ogre transcripts and showed that this process is only partial, probably due to weak splice signals. This is one of very few known cases of spliced LTR retrotransposons and the only one where splicing does not involve parts of the element’s coding sequences, thus resembling intron splicing found in most cellular genes

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

Alu pair exclusions in the human genome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The human genome contains approximately one million <it>Alu </it>elements which comprise more than 10% of human DNA by mass. <it>Alu </it>elements possess direction, and are distributed almost equally in positive and negative strand orientations throughout the genome. Previously, it has been shown that closely spaced <it>Alu </it>pairs in opposing orientation (inverted pairs) are found less frequently than <it>Alu </it>pairs having the same orientation (direct pairs). However, this imbalance has only been investigated for <it>Alu </it>pairs separated by 650 or fewer base pairs (bp) in a study conducted prior to the completion of the draft human genome sequence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We performed a comprehensive analysis of all (> 800,000) full-length <it>Alu </it>elements in the human genome. This large sample size permits detection of small differences in the ratio between inverted and direct <it>Alu </it>pairs (I:D). We have discovered a significant depression in the full-length <it>Alu </it>pair I:D ratio that extends to repeat pairs separated by ≤ 350,000 bp. Within this imbalance bubble (those <it>Alu </it>pairs separated by ≤ 350,000 bp), direct pairs outnumber inverted pairs. Using PCR, we experimentally verified several examples of inverted <it>Alu </it>pair exclusions that were caused by deletions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Over 50 million full-length <it>Alu </it>pairs reside within the I:D imbalance bubble. Their collective impact may represent one source of <it>Alu </it>element-related human genomic instability that has not been previously characterized.</p

Alu distribution and mutation types of cancer genes

Background: Alu elements are the most abundant retrotransposable elements comprising ~11% of the human genome. Many studies have highlighted the role that Alu elements have in genetic instability and how their contribution to the assortment of mutagenic events can lead to cancer. As of yet, little has been done to quantitatively assess the association between Alu distribution and genes that are causally implicated in oncogenesis.Results: We have investigated the effect of various Alu densities on the mutation type based classifications of cancer genes. In order to establish the direct relationship between Alus and the cancer genes of interest, genome wide Alu-related densities were measured using genes rather than the sliding windows of fixed length as the units. Several novel genomic features, such as the density of the adjacent Alu pairs and the number of Alu-Exon-Alu triplets, were developed in order to extend the investigation via the multivariate statistical analysis toward more advanced biological insight. In addition, we characterized the genome-wide intron Alu distribution with a mixture model that distinguished genes containing Alu elements from those with no Alus, and evaluated the gene-level effect of the 5\u27-TTAAAA motif associated with Alu insertion sites using a two-step regression analysis method.Conclusions: The study resulted in several novel findings worthy of further investigation. They include: (1) Recessive cancer genes (tumor suppressor genes) are enriched with Alu elements (p \u3c 0.01) compared to dominant cancer genes (oncogenes) and the entire set of genes in the human genome; (2) Alu-related genomic features can be used to cluster cancer genes into biological meaningful groups; (3) The retention of exon Alus has been restricted in the human genome development, and an upper limit to the chromosome-level exon Alu densities is suggested by the distribution profile; (4) For the genes with at least one intron Alu repeat in individual chromosomes, the intron Alu densities can be well fitted by a Gamma distribution; (5) The effect of the 5\u27-TTAAAA motif on Alu densities varies across different chromosomes

Epigenetic Repression of RARRES1 Is Mediated by Methylation of a Proximal Promoter and a Loss of CTCF Binding

The cis-acting promoter element responsible for epigenetic silencing of retinoic acid receptor responder 1 (RARRES1) by methylation is unclear. Likewise, how aberrant methylation interplays effectors and thus affects breast neoplastic features remains largely unknown.We first compared methylation occurring at the sequences (-664~+420) flanking the RARRES1 promoter in primary breast carcinomas to that in adjacent benign tissues. Surprisingly, tumor cores displayed significantly elevated methylation occurring solely at the upstream region (-664~-86), while the downstream element (-85~+420) proximal to the transcriptional start site (+1) remained largely unchanged. Yet, hypermethylation at the former did not result in appreciable silencing effect. In contrast, the proximal sequence displayed full promoter activity and methylation of which remarkably silenced RARRES1 transcription. This phenomenon was recapitulated in breast cancer cell lines, in which methylation at the proximal region strikingly coincided with downregulation. We also discovered that CTCF occupancy was enriched at the unmethylayed promoter bound with transcription-active histone markings. Furthermore, knocking-down CTCF expression hampered RARRES1 expression, suggesting CTCF positively regulated RARRES1 transcription presumably by binding to unmethylated promoter poised at transcription-ready state. Moreover, RARRES1 restoration not only impeded cell invasion but also promoted death induced by chemotherapeutic agents, denoting its tumor suppressive effect. Its role of attenuating invasion agreed with data generated from clinical specimens revealing that RARRES1 was generally downregulated in metastatic lymph nodes compared to the tumor cores.This report delineated silencing of RARRES1 by hypermethylation is occurring at a proximal promoter element and is associated with a loss of binding to CTCF, an activator for RARRES1 expression. We also revealed the tumor suppressive roles exerted by RARRES1 in part by promoting breast epithelial cell death and by impeding cell invasion that is an important property for metastatic spread