Yeast RNA degradation factors and its human homologs.
Abstract
Amount of mRNA depends on the both the rates of mRNA transcription in the nucleus and mRNA degradation in the cytoplasm. Although each of the processes was studied independently, recent studies demonstrated the interplay between transcription and mRNA degradation in various cellular processes, such as cell-cycle, cellular differentiation, and stress responses. In this review, we discuss the benefit of the interplay in the gene expressions and the mechanisms how these two processes are coupled. We also review recent genome-wide methods to measure the rates of transcription and degradation.
Keywords
- RNA degradation
- transcription factor
- RNA binding proteins
- synthegradase
- RNA buffering
- mRNA imprinting
- NGS
1. Introduction
Gene expression involves multiple processes such as the transcription, translation, and degradation of messenger RNAs (mRNAs). Each of these processes was studied independently. In the nucleus, RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) and various transcription factors are recruited to the promoter of protein-coding genes to initiate transcription [1, 2]. Nascent mRNA is co-transcriptionally capped at 5′-end [3, 4], spliced [5], and matured at the 3′-end [6] ( Figure 1 ). During these post-transcriptional modifications, every transcript is associated with various RNA-binding proteins (RBPs), forming large ribonucleoprotein complexes (mRNPs). This mRNP assembly process is subject to quality control by nuclear surveillance mechanisms [7, 8]. After the quality control, mRNPs are transported to cytoplasm.
In the cytoplasm, the translationally inactive mRNPs would accumulate in P bodies or stress granules where mRNPs are degraded [9, 10] ( Figure 2 ). Degradation of the cytoplasmic mRNA is initiated by shortening of the poly(A) tail, which is called deadenylation. In yeast, this deadenylation is catalyzed either by Ccr4p/Pop2p/Not complex or by the Pan2p/Pan3p complex [11, 12]. After the deadenylation, the 5′-cap structure was removed by the concerted action of the decapping complex, Dcp1p/Dcp2p, which is stimulated by Pat1p, the Lsm1-7p, and Dhh1p [13, 14]. The decapping reaction exposes the 5′-monophosphate of the terminal residue, promoting the 5′ → 3′ degradation pathway by the major cytoplasmic exoribonuclease Xrn1p [15] ( Table 1 ).
Names in yeast | Human homologs | Function |
---|---|---|
Ccr4p | hCCR4 | Carbon catabolite repressor 4. Catalytic subunits of the complex |
Pop2p | CNOT7/CNOT8 | Also known as Caf1 (Ccr4 associated factor 1). Related to RNase D family |
Not | CNOT1 | Negative on TATA. A large scaffolding protein |
Pan2p | PAN2 | PolyA nuclease2. Contains a nuclease domain of the RNase D |
Pan3p | PAN3 | PolyA nuclease3. Co-factor of Pan2 |
Dcp1p | DCP1A/DCP1B | Decapping protein1, Co-activator |
Dcp2p | DCP2 | Decapping protein2. Catalytically active decapping enzyme |
Pat1p | PAT1A/PAT1B | Recruit Lsm1-7 to P-bodies to trigger decapping |
Lsm1-7p | LSM 1-7 | Seven Sm-like proteins. Deadenylation-dependent mRNA decapping factors |
Dhh1p | RCX/p54 | DEAD box helicase. ATP-dependent RNA helicase in mRNA decapping |
Xrn1p | XRN1/XRN2 | Major 5′-3′ Exoribonuclease1, requiring 5′ monophosphate |
The life of mRNA seems to be straightforward. However, recent studies have shown evidence of the interplay between transcription and degradation: transcription rate is regulated by decay factor; degradation rate is regulated by transcription factor and even by some promoters. This complex network enables cells to shape appropriate gene expression profiles during cell cycle processes, cellular differentiation, stress and immune responses [16, 17, 18].
2. Biological processes coupling transcription and decay
The functional connection between the transcription and degradation of mRNA shapes the characteristic patterns of gene expression. In this section, we introduce several examples of the coordination between transcription and degradation in various biological processes.
To respond to environmental cues, cells must switch their steady level of gene expression in a rapid and transient mode. This sharp rise of mRNAs can be efficiently achieved if the stabilization of transcripts enhances their transcription rates. An example for such functional coupling is observed in osmotic stress in
As abnormal gene expression is deleterious to living cells, it is critical to maintain steady levels of mRNA; hence, mRNA levels are said to be “buffered”. When genome-wide transcription was attenuated by mutating RNAPII of
Cross talk between mRNA synthesis and decay can also be gene specific. In budding yeast, stability of core histone mRNAs is temporally co-regulated with their transcription during the cell cycle. Entry into S phase showed rapid increase in their transcription, followed by a prompt decrease in their abundance right after exiting the S phase [26, 27, 28]. Similar to histone mRNAs, there should be numerous genes of which expression levels are regulated in a cell-cycle-dependent manner. By using DNA microarrays, Spellman et al. found that about 800 genes are cell cycle regulated, which correspond to 10% of all protein-coding genes in yeast genome [29]. The mechanism for how cells coordinate the characteristic and integrated expression pattern during cell-cycle is not fully understood.
Interestingly, a functional coupling between the transcription and degradation was exploited by herpes virus [30]. Gamma-herpesviruses encode a cytoplasmic endonuclease, SOX, which cleaves cellular mRNAs. These cleaved fragments are subsequently degraded by the cellular exonuclease Xrn1. This accelerated decay triggered the repression of RNAPII transcription rate. The findings suggest that mammalian cells can sense broad alternation in RNA degradation. It is not the initial cleavages by SOX that are detected, but rather the increased activity of cellular Xrn1 that generates a transcriptional response. Furthermore, the viral mRNAs escaped the degradation induced transcriptional repression, and this escape requires Xrn1. The opposing roles for Xrn1 in the host and viral transcriptional response may indicate that herpesviruses have evolved to benefit from this intrinsic feedback mechanism.
3. Mechanism underlying coupling transcription and decay
The mechanism underlying transcription in the nucleus affects mRNA decay in the cytoplasm and vice versa is intensively studied in
3.1. cis -acting elements
mRNA contains 5′ untranslated region (UTR) and 3′UTR outside the coding region. These two UTR regulate the fate of mRNAs. Here we discuss how the transcription of 3′UTR regulates its length, and thus causes the modification of mRNA stability.
3.1.1. 3
′
UTR
The turnover of an mRNA is mostly regulated by
3.1.2. Promoter regulates mRNA stability
Surprisingly, several reports showed that promoter regions also affect mRNA degradation after the mRNA leaves the nucleus. The first report of promoter-regulated mRNA stability was published in 1993. This study showed that swapping of the β-globin promoter in HeLa cells to that of the Herpes simplex virus 1 thymidine kinase (HSV1-TK) stabilizes a nonsense mutation in the mRNA, while this effect was not observed with the replacement for the CMV promoter [46]. A problem in this study was that the authors cannot rule out the possibility that different amounts of mature β-globin mRNAs may be caused by the different efficiencies of the splicing. This problem can be avoided by targeting genes without introns.
In 2011, two studies in the
A second example is the study about cell cycle-regulated decay in yeast cells using single molecule fluorescence
Although these two works are focused on specific genes, Dori-Bachash et al. extended to the genome-wide scale [50]. They demonstrated that swapping UAS between two yeast species affected both transcription and degradation. Adjacent yeast genes sharing a common promoter displayed similar mRNA decay rates, which also indicated that promoters couple transcription and degradation. Notably, similar coordination between transcription and degradation were found in mouse and human models. Because the diverse genes and regulatory elements were associated with promoter-regulated coordination, this phenomenon could be generated by genome-wide mechanisms of gene regulation.
3.2. trans -acting proteins
3.2.1. Rpb4 and Rpb7
To date, the best characterized
3.2.2. Snf1
Snf1p is the yeast ortholog of human AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) involved in diverse stress environments [58, 59, 60]. Recent studies also revealed that Snf1p is related to posttranscriptional regulation. Culturing yeast in glucose-containing growth medium represses Snf1-dependent transcription of target genes and promotes mRNA degradation of the corresponding mRNAs, which is called glucose-induced decay of mRNA [61, 62]. In low glucose concentrations, Snf1 activates the transcription of glucose-induced genes required for energy metabolism. In contrast, when glucose concentration is high, termination of transcription and activation of the degradation of the glucose-induced transcripts occur, resulting in rapid reduction of mRNA levels. Braun et al. fused nonglucose-responsive genes
3.3. mRNA decay factors modulating transcription
Currently, two mRNA decay factors are proposed to regulate the transcription: Ccr4p/Pop2p/Not complex (deadenylase) and Xrn1p (exoribonuclease). Ccr4p/Pop2p/Not complex is deadenylase, catalyzing the initial deadenylation step of polyadenylated mRNAs prior to their decapping. Historically, Ccr4p, the major catalytic subunit, was initially discovered as an activator of transcription [65, 66], rather than deadenylase [67]. Other studies showed that Not proteins repress the transcription of TATA-less promoter [68, 69]. Furthermore, the Ccr4/Not complex was involved in transcription elongation by interacting with RNAPII [25, 70]. Although numerous studies indicate the bifunctional aspect of Ccr4p/Pop2p/Not complex in posttranscriptional regulation, no study, to our knowledge, has focused on the cross-talk between mRNA synthesis and degradation. To reveal the whole picture of the complex, further investigations are necessary.
Xrn1 targets cytoplasmic RNA substrates marked by a decapped 5′ monophosphate for further 5′-to’3′ degradation [71, 72, 73]. In 2013, two studies revealed the functional role of Xrn1p in the crosstalk between transcription and degradation. Haimovich et al. performed serial experiments that suggest the direct role of Xrn1 in transcription [25]. First, Xrn1p shuttled between the cytoplasm and the nucleus in a manner dependent on mRNA degradation. Second, GRO-seq data demonstrated that the densities of active Pol II are affected by deleting Xrn1p or by mutating its active site. A similar result was also confirmed by single-cell FISH. Third, the whole-genome-binding feature of Xrn1p showed that Xrn1p binds to promoters of genes of which transcription is highly affected by Xrn1p disruption, suggesting that promoter binding is a transcriptional function. Fourth, inhibition of Xrn1p accumulated transcriptionally incompetent Pol II at the nascent mRNAs. This result suggested that Xrn1p functions in transcription elongation. Therefore, the researchers concluded that Xrn1 is an essential factor for mRNA synthesis-degradation coupling, and referred to Xrn1p as “synthegradosome.” The report published by Sun et al. showed that depletion of Xrn1p caused a global activation of mRNA transcription monitored by comparative dynamic transcriptome analysis (cDTA) [23]. They also searched for nuclear factors, which repress mRNA transcription by Xrn1, and identified transcription repressor Nrg1 as the downstream of Xrn1. Increase in mRNA degradation rates are compensated by an increase in mRNA transcription, suggesting that overall mRNA levels are “buffered”. This study showed that Xrn1p was required for the RNA buffering. As summarized above, the two studies reached different conclusions regarding the consequences of deleting or inactivating Xrn1p. From these results, we may conclude that Xrn1p is related to coupling mRNA synthesis and degradation; however, the mechanism of this interplay is still unresolved.
4. Direct measurements for transcription and degradation rates at the genome-wide level
The difficulty in studying the interplay between transcription and degradation is in measuring the kinetics of the processes, especially at the genome-wide level. Recent advances in RNA-seq technologies enable us to determine the rate of transcription and/or degradation.
4.1. BRIC-seq
RNA stabilities are measured by the decrease in RNA after inhibiting transcription [74, 75, 76]. However, transcription affects degradation rates, as discussed previously, which obscure the native half-lives of transcripts. Tani et al. developed an inhibitor-free method termed 5′ Bromo-uridine (BrU) Immunoprecipitation Chase-deep sequencing analysis (BRIC-seq) [77, 78]. BRIC-seq applies BrU for metabolic labeling of endogenous transcripts. After removing BrU from the medium, total RNAs are then isolated from the cells at sequential time points. BrUs-labeled RNAs are purified through immunopurification by using BrU antibody. The half-life of each transcript is calculated from the decreasing amount of BrU-RNA measured by RNA-seq ( Figure 5 ).
4.2. GRO-seq, PRO-seq, NET-seq
Global Run-On sequencing (GRO-seq) was developed to measure transcription rate. GRO-seq maps the genome-wide positions, amounts and orientation of transcriptionally engaged RNAP [79, 80]. In GRO-seq, transcription is inhibited in living cells, and then reinitiated in isolated nuclei under conditions that allow labeling of nascent transcripts (nuclear run-on) with BrU. Capturing nascent transcripts from active RNAP provides a direct synthesis rate of the transcription. Similar to GRO-seq, precision nuclear run-on sequencing (PRO-seq) maps the location of active RNAP at base pair resolution [81]. PRO-seq uses biotin-labeled NTP (biotin-NTP) during the nuclear run-on procedure. Addition of only one of the four biotin NTPs restricts RNAP to incorporating a single or a few identical bases, resulting in sequence reads that have the same 3′ end base within each library. Native elongating transcript sequencing (NET-seq) can also obtain a nascent transcription profile with single-nucleotide resolution [82, 83, 84]. In NET-seq, nascent RNA was detected in the active site of RNAP by immunoprecipitation of FLAG-tagged RNAP.
4.3. 4sU-seq and TT-seq
Here we would like to introduce two methods that can determine the kinetics of both transcription and degradation. These two technologies will advance the study of the interplay between transcription and degradation. Rabani et al. combined pulse labeling of mRNA with 4sU and computational modeling to estimate RNA transcription and degradation rates [85]. Newly transcribed RNA (4sU-labeled RNA) contains nascent RNA transcribed during the labeling pulse. When the labeling time is sufficiently short, the 4sU-labeled RNA is still in the nucleus, reflecting the average transcription rate. A computational model separates the RNA levels into transcription and degradation, and thus estimates the degradation rates from the experimental results of total RNA level and transcription rate.
The disadvantage of 4sU-seq is that it fails to map transcripts uniformly, because only a short 3′ region of nascent transcripts is labeled with 4sU, and long pre-existing 5′ regions dominate the RNA-seq data. To overcome this 5′ bias, transient transcriptome sequencing (TT-seq) fragments the 4sU-RNA before isolation. This fragmentation permits the immunoprecipitation of only newly transcribed 4sU-RNA fragments. Notably, TT-seq monitors RNA synthesis, whereas GRO-seq, PRO-seq, and NET-seq detect RNAs attached to RNAPs. Furthermore, TT-seq can determine transcription termination sites because TT-seq detected transient RNA downstream of the polyadenylation site.
5. Conclusion
The balance between mRNA transcription and decay determines the mRNA levels, which is a key aspect in the gene regulation. The study of interplay between transcription and decay is only the beginning. Our knowledge is still limited to the specific signaling pathway in yeast. As described in chapter 4, genome-wide analysis of transcription and decay will provide a comprehensive view of the interplay. Moreover, it will be critically important to verify the coupling of transcription and decay in mammalian system because mammalian cells contain numerous RBPs with defined roles in mRNA decay. It would be interesting to determine whether any of these RBPs also regulate transcription. It is a well-known fact that aberrant regulation of gene expression causes serious diseases. Therefore, studying the interplay between transcription and decay in mammalian cells will be beneficial for understanding diseases with defects in RNA expression levels.
References
- 1.
Koleske, Young. An RNA polymerase II holoenzyme responsive to activators. Nature. 1994; 368 (6470):466-469. DOI: 10.1038/368466a0 - 2.
Orphanides G, Lagrange T, Reinberg D. The general transcription factors of RNA polymerase II. Genes & Development. 1996; 10 :2657-2683 - 3.
Shuman. Structure, mechanism, and evolution of the mRNA capping apparatus. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology. 2001; 66 :1-40 - 4.
Shatkin AJ. Capping of eucaryotic mRNAs. Cell. 1976; 9 (4):645-653. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(76)90128-8 - 5.
Matera G, Wang Z. A day in the life of the spliceosome. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2014; 15 (2):108-121. DOI: 10.1038/nrm3742 - 6.
Sarkar N. Polyadenylation of mRNA in prokaryotes. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1997; 66 :173-197. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.66.1.173 - 7.
Jensen T, Dower K, Libri D, Rosbash M. Early formation of mRNP license for export or quality control? Molecular Cell. 2003; 11 (5):1129-1138. DOI: 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00191-6 - 8.
Stutz F, Izaurralde E. The interplay of nuclear mRNP assembly, mRNA surveillance and export. Trends in Cell Biology. 2003; 13 (6):319-327. DOI: 10.1016/S0962-8924(03)00106-5 - 9.
Balagopal V, Parker R. Polysomes, P bodies and stress granules: States and fates of eukaryotic mRNAs. Current Opinion in Cell Biology. 2009; 21 (3):403-408. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceb.2009.03.005 - 10.
Decker C, Parker R. P-bodies and stress granules: Possible roles in the control of translation and mRNA degradation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2012; 4 (9):a012286. DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012286 - 11.
Collart M. Global control of gene expression in yeast by the Ccr4-not complex. Gene. 2003; 313 :1-16. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1119(03)00672-3 - 12.
Schäfer I, Rode M, Bonneau F, Schüssler S, Conti E. The structure of the Pan2–Pan3 core complex reveals cross-talk between deadenylase and pseudokinase. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2014; 21 (7):591-598. DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.2834 - 13.
Song M-G, Li Y, Kiledjian M. Multiple mRNA decapping enzymes in mammalian cells. Molecular Cell. 2010; 40 (3):423-432. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.10.010 - 14.
Arribas-Layton M, Wu D, Lykke-Andersen J, Song H. Structural and functional control of the eukaryotic mRNA decapping machinery. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 2013; 1829 (6-7):580-589. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2012.12.006 - 15.
Medina D et al. Cytoplasmic 5′-3′ exonuclease Xrn1p is also a genome-wide transcription factor in yeast. Frontiers in Genetics. 2014; 5 :1. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00001 - 16.
Haimovich G, Choder M, Singer R, Trcek T. The fate of the messenger is pre-determined: A new model for regulation of gene expression. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 2013; 1829 (6-7):643-653. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2013.01.004 - 17.
Braun, Young. Coupling mRNA synthesis and decay. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2014; 34 (22):4078-4087. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00535-14 - 18.
Das S, Sarkar D, Das B. The interplay between transcription and mRNA degradation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Microbial Cell. 2017;4 (7):212-228. DOI: 10.15698/mic2017.07.580 - 19.
Romero-Santacreu L, Moreno J, Pérez-Ortín JEE, Alepuz P. Specific and global regulation of mRNA stability during osmotic stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . RNA. 2009;15 :1110-1120 - 20.
Marguerat S, Lawler K, Brazma A, Bähler J. Contributions of transcription and mRNA decay to gene expression dynamics of fission yeast in response to oxidative stress. RNA Biology. 2014; 11 :702-714 - 21.
Castells-Roca L, García-Martínez J, Moreno J. Heat shock response in yeast involves changes in both transcription rates and mRNA stabilities. PLoS One. 2011; 6 (2):e17272. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017272 - 22.
Shalem O, Dahan O, Levo M. Transient transcriptional responses to stress are generated by opposing effects of mRNA production and degradation. Molecular Systems Biology. 2008; 4 :223. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2008.59 - 23.
Sun M, Schwalb B, Pirkl N, Maier KC, Schenk A. Global analysis of eukaryotic mRNA degradation reveals Xrn1-dependent buffering of transcript levels. Molecular Cell. 2013; 52 (1):52-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.09.010 - 24.
Sun M, Schwalb B, Schulz D, Pirkl N, Etzold S. Comparative dynamic transcriptome analysis (cDTA) reveals mutual feedback between mRNA synthesis and degradation. Genome Research. 2012; 22 (7):1350-1359. DOI: 10.1101/gr.130161.111 - 25.
Haimovich G, Medina DA, Causse SZ, Garber M. Gene expression is circular: Factors for mRNA degradation also foster mRNA synthesis. Cell. 2013; 153 (5):1000-1011. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.012 - 26.
Marzluff WF, Wagner EJ, Duronio RJ. Metabolism and regulation of canonical histone mRNAs: Life without a poly (a) tail. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2008; 9 (11):843-854. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2438 - 27.
Hereford LM, Osley MA, Ludwig JR, McLaughlin CS. Cell-cycle regulation of yeast histone mRNA. Cell. 1981; 24 (2):367-375. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(81)90326-3 - 28.
Marzluff WF, Duronio RJ. Histone mRNA expression: Multiple levels of cell cycle regulation and important developmental consequences. Current Opinion in Cell Biology. 2002; 4 (6):692-699. DOI: 10.1016/S0955-0674(02)00387-3 - 29.
Spellman PT, Sherlock G, Zhang MQ. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle–regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 1998;9 (12):3273-3297. DOI: 10.1091/mbc.9.12.3273 - 30.
Abernathy E, Gilbertson S, Alla R, Glaunsinger B. Viral nucleases induce an mRNA degradation-transcription feedback loop in mammalian cells. Cell Host & Microbe. 2015; 18 (2):243-253. DOI: 10.1016/j.chom.2015.06.019 - 31.
Garneau NL, Wilusz J. The highways and byways of mRNA decay. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2007; 8 (2):113-126. DOI: 10.1038/nrm2104 - 32.
Xie X, Lu J, Kulbokas EJ, Golub TR, Mootha V. Systematic discovery of regulatory motifs in human promoters and 3′ UTRs by comparison of several mammals. Nature. 2005; 434 (7031):338-345. DOI: 10.1038/nature03441 - 33.
Jackson RJ, Standart N. Do the poly (a) tail and 3′ untranslated region control mRNA translation? Cell. 1990; 62 (1):15-24. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90235-7 - 34.
Chen C, Shyu AB. AU-rich elements: Characterization and importance in mRNA degradation. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 1995; 20 (11):465-470. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-0004(00)89102-1 - 35.
Jing Q, Huang S, Guth S, Zarubin T, Motoyama A. Involvement of microRNA in AU-rich element-mediated mRNA instability. Cell. 2005; 120 (5):623-634. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.038 - 36.
Kim HH, Gorospe M. GU-rich RNA: Expanding CUGBP1 function, broadening mRNA turnover. Molecular Cell. 2008; 29 (2):151-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.01.005 - 37.
Wickens M, Bernstein DS, Kimble J, Parker R. A PUF family portrait: 3′ UTR regulation as a way of life. Trends in Genetics. 2002; 18 (3):150-157. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-9525(01)02616-6 - 38.
Huntzinger E, Izaurralde E. Gene silencing by microRNAs: Contributions of translational repression and mRNA decay. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2011; 12 (2):99-110. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2936 - 39.
Lai EC, Micro RNA. Are complementary to 3′ UTR sequence motifs that mediate negative post-transcriptional regulation. Nature Genetics. 2002; 30 (4):363-364. DOI: 10.1038/ng865 - 40.
Dreyfus M, Régnier P. The poly (a) tail of mRNAs: Bodyguard in eukaryotes, scavenger in bacteria. Cell. 2002; 111 (5):611-613. DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01137-6 - 41.
Giammartino DD, Nishida K, Manley JL. Mechanisms and consequences of alternative polyadenylation. Molecular Cell. 2011; 43 (6):853-866. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.017 - 42.
Lutz CS, Moreira A. Alternative mRNA polyadenylation in eukaryotes: An effective regulator of gene expression. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA. 2011; 2 (1):23-31. DOI: 10.1002/wrna.47 - 43.
Ozsolak F, Kapranov P, Foissac S, Kim SW. Comprehensive polyadenylation site maps in yeast and human reveal pervasive alternative polyadenylation. Cell. 2010; 143 (6):1018-1029. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.020 - 44.
Hoque M et al. Analysis of alternative cleavage and polyadenylation by 3′ region extraction and deep sequencing. Nature Methods. 2013; 10 (2):133-139. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2288 - 45.
Geisberg JV, Moqtaderi Z, Fan X, Ozsolak F, Struhl K. Global analysis of mRNA isoform half-lives reveals stabilizing and destabilizing elements in yeast. Cell. 2014; 156 (4):812-824. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.12.026 - 46.
Enssle J, Kugler W, Hentze MW. Determination of mRNA fate by different RNA polymerase II promoters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in U.S.A. 1993; 90 (21):10091-10095 - 47.
Bregman A, Avraham-Kelbert M, Barkai O, Duek L. Promoter elements regulate cytoplasmic mRNA decay. Cell. 2011; 147 (7):1473-1483. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.005 - 48.
Trcek T, Larson DR, Moldón A, Query CC, Singer RH. Single-molecule mRNA decay measurements reveal promoter-regulated mRNA stability in yeast. Cell. 2011; 147 (7):1473-1483. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.005 - 49.
Liu HY, Toyn JH, Chiang YC, Draper MP. DBF2, a cell cycle-regulated protein kinase, is physically and functionally associated with the CCR4 transcriptional regulatory complex. The EMBO Journal. 1997; 16 (17):5289-5298. DOI: 10.1093/emboj/16.17.5289 - 50.
Dori-Bachash M, Shalem O. Widespread promoter-mediated coordination of transcription and mRNA degradation. Genome Biology. 2012; 13 (12):R114. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-12-r114 - 51.
Choder M. mRNA imprinting: Additional level in the regulation of gene expression. Cellular Logistics. 2011; 1 (1):37-40. DOI: 10.4161/cl.1.1.14465 - 52.
Újvári A, Luse DS. RNA emerging from the active site of RNA polymerase II interacts with the Rpb7 subunit. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2006; 13 (1):49-54. DOI: 10.1038/nsmb1026 - 53.
Chen CY, Chang CC, Yen CF. Mapping RNA exit channel on transcribing RNA polymerase II by FRET analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in U.S.A. 2009; 106 (1):127-132. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0811689106 - 54.
Selitrennik M, Duek L, Lotan R, Choder M. Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of the Rpb4p and Rpb7p subunits of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae RNA polymerase II by two pathways. Eukaryotic Cell. 2006; 5 (12):2092-2103. DOI: 10.1128/EC.00288-06 - 55.
Lotan R, Goler-Baron V, Duek L, Haimovich G. The Rpb7p subunit of yeast RNA polymerase II plays roles in the two major cytoplasmic mRNA decay mechanisms. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2007; 178 (7):1133-1143. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200701165 - 56.
Lotan R, Bar-On VG, Harel-Sharvit L. The RNA polymerase II subunit Rpb4p mediates decay of a specific class of mRNAs. Genes & Development. 2005; 19 (24):3004-3016 - 57.
Goler-Baron V, Selitrennik M, Barkai O. Transcription in the nucleus and mRNA decay in the cytoplasm are coupled processes. Genes & Development. 2008; 22 (15):2022-2027. DOI: 10.1101/gad.473608 - 58.
Dichtl B, Stevens A, Tollervey D. Lithium toxicity in yeast is due to the inhibition of RNA processing enzymes. The EMBO Journal. 1997; 16 (23):7184-7195. DOI: 10.1093/emboj/16.23.7184 - 59.
Portillo F, Mulet JM, Serrano R. A role for the non-phosphorylated form of yeast Snf1: Tolerance to toxic cations and activation of potassium transport. FEBS Letters. 2005; 579 (2):512-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.12.019 - 60.
DeRisi J, Iyer V, Brown P. Exploring the metabolic and genetic control of gene expression on a genomic scale. Science. 1997; 278 (5338):680-686. DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5338.680 - 61.
Cereghino, Atencio, Saghbini, Beiner, Scheffler. Glucose-dependent turnover of the mRNAs encoding succinate dehydrogenase peptides in Saccharomyces cerevisiae : Sequence elements in the 5′ untranslated region of the Ip mRNA play a dominant role. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 1995;6 (9):1125-1143. DOI: 10.1091/mbc.6.9.1125 - 62.
Scheffler I, de la Cruz B, Prieto S. Control of mRNA turnover as a mechanism of glucose repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. 1998;30 (11):1175-1193. DOI: 10.1016/S1357-2725(98)00086-7 - 63.
Braun KA, Dombek KM, Young ET. Snf1-dependent transcription confers glucose-induced decay upon the mRNA product. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2016; 36 (4):628-644. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00436-15 - 64.
Braun KA, Vaga S, Dombek KM, Fang F. Phosphoproteomic analysis identifies proteins involved in transcription-coupled mRNA decay as targets of Snf1 signaling. Science Signaling. 2014; 7 (333):ra64. DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.2005000 - 65.
Denis CL. Identification of new genes involved in the regulation of yeast alcohol dehydrogenase II. Genetics. 1984; 108 (4):833-844 - 66.
Draper MP, Liu HY, Nelsbach AH. CCR4 is a glucose-regulated transcription factor whose leucine-rich repeat binds several proteins important for placing CCR4 in its proper promoter context. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 1994; 14 (7):4522-4531 - 67.
Tucker M, Valencia-Sanchez MA, Staples RR, Chen J. The transcription factor associated Ccr4 and Caf1 proteins are components of the major cytoplasmic mRNA deadenylase in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Cell. 2001; 104 (3):377-386. DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00225-2 - 68.
Collart MA, Struhl K. NOT1 (CDC39), NOT2 (CDC36), NOT3, and NOT4 encode a global-negative regulator of transcription that differentially affects TATA-element utilization. Genes & Development. 1994; 8 :525-537. DOI: 10.1101/gad.8.5.525 - 69.
Collart MA. The NOT, SPT3, and MOT1 genes functionally interact to regulate transcription at core promoters. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 1996; 16 (12):6668-6676. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.16.12.6668 - 70.
Denis CL, Chiang YC, Cui Y, Chen J. Genetic evidence supports a role for the yeast CCR4-NOT complex in transcriptional elongation. Genetics. 2001; 158 (2):627-634 - 71.
Nagarajan VK, Jones CI, Newbury SF, Green PJ. XRN 5 3 exoribonucleases: Structure, mechanisms and functions. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 2013; 1829 :590-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2013.03.005 - 72.
Chang JH, Xiang S, Xiang K, Manley JL. Structural and biochemical studies of the 5′→ 3′ exoribonuclease Xrn1. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2011; 8 (3):270-276. DOI: 10.1038/nsmb.1984 - 73.
Jinek M, Coyle SM, Doudna JA. Coupled 5′ nucleotide recognition and processivity in Xrn1-mediated mRNA decay. Molecular Cell. 2011; 41 (5):600-608. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.02.004 - 74.
Molin C, Jauhiainen A, Warringer J, Nerman O, Sunnerhagen P. mRNA stability changes precede changes in steady-state mRNA amounts during hyperosmotic stress. RNA. 2009; 15 (4):600-614. DOI: 10.1261/rna.1403509 - 75.
Chen C-Y, Ezzeddine N, Shyu A-B, Messenger RNA. Half-life measurements in mammalian cells. Methods in Enzymology. 2008; 448 :335-357. DOI: 10.1016/s0076-6879(08)02617-7 - 76.
Grigull J, Mnaimneh S, Pootoolal J, Robinson M, Hughes T. Genome-wide analysis of mRNA stability using transcription inhibitors and microarrays reveals posttranscriptional control of ribosome biogenesis factors. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2004; 24 (12):5534-5547. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.24.12.5534-5547.2004 - 77.
Imamachi N et al. BRIC-seq: A genome-wide approach for determining RNA stability in mammalian cells. Methods. 2014; 67 (1):55-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.014 - 78.
Tani H et al. Genome-wide determination of RNA stability reveals hundreds of short-lived noncoding transcripts in mammals. Genome Research. 2012; 22 (5):947-956. DOI: 10.1101/gr.130559.111 - 79.
Gardini A. Global run-on sequencing (GRO-Seq). Enhancer RNAs: Methods and Protocols. 2017; 1468 :111-120. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-4035-6_9 - 80.
Core LJ, Waterfall JJ, Lis JT. Nascent RNA sequencing reveals widespread pausing and divergent initiation at human promoters. Science. 2008; 322 (5909):1845-1848. DOI: 10.1126/science.1162228 - 81.
Kwak H, Fuda NJ, Core LJ, Lis JT. Precise maps of RNA polymerase reveal how promoters direct initiation and pausing. Science. 2013; 339 (6122):950-953. DOI: 10.1126/science.1229386 - 82.
Mayer A et al. Native elongating transcript sequencing reveals human transcriptional activity at nucleotide resolution. Cell. 2015; 161 (3):541-554. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.010 - 83.
Churchman LS, Weissman JS. Nascent transcript sequencing visualizes transcription at nucleotide resolution. Nature. 2011; 469 (7330):368-373. DOI: 10.1038/nature09652 - 84.
Nojima T, Gomes T, Grosso A, Kimura H, Dye MJ. Mammalian NET-seq reveals genome-wide nascent transcription coupled to RNA processing. Cell. 2015; 161 (3):526-540. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.02 - 85.
Rabani M, Levin JZ, Fan L, Adiconis X. Metabolic labeling of RNA uncovers principles of RNA production and degradation dynamics in mammalian cells. Nature Biotechnology. 2011; 29 (5):436-442. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1861