A Cell Biological Determination of Integrator Subunit Localization

Uridine-rich small nuclear (U snRNAs), with the exception of the U6 snRNA, are RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) transcripts. The mechanism of 3’ cleavage of snRNAs has been unknown until recently. This area was greatly advanced when 12 of the Integrator complex subunits (IntS) were purified in 2005 through their interaction with the C-terminal domain (CTD) of the large subunit (RpbI) of RNAPII. Subsequently, our lab performed a genome-wide RNAi screen that identified two more members of the complex that we have termed IntS13 and IntS14. We have determined that IntS9 and 11 mediate the 3’ cleavage of snRNAs, but the exact function of the other subunits remains unknown. However, through the use of a U7 snRNA-GFP reporter and RNAi knockdown of the Integrator subunits in Drosophila S2 cells, we have shown that all subunits are required for the proper processing of snRNAs, albeit to differing degrees. Because snRNA transcription takes place in the nucleus of the cell, it is expected that all of the Integrator subunits would exhibit nuclear localization, but the knowledge of discrete subnuclear localization (i.e. to Cajal bodies) of any of the subunits could provide important clues to the function of that subunit. In this study, we used a cell biological approach to determine the localization of the 14 Integrator subunits. We hypothesized that the majority of the subunits would be nuclear, however, a few would display distinct localization to the Cajal bodies, as this is where snRNA genes are localized and transcribed. The specific aims and results are: 1. To determine the subcellular localization of the 14 Integrator subunits. To accomplish this, mCherry and GFP tagged clones were generated for each of the 14 Drosophila and human Integrator subunits. Confocal microscopy studies revealed that the majority of the subunits were diffuse in the nucleus, however, IntS3 formed discrete subnuclear foci. Surprisingly, two of the subunits, IntS2 and 7 were observed in cytoplasmic foci. 2. To further characterize Integrator subunits with unique subcellular localizations. Colocalization studies with endogenous IntS3 and Cajal body marker, coilin, showed that these two proteins overlap, and from this we concluded that IntS3 localized to Cajal bodies. Additionally, colocalization studies with mCherry-tagged IntS2 and 7 and the P body marker, Dcp1, revealed that these proteins colocalize as well. IntS7, however, is more stable in cytoplasmic foci than Dcp1. It was also shown through RNAi knockdown of Integrator subunits, that the cytoplasmic localization of IntS2 and 7 is dependent on the expression of IntS1 and 11 in S2 cells.

Confocal analysis of synaptic connectivity of the rod pathway in the rabbit retina

The retina is a specialized neuronal structure that transforms the optical image into electrical signals which are transmitted to the brain via the optic nerve. As part of the strategy to cover a stimulus range as broad as 10 log units, from dim starlight to bright sunlight, retinal circuits are broadly divided into rod and cone pathways, responsible for dark and light-adapted vision, respectively. ^ In this dissertation, confocal microscopy and immunocytochemical methods were combined to study the synaptic connectivity of the rod pathway from the level of individual synapses to whole populations of neurons. The study was focused on synaptic interactions at the rod bipolar terminal. The purpose is to understand the synaptic structure of the dyad synapse made by rod bipolar terminals, including the synaptic components and connections, and their physiological functions in the rod pathway. In addition, some additional components and connections of the rod pathway were also studied in these experiments. The major results can be summarized as following: At the dyad synapse of rod bipolar terminals, three postsynaptic components—processes of All amacrine cells and the varicosities of S1 or S2 amacrine cells express different glutamate receptor subunits, which may underlie the functional diversity of these postsynaptic neurons. A reciprocal feedback system is formed by rod bipolar terminals and S1/S2 amacrine cells. Analysis showed these two wide-field GABA amacrine cells have stereotyped synaptic connections with the appropriate morphology and distribution to perform specific functions. In addition, S1 and S2 cells have different coupling patterns and, in general, there is no coupling between the two types. Besides the classic rod pathway though rod bipolar cells and All amacrine cells, the finding of direct connections between certain types of OFF cone bipolar cells and rods indicates the presence of an alternative rod pathway in the rabbit retina. ^ In summary, this dissertation presents a detailed view of the connection and receptors at rod bipolar terminals. Based on the morphology, distribution and coupling, different functional roles were identified for S1 and S2 amacrine cells. Finally, an alternative to the classic rod pathway was found in the rabbit retina. ^

Negative regulation of Drosophila Transformer2 by SR splicing factors

The Drosophila Transformer-2 (Tra2) protein activates the splicing of doublesex and fruitless pre-mRNA and represses M1 intron splicing in its own RNA in male germline. The M1 retention is part of negative feedback mechanism that controls Tra2 protein synthesis. However it is not known how the M1 intron is repressed or why Tra2 activates splicing of some RNAs while repressing splicing in others. Here we show that Tra2 and SR protein Rbp1 function together to specifically repress M1 splicing in vitro through the same intronic silencer by binding independently to distinct sites. The role of Rbp1 in M1 repression in vivo was validated by the finding that increased expression of Rbp1 in S2 cells promotes M1 retention. Furthermore, Tra2 blocks prespliceosomal A complex formation, a step corresponding to U2 snRNP recruitment to the branchpoint. High levels of Tra2 repression require an upstream enhancer. Together, we propose that the complex formed by Tra2 and Rbp1 on the silencer achieves splicing repression by blocking the recognition of the branchpoint or antagonizing enhancer function. ^ In addition, both splicing regulatory activities of Tra2 are essential developmental events, doublesex splicing is the key for Drosophila sex determination in the soma, while M1 retention occurs in the male germline and is necessary for spermatogenesis. However, active Tra2 is expressed ubiquitously. So another issue we have studied is how Tra2 accomplishes negative and positive splicing regulation in a tissue-specific fashion. Surprisingly, we found that nuclear extract from somatically-derived S2 cells support M1 repression in vitro. This led us to hypothesize that no germline specific factor is required and that high levels of Tra2 expression in the male germline is sufficient to trigger M1 retention. To test it, I examined whether increased expression of Tra2 could promote M1 retention in cells outside male germline. My results show that increased Tra2 expression promotes M1 retention in somatically-derived S2 cells as well as in the somatic tissues of living flies. These results show that somatic tissues are capable of supporting M1 repression but do not normally do so because the low levels of Tra2 do not trigger negative feedback regulation. ^

GENETIC INTERACTIONS OF FACTORS THAT REGULATE ALTERNATIVE RNA SPLICING IN THE MALE GERM LINE OF DROSOPHILA

Alternative RNA splicing is a critical process that contributes variety to protein functions, and further controls cell differentiation and normal development. Although it is known that most eukaryotic genes produce multiple transcripts in which splice site selection is regulated, how RNA binding proteins cooperate to activate and repress specific splice sites is still poorly understood. In addition how the regulation of alternative splicing affects germ cell development is also not well known. In this study, Drosophila Transformer 2 (Tra2) was used as a model to explore both the mechanism of its repressive function on its own pre-mRNA splicing, and the effect of the splicing regulation on spermatogenesis in testis. Half-pint (Hfp), a protein known as splicing activator, was identified in an S2 cell-based RNAi screen as a co-repressor that functions in combination with Tra2 in the splicing repression of the M1 intron. Its repressive splicing function is found to be sequence specific and is dependent on both the weak 3’ splice site and an intronic splicing silencer within the M1 intron. In addition we found that in vivo, two forms of Hfp are expressed in a cell type specific manner. These alternative forms differ at their amino terminus affecting the presence of a region with four RS dipeptides. Using assays in Drosophila S2 cells, we determined that the alternative N terminal domain is necessary in repression. This difference is probably due to differential localization of the two isoforms in the nucleus and cytoplasm. Our in vivo studies show that both Hfp and Tra2 are required for normal spermatogenesis and cooperate in repression of M1 splicing in spermatocytes. But interestingly, Tra2 and Hfp antagonize each other’s function in regulating germline specific alternative splicing of Taf1 (TBP associated factor 1). Genetic and cytological studies showed that mutants of Hfp and Taf1 both cause similar defects in meiosis and spermatogenesis. These results suggest Hfp regulates normal spermatogenesis partially through the regulation of taf1 splicing. These observations indicate that Hfp regulates tra2 and taf1 activity and play an important role in germ cell differentiation of male flies.

Functional Analysis of Drosophila Integrator Complex in snRNA 3' End Processing

Uridine-rich small nuclear RNAs (U snRNAs) play essential roles in eukaryotic gene expression by facilitating the removal of introns from mRNA precursors and the processing of the replication-dependent histone pre-mRNAs. Formation of the 3’ end of these snRNAs is carried out by a poorly characterized, twelve-membered protein complex named Integrator Complex. In the effort to understand Integrator Complex function in the formation of the snRNA 3’ end, we performed a functional RNAi screen in Drosophila S2 cells to identify protein factors required for snRNA 3’ end formation. This screen was conducted by using a fluorescence-based reporter that elicits GFP expression in response to a deficiency in snRNA processing. Besides scoring the known Integrator subunits, we identified Asunder and CG4785 as additional core members of the Integrator Complex. Additionally, we also found a conserved requirement for Cyclin C and Cdk8 in both fly and human snRNA 3’ end processing. We have further demonstrated that the kinase activity of Cdk8 is critical for snRNA 3’ end processing and is likely to function independent of its well-documented function within the Mediator Cdk8 module. Taken together, this work functionally defines the Drosophila Integrator Complex and demonstrates a novel function for Cyclin C/Cdk8 in snRNA 3’ end formation. This thesis work has also characterized an important functional interaction mediated by a microdomain within Integrator subunit 12 (IntS12) and IntS1 that is required for the activity of the Integrator Complex in processing the snRNA 3’ end. Through the development of a reporter-based functional RNAi-rescue assay in Drosophila S2 cells, we analyzed domains within IntS12 required for snRNA 3’ end formation. This analysis unexpectedly revealed that an N-terminal 30 amino acid region and not the highly conserved central PHD finger domain, is required for snRNA 3’ end cleavage. The IntS12 microdomain (1-45) functions autonomously, and is sufficient to interact and stabilize the putative scaffold protein IntS1. Our findings provide more details of the Integrator Complex for understanding the molecular mechanism of snRNA 3’ end processing. Moreover, these results lay the foundation for future studies of the complex through the identification of a novel functional domain within one subunit and the identification of additional subunits.

STUDYING AGGREGATE FORMATION BY AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS-ASSOCIATED MUTANT SOD1 PROTEIN IN DROSOPHILA MODEL

A common pathological hallmark of most neurodegenerative disorders is the presence of protein aggregates in the brain. Understanding the regulation of aggregate formation is thus important for elucidating disease pathogenic mechanisms and finding effective preventive avenues and cures. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a selective neurodegenerative disorder predominantly affecting motor neurons. The majority of ALS cases are sporadic, however, mutations in superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) are responsible for about 20% of familial ALS (fALS). Mutated SOD1 proteins are prone to misfold and form protein aggregates, thus representing a good candidate for studying aggregate formation. The long-term goal of this project is to identify regulators of aggregate formation by mutant SOD1 and other ALS-associated disease proteins. The specific aim of this thesis project is to assess the possibility of using the well-established Drosophila model system to study aggregation by human SOD1 (hSOD1) mutants. To this end, using wild type and the three mutant hSOD1 (A4V, G85R and G93A) most commonly found among fALS, I have generated 16 different SOD1 constructs containing either eGFP or mCherry in-frame fluorescent reporters, established and tested both cell- and animal-based Drosophila hSOD1 models. The experimental strategy allows for clear visualization of ectopic hSOD1 expression as well as versatile co-expression schemes to fully investigate protein aggregation specifically by mutant hSOD1. I have performed pilot cell-transfection experiments and verified induced expression of hSOD1 proteins. Using several tissue- or cell type-specific Gal4 lines, I have confirmed the proper expression of hSOD1 from established transgenic fly lines. Interestingly, in both Drosophila S2 cells and different fly tissues including the eye and motor neurons, robust aggregate formation by either wild type or mutant hSOD1 proteins was not observed. These preliminary observations suggest that Drosophila might not be a good experimental organism to study aggregation and toxicity of mutant hSOD1 protein. Nevertheless this preliminary conclusion implies the potential existence of a potent protective mechanism against mutant hSOD1 aggregation and toxicity in Drosophila. Thus, results from my SOD1-ALS project in Drosophila will help future studies on how to best employ this classic model organism to study ALS and other human brain degenerative diseases.