The lupus autoantigen La/Ssb is an Xist -binding protein involved in Xist folding and cloud formation

  1. Norbert Ha
  2. Nan Ding
  3. Ru Hong
  4. Rubing Liu
  5. Xavier Roca
  6. Yingyuan Luo
  7. Xiaowei Duan
  8. Xiao Wang
  9. Peiling Ni
  10. Haiyang Wu
  11. Li-Feng Zhang
  12. Lingyi Chen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Using the programmable RNA-sequence binding domain of the Pumilio protein, we FLAG-tagged Xist (inactivated X chromosome specific transcript) in live mouse cells. Affinity pulldown coupled to mass spectrometry was employed to identify a list of 138 candidate Xist-binding proteins, from which, Ssb (also known as the lupus autoantigen La) was validated as a protein functionally critical for X chromosome inactivation (XCI). Extensive XCI defects were detected in Ssb knockdown cells, including chromatin compaction, death of female mouse embryonic stem cells during in vitro differentiation and chromosome-wide monoallelic gene expression pattern. Live-cell imaging of Xist RNA reveals the defining XCI defect: Xist cloud formation. Ssb is a ubiquitous and versatile RNA-binding protein with RNA chaperone and RNA helicase activities. Functional dissection of Ssb shows that the RNA chaperone domain plays critical roles in XCI. In Ssb knockdown cells, Xist transcripts are unstable and misfolded. These results show that Ssb is critically involved in XCI, possibly as a protein regulating the in-cell structure of Xist.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/nar/gkab1003
  2. Review Commons

    Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Reply to the reviewers

    We would like to thank Reviewer #1 and #2 for the evaluation of our research and comments to our manuscript. Their comments are highly appreciated and addressed as described below.

    Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    **Summary:**

    *Provide a short summary of the findings and key conclusions (including methodology and model system(s) where appropriate).*

    Here Ha et al. has further developed their Pumilio RNA tagging methodology for the isolation of UV-crosslinked proteins that are suggested to associate with Xist RNA in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). Within this study the authors claim to have found the Lupus antigen RNA binding protein (La) as a novel Xist interacting partner that influences the efficacy of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI). The authors use a number of different techniques such as qPCR, fluorescent imaging, ATAC-SEQ and SHAPE to show aberration of XCI upon La shRNA knockdown. However, this study has significant flaws in the efficient isolation and validation of Xist associated proteins using their FLAG-out methodology. Furthermore, later experiments predominantly focus on cell death/survival assays, which is somewhat troubling given the essential roles La plays in processes such as cell differentiation and proliferation, ribosome biogenesis, transcriptional control and tRNA maturation. I feel the authors need to robustly address the potential effects La knockdown may be having on their mESCs.

    Reviewer #1 did not fully understand the basic designs of the experimental systems (FLAG-out and iXist), and completely rejected these experimental systems. Reviewer #1 also ignored the majority of the functional analysis on the candidate protein, Ssb. These issues cannot be addressed by additional experiments

    **Major comments:**

    *-Are the key conclusions convincing?*

    My major concern is in their Xist RNA purification.

    First of all, I couldn't find any data on proving the enrichment of Xist RNA itself in their Pumilio pull-down experiment. It would have been useful to show Xist RNA enrichment before benzonase step. Secondly, it is hard to imagine the protocol would successfully isolated Xist RNA-protein complexes from the cell. An earlier report by Clemson et al., (J Cell Biol., 1996) has shown that majority of Xist RNA is still stuck in the nucleus after nuclear matrix prep protocol using detergent, which is not so different from the authors' protocol. Moreover, the authors used UV crosslink, which would have made even harder to purify Xist RNA without sonication. Thirdly, as the tag is located on 5' of Xist RNA, it is rather surprising to see that Spen is not detected in their pulldown. Spen is one of the main functional interactors with Xist, robustly detected by several previous reports. Similarly, other high-affinity binders of Xist such as hnRNP-K and Ciz1 were also lacking from this screen. Finally, the peptides found associated with FLAG-out Xist are extremely low in comparison with other data using glutaraldehyde or formaldehyde crosslinking. For example, HnRNP-M found in Chu et al 2015 has 1120 peptide counts in differentiated cells. The authors here use HnRNP-M as a baseline for specific interactions and show a total of 6 peptide counts in Xist expressing cells and 5 in i-Empty cells (Supplementary excel sheet 1). Similarly, the La protein of interest in this study has 8 counts in i-FLAG-Xist and 6 counts in i-Empty. I struggle to see how this result indicate specific Xist binding. Worryingly this is the starting rationale for the rest of their experiments, it is hard to therefore accept the rest of their conclusions either.

    We have detected Xist RNA after Pumilio pull-down, and added the data in the revised manuscript (Figure S1). The enrichment of Xist RNA by Pumilio pull-down is about 75-fold, comparable to the enrichment reported by Minajigi et al.

    Two out of three previous studies used similar protocols to prep cell lysates for co-IP, including UV cross-linking and detergent (McHugh et al. 2015 and Minajigi et al. 2015). The major difference between their protocols and ours is the co-IP step. They used antisense oligos to pull-down Xist RNA-protein complex, while we take advantage of the specific interaction between PUF and PBS to pull-down Xist RNA-protein complex. With the data in Figure S1, we are confident that our strategy is successful in isolating Xist RNA

    For systematic identification of Xist binding proteins, each method has its own strength and weakness. As we described in the introduction, only 4 proteins were commonly identified by all three studies to systematically identify Xist binding proteins. There is no doubt that our method also missed some authentic Xist binding proteins (false negative) and identified some false positive candidates. Thus, we have to be careful in balancing between the false negative and false positive calls. The reason that we applied the ranking gain to identify Xist binding protein candidates, is to minimize the false negative rate. Meanwhile, we compared our Xist binding protein candidate list with previous identified Xist-binding proteins to enhance the confidence in our candidate lists.

    Regardless the strength and weakness of our method, Ssb is also an Xist-binding protein identified by another study (Chu et al. 2015). More importantly, we have provided experimental validation to confirm Ssb’s involvement in XCI and extensive functional analysis to reveal the protein’s mechanistic role in XCI.

    The other key conclusion the authors make is from the use of numerous cell death/survival assays for both male and female cell lines. This is extremely troubling in the context of assessing their target protein La. La is involved in multiple RNA maturation events of rRNAs, tRNAs and other polIII transcripts. Furthermore, La has been implicated in binding to the mRNA for Cyclin D1 in both human cells and mouse fibroblasts (NIH/3T3 - male) which show a significant effect on cell proliferation upon siRNA knockdown https://www.nature.com/articles/onc2010425. This, along with the observation that La knock-out blastocysts fail to develop any mice or ES cell lines (male or female) show the effect observed in the authors results is most likely not X-linked cell death https://mcb.asm.org/content/mcb/26/4/1445.full.pdf. The authors need to show that their shRNA KD isn't affecting the proliferation and general fitness of their mESC lines.

    The cell death/survival assay was specially designed for analyzing the defect of XCI. The cell death of iXist ESCs upon adding Dox is due to the induction of Xist, which consequently initiates the silencing of the only X chromosome in male cells. Knockdown of genes involved in XCI compromises XCI, thus allowing cell survival. Given the diverse functions of Ssb in cell differentiation and proliferation, ribosome biogenesis, transcriptional control and tRNA maturation, one would expect slow growth and/or cell death of Ssb knockdown cells. Indeed, the result is consistent with our expectation (Figure 2C, without Dox). Nevertheless, more Ssb knockdown cells survive in the presence of Dox, compared with control cells (Figure 2C-E, with Dox), suggesting that Ssb plays an important role in XCI.

    *- Should the authors qualify some of their claims as preliminary or speculative, or remove them altogether?*

    As discussed above, I feel the authors have not clearly demonstrated Xist specific protein enrichment and haven't proven X-linked cell death. Due to the lack of necessary control experiments as discussed below, I feel the notion that La is involved directly in XCI as an RNA chaperone is currently preliminary/speculative.

    The FLAG-out experiment just provided an initial point for the study. We have demonstrated the interaction between Xist and Ssb by RIP. And, Ssb knockdown antagonizes the lethal effect of induced XCI in male cells, allowing more cell to survive. This is contradictory to the diverse house-keeping functions of Ssb, which should lead to slow proliferation or cell death. Therefore, the data here (Figure 2C-E) should suggest a role of Ssb in XCI. In addition, we showed that knockdown of Ssb compromises the silencing of X-linked genes (Figure 2F, 2G, and 3E), the compaction of X chromosome (Figure 3D), Xist cloud formation (Figure 4), epigenetic modifications on Xi (Figure 5), Xist RNA folding (Figure 6F-I), and Xist RNA stability (Figure 7C and D). All these data indicate that Ssb is involved in XCI by regulating Xist RNA folding.

    *- Would additional experiments be essential to support the claims of the paper? Request additional experiments only where necessary for the paper as it is, and do not ask authors to open new lines of experimentation.*

    I would suggest them to show RT-qPCR results of Xist RNA enrichment from the sample after flagIP before benzonase treatment.

    We have the data, and added it to Figure S1.

    Also, it would have been more convincing if their negative control construct (i-Empty) would contain 25 copies of PBSb RNA at least.

    This is a good alternative design of the negative control. Using i-Empty expressing 25 copies of PBSb RNA will allow us subtract the background causing by proteins binding to PBSb RNA. Yet, as discussed above, regardless how we improve the experimental setting, we cannot completely avoid the issue of false positive and false negative. Our goal of the FLAG-out experiment is to generate a list of Xist binding protein candidates, and their binding to Xist and their functions in XCI should be validated by additional experiments. With our current experimental setting, a list of Xist binding protein candidates has been generated, and we have validated the role of Ssb in XCI with subsequent experiments.

    In Fig1b, the total amount of proteins loaded on the gel is not equivalent between two lanes. The gel should show equivalent amounts of proteins on the gel. It looks like if the negative control sample had been loaded at the same amount as the one with Xist, the band pattern wouldn't be distinguishable between the two samples. Furthermore, as these samples were used in the following mass spectrometry screen it may suggest that the minimal increase in peptide counts observed in the iXist FLAG-out were due to an increased amount of sample being loaded? No controls are conducted to account for this.

    IP samples of i-Empty and i-FLAG-Xist were loaded in the gel in Figure 1b. It is expected that IP sample of i-FLAG-Xist should pull down more proteins than IP samples of i-Empty. The FLAG-PUFb bands (the strongest band in each lane) are about the same amount in two samples, indicating roughly equal amount of loading. After normalization of gel loading according to the FLAG-PUFb bands, the upper part of the i-FLAG-Xist lane showed some unique bands.

    For mass spectrometry analysis, the loading of two samples are independent, therefore, to compare the absolute amount of each protein between the two samples does not always provide valuable information. Yet, the relative amount of different proteins within one sample is not affected by the loading amount, thus, more informative. Therefore, we used the ranking information to estimate the relative amount of different proteins in each sample and used the ranking gain to further identify protein candidates.

    The authors quantify cell death in figures 2C - E. It seems clear that shSsb 1 and 2 have an effect on cell count even in the absence of Dox. The rescue effect seen upon Dox addition is minimal when compared to Empty + Dox 2D. The authors ∆A-iXist line with and without Ssb KD/Dox would be an informative control on whether the increase in cell survival that they see is X-linked.

    As the reviewer pointed out earlier, Ssb plays multiple roles in cellular processes. Inevitably, KD of Ssb leads to slow growth and/or cell death with or without Dox. Thus, it is less meaningful to compare the surviving cell counts in Figure 2D. Rather, the survival rate (Figure 2E) reflects the rescuing effect more precisely. Shown in Figure 2E, both shSsb 1 and 2 increase the survival rate significantly, compared with Empty control.

    Moreover, the data in Figure 3B and C demonstrated that Ssb KD compromises the survival of female differentiating cells, but not the survival of male differentiating cells, also indicating a role of Ssb in XCI. With these experiments, it should be sufficient to conclude that Ssb KD affects X-linked cell death/survival in both iXist male ESCs and WT female differentiating cells

    The qPCR results used to validate silencing defects show minor changes in expression and also don't show significant silencing of X-linked genes sufficient for cell death. Could this be because only ~ 50 - 60% of Male iXist cells seem to be expressing in the movies and that this will have an effect on the observed qPCR results? Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that expression in the Empty male cells increases in 48h compared to 14h. Is this due to cell death and positive selection of cells less able to silence their X-chromosome? How would these data look in the female XX line? How would the data look in a ∆A-iXist line in the presence and absence of shSsb/Dox?

    First, high-quality live-cell imaging can only be carried out for 2 hours with 2-min time interval. The movies are meant to show the onset of Xist RNA signals. Therefore, they were taken one hour after Dox treatment (figure legend of Figure 4B-D). After overnight Dox treatment,* Xist* clouds can be seen in majority of cells.

    Second, in Fig. 2F-G, we did not include uninduced iXist male ESCs. Therefore, it is impossible to judge whether induction of Xist in this male ESC line results in Xist-dependent silencing at 14 and 48 hr. However, in our previous publication (Li et al., JMB, 2018, 430: 2734-2746), it has been shown that Gpc4, Hprt, Mecp2, G418, and *TomatoRed *are silenced (4- to 16-fold reduction) at 24 and 48 hours after Dox induction.

    Third, the qRT-PCR results in 14 h and in 48 h are not normalized to the same internal control. Thus, they are not directly comparable.

    Confusingly, the male line in Fig 3C shows a drop in live cell count at day 6 of differentiation? Surely given their previous results in Fig 2 the Ssb KD should increase cell viability with +Dox? Ssb KD seems to have an adverse effect on ES cells during extended differentiation protocols. In Figure S1 the authors show ~ 8 - 10% survival of male lines during differentiation. Could the recombination of the Xist sequence around the loxP sites enable the cells to outcompete the dead cells? How would iEmpty and ∆A-iXist cells compare here? Have the differentiated cells been tested for their expression of Xist? Additionally, how are there similar live cell counts for male vs female lines when ~90% of male cells die during differentiation? Were more cells plated at day 4? If so, this would bias the competition of male cell survival and therefore make the male line an inappropriate control.

    Given the essential role of La during development a control is needed to prove that this death is X-linked in the female 3F1 line. For example, an XO cell line retaining the Cast allele and shSsb expression could show the amount of death caused from shSsb alone independent of X-linked cell death.

    The reviewer completely misunderstood the experiment. The severe cell death specifically observed in female differentiating ESCs is a strong evidence showing Ssb is involved in XCI (Figure 3).

    The male ESCs in Figure 3C is a WT ESC line without the inducible Xist transgene, in which no XCI occurs upon differentiation. It is completely different from iXist male ESCs with Dox, in which forced Xist induction leads to XCI. Thus, the diverse functions of Ssb might contribute to the slight decrease in live cell count of wild type male cells at day 6 of differentiation.

    Figure S2 shows the differentiation of iXist male ESCs with or without Dox. As explained above, forced Xist induction silences the only X chromosome in male cells, resulting in cell death. In addition, XCI occurs more efficiently in differentiation condition (Figure S2) than in pluripotent status (Figure 2C)

    During differentiation, female ESCs silence one X chromosome, and the other X chromosome remains active. KD of Ssb compromises XCI, and two X chromosomes in some female differentiating cells maintain active, leading to cell death. The reviewer is correct that we need a control to rule out that the essential role of Ssb during development affects cell survival and death. An XO cell line can be used as a control. Similarly, a male cell line (XY) is also a good control. We already included a male cell line as a control in Figure 3B and 3C.

    If I understood correctly, the RNA FISH used dsDNA probes ("Sx9") against 40 kb of the X-inactivation centre (Xic). Surely Tsix or other Xic transcripts will also be visible? Can the authors use their RNA FISH to determine the XX or XO status of their cells? In Figure S5 a number of cells appear to show a single pinpoint of transcription. This could either be low levels of Xist transcripts or Xic transcription from an XO line in which the 129 chromosome is missing. It would be best to solely quantify cells which have two x chromosomes and if a significant amount of X chromosomes have been kicked out, this should be discussed and controlled for.

    This is a valid concern, but this concern can be adequately addressed with the available data in the manuscript.

    First, if the female Ssb KD cell line is an “XO” cell line, in which the X129 allele is “kicked out”, the RNA allelotyping results should show an absolute “silencing” of the X129 allele. However, in complete contrast to this notion, RNA allelotyping detected “more” RNA transcripts from X129, showing the chromosome-wide XCI defects (Figure 3D).

    Second, overexpression of Ssb in Ssb KD female cells restores the *Xist *clouds and the polycomb marks (Figure S8), suggesting that the Ssb KD female cells are XX, but not XO.

    Third, the severe cell death specifically occurred in female Ssb KD lines is also against the “XO” argument (Figure 3B&C).

    In Fig6, the authors generated a number of Ssb constructs for a rescue assay. However, these results complicate the matter and raise more questions than they address. It seems odd that the ∆RRM1 does not rescue based on comparison with their putative negative control, ∆NLS. However, the ∆RRM1 + 2 and ∆LAM do rescue the phenotype better than the full length Ssb? This makes no logical sense and highlights the inherent variation in cell viability these generated cell lines seem to show.

    Following on from this, figure S7 quantifies the GFP tag mRNA levels, depicting all ∆RRM mutants with expression below ~30%? How can ∆RRM1 or 2 be rescuing in this scenario? Have these lines been tested for their XX or XO status? The loss of an X chromosome would lead to a rescue of the cell death phenotype, which is a process known to occur in XX lines that have been cultured for extended periods of time. Could it also be that the cell lines derived are more or less sensitive to exogenous shRNA expression? Also, further validation is needed to assess the efficiency of KD in these lines as theoretically most of these constructs will be targeted by shRNA? What is the endogenous Ssb expression level in these lines? Where in the mRNA sequence are the shRNAs targeted to? Does this make sense on the relative expression levels of ∆RRM1/2 for example? Further testing of GFP expression could also be assessed by quantitative western blot of GFP or even visualised in their RNA FISH/IF samples (Figure S8), currently neither are shown. In addition, some kind of information of stability of each Ssb protein constructs has not been demonstrated.

    Our shRNA targets the LAM domain, so the expression of ∆LAM is not affected by the shRNA. The reviewer is correct that the detected GFP expression levels of ∆RRM1 and ∆RRM2 are too low to be conclusive. We have removed the data point of ∆RRM1 and ∆RRM2. Meanwhile, it is clear that ∆RRM1&2 has a better rescuing effect than ∆NLS, when ∆RRM1&2 and ∆NLS are expressed at similar levels. Ssb is a well known RNA chaperone/RNA helicase. Identifying Ssb is an Xist-binding protein already suggests the functional role of Ssb in XCI. The data of the plasmid rescue experiments further suggests that Ssb is involved in XCI as a RNA chaperone/RNA helicase.

    As for the Western blot and GFP fluorescence (IF), we have tried both. Neither of them detected GFP signal, reflecting the low expression level of these GFP fusion proteins. As the reviewers pointed out that the shSsb is not targeting the 5’ or 3’-UTR region, therefore, interfering the exogenous Ssb as well. This might be a reason for the low expression of these GFP fusion proteins.

    For the data shown in Figure 7A and B the authors quantify the % of cells with Xist signal. The authors have already shown a defect in Xist visualisation in Ssb KD. Surely it is plausible to assume a faster loss of Xist signal below background in weaker expressing cells. A more appropriate quantification would be the % loss of Xist signal per cell over time.

    With Figure 7C and D, the samples have been treated with actinomycin D which globally affects the transcription of cells even the PolIII associated genes Ssb is needed to mature. This treatment could have an added effect on cell mortality and function. Data confirming that actinomycin D doesn't affect the cells disproportionately is needed. The difference in half-life could be attributed to such a treatment.

    We agree with the reviewer that monitoring Xist signal loss per cell would be a better way to analyze the data. However, in Xist signal loss experiment, snapshot images were taken at four time points (1h, 2h, 3h and 4h). This is not a time-lapse imaging. High-quality time-lapse imaging can only be done within a 2-hour time period with 2-min time interval. Therefore, cell-tracking cannot be done in this experiment. In addition, even though Ssb KD slows down the formation of Xist cloud within the early phase (3 hours) of Xist induction (Figure 4), prolonged (overnight) Xist induction leads to Xist cloud formation in a significant fraction of Ssb KD cells, and the Xist cloud signals are about the same in WT and Ssb KD cells (Figure 7A, 0 h). Similarly, qRT-PCR also revealed that Xist RNA are at the same level in WT and Ssb KD cells (Figure 7C, 0 h). These data argue against that a faster loss of Xist signal in Ssb KD cells is due to weaker initial Xist signal.

    Actinomycin D was added at the last 11 hours of the experiment. During this period, no obvious adverse effects on cells were observed.

    In summarising the authors claim that La binds Xist to facilitate folding and appropriate spreading of Xist along the X-chromosome. No direct interaction has been shown, CLIP-seq data would resolve this, however I do understand this is a challenging technique. The authors have instead opted for RIP followed by qPCR (Figure S2). However, this process has a greater potential for non-specific recovery of RNAs via indirect binding. Furthermore, qPCR may also amplify the relative abundance of the RNA detected. As multiple nucleolar proteins came down in the mass spec screen and FLAG-Ssb is being over expressed, it is plausible to assume some transient Xist interactions may arise from nucleolar association at which La will be in high abundance. Positive and negative nuclear RNA controls (e.g. 7SK and U1 snRNA respectively) could be used so to determine the amount of non-specific Protein-RNA interactions in their RIP pull downs. Cytoplasmic actin is not an appropriate control as it is cytosolic.

    We have to clarify one point that the mass spec screen analyzed samples pulled down by FLAG-PUFb, but not FLAG-Ssb.

    We did not intend to distinguish whether Ssb directly binds Xist or is just associated with Xist. RIP followed by qPCR is sufficient to prove the association between Ssb and Xist RNA.

    We can include nuclear RNA as controls, if the reviewer regards RIP as a valid method to show protein and RNA association

    Other than this the authors may want to probe (via IF) for the presence of La accumulation on the X? Many other know factors such as Ciz1, hnrnpK and PRC1/2 complexes show clear accumulation on the X. If I understand correctly, there are many La antibodies on the market and endogenous levels on the X could be assessed. These antibodies may be useful in IP's and pull downs also.

    Many XCI factors play extensive roles in the cell and are not clearly enriched on Xi, including Spen (Moindrot et al. 2015). We have tried the immunostaining and did not detect Ssb’s enrichment on Xi. Ssb shows a general distribution in the nucleus without a clear enrichment on Xi (data not shown).

    *-Are the suggested experiments realistic in terms of time and resources? It would help if you could add an estimated cost and time investment for substantial experiments.*

    The experiments suggested above are centrally focussed on the cell lines that are currently in the authors possession with maybe exceptions with the ∆A-iXist-shSsb line suggested. However, this should be reasonably quick to obtain given their previous work for this paper. Most experiments suggested will focus on the validation of karyotype, Xist expression, rescue construct expression, further RNA FISH classification and repeating more appropriate positive and negative controls for a number of experiments. In theory this can be obtained relatively simply and quickly from current resources. But with the sheer volume of further experiments that are required here, this may take a significant amount of time.

    One vital improvement needed is the replication of mass spec data and the validation of Xist specific recovery and protein enrichment. As it stands this manuscript seems to not have any replicates of the FLAG-out methodology and mass spec data. This is troubling given the poor recovery and specificity of the protein samples obtained. Repeating these experiments would be costly in time and also financially. As it stands, I feel this is essential to conclusively validate their target of interest.

    *- Are the data and the methods presented in such a way that they can be reproduced?*

    The data is presented relatively well, however, it would be beneficial if deailed methods were in the main text and not in a supplementary file. Similarly, more information about the process of differentiation and how cell death/survival was quantified and validated is needed.

    The reviewer rejected the basic design of the experimental system and ignored the majority of the functional analysis data. No additional experiment can address these issues

    We can include more information in the main text, regarding Ssb. However, there is limited space for the main text, various depending on the journals. Meanwhile, the current citation on Ssb is adequate to emphasize that Ssb is a versatile RNA binding protein involved in a variety of fundamental RNA processing events in the cell.

    *- Are the experiments adequately replicated and statistical analysis adequate?*

    In the most part yes, however there seems to be no replicates of the FLAG-out mass spec screen which is worrying given the minimal specificity observed in the current data.

    As we mentioned above, the FLAG-out experiment only serves as a starting point to generate a list of Xist binding protein candidates. Rather than repeating the FLAG-out experiment, we compared the result of FLAG-out to previously published lists of Xist binding protein candidates. More importantly, additional experiments are carried out to validate the Xist binding proteins identified by FLAG-out.

    **Minor comments:**

    *- Specific experimental issues that are easily addressable.*

    Unfortunately, the majority of experimental issues need to be addressed with more robust data which are highlighted above. However, some image analysis, quantification and classification can be amended relatively easily. For example, the live-cell imaging data should be quantified as loss of signal as discussed and RNA FISH should be used to classify XX positive cells and the XO cells can be discarded from analysis.

    We have addressed these issue in the previous sections of this rebuttal.

    *- Are prior studies referenced appropriately?*

    Most papers regarding Xist pull down and biology are discussed and referenced appropriately. However, the role in which La plays during development and its aberrant affects upon KD are seemingly downplayed. I would like to see more discussion of potential defects that could be caused due to globally altering cellular RNA folding.

    We have tried to cite key references about Ssb in development and RNA folding. Due to length limitation, we cannot cite all references in the topic. If necessary, we could discuss the possibility of indirect effect of Ssb KD on XCI through globally altering cellular RNA folding.

    *- Are the text and figures clear and accurate?*

    For the most part, lots of the figures are clear and accurate. Apart from these exceptions.

    1.The Y-axis of Figure 2D is confusing. What does 0.3 as a "sum of area" equate to? 30% of the area was ES cells? This doesn't look to be the case from Fig 2C. Also, how does the intensity of the signal compare? The area may not be a good quantification due to ES cells growing in colonies.

    We have revised the Y-axis labelling of Figure 2D to “sum of area cm2”. Thus, “0.3” means that the area of ESCs is 0.3 cm2. ALPP is highly expressed on ES cell surface. ALPP stain usually produce saturated stains on ES cell colonies. Thoroughly stained ES cell colonies, big and small, show similar signal intensity levels. To analyze the “total signal intensity” will be not much different from “sum of area”.

    2.In the Movies S1-7 there are boxes around certain cells and marked with "Figure 5a - c". This seems to be incorrect as figure 5 is currently the IF staining of polycomb marks. I assume this is in relation to Figure 4b-d?

    We have corrected the labelling mistakes.

    3.Similarly, in Movies S1-7, the intensities of Xist foci seem by eye to be similar. In the paper it is claimed that the Xist clouds that do form are lower in intensity. Are the Movies depicting the same range of pixel intensities? If not, this should be amended. Similarly, figure 7 seems to show relatively equivalent RNA signal at 0 h?

    All the images were collected using a fixed standard of the microscope and camera setting, and these movies depict the same range of pixel intensities. Movies S1-S3 are WT control, and Movies S4-S7 are Ssb KD cells. The Xist cloud signals are weaker in Movie S4-S7 (also quantified in Figure 4E). For the Xist cloud signal, not only the intensity, but also the area of Xist cloud, have to be taken into account.

    The 0 h in Figure 7 is after overnight Dox treatment, and different from the time point in Movies S1-7 (maximum 3 hour Dox treatment, figure legend of Figure 4B-D). The discrepancy can be explained by that knockdown of Ssb only slows down the formation of Xist clouds. After overnight forced expression, the Xist RNA still shows an accumulation in the cells. Figure 7 shows the forced accumulation of Xist RNA after prolonged Dox treatment disappears faster after Dox withdraw.

    4.In figure 4A the data is from female XX cells, this should be highlighted to limit confusion with the male iXist data shown below in 4B-E. It would also be helpful to have the male/female icons (as in figure 3B), for each figure that has images of cells. Currently Figure 4, 5, 7, S5 and S8 are lacking these icons.

    We have revised the labelling on Figure 3, 4, 5, 7 S6 and S9 (S5 and S8 before revision).

    5.No explanation of the Flag-Ssb expression is given for figure S2. Furthermore, is it really necessary to express Flag-Ssb? There are reasonably good antibodies out there for Ssb as this was how it was originally found in Systemic Lupus patients. Also, no data showing the amount of Ssb being overexpressed is shown. This may have big implication to the validity of the RIP-qPCR analysis.

    We could perform qRT-PCR to quantify the overexpression level of Flag-Ssb. If required, we could use Ssb antibody to do Western blot to show the amount of Flag-Ssb protein.

    *- Do you have suggestions that would help the authors improve the presentation of their data and conclusions?

    Most of the data is presented reasonably well, but the robustness of the data somewhat retracts from their conclusions. I feel the certainty of their conclusion regarding Xist specific La binding and RNA chaperone activity is still presumptive and should be rewritten unless more robust data can confirm Xist interaction. I would also suggest deciding on the nomenclature for the protein of interest and use either La or Ssb, the continued use of both through the figures and text can get a little confusing to the reader.

    In the current literatures, Ssb seems to be commonly used as a gene name and La is used as a protein name. We have revised the manuscript to use one name “Ssb” to describe both the gene and the protein.

    Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

    *- Describe the nature and significance of the advance (e.g. conceptual, technical, clinical) for the field.*

    It was a good trial to use PBSb-PUFb system to purify Xist RNA binding proteins, compared to previous reports had used anti-sense oligo purification using complementary sequence to Xist RNA sequences. But currently the purification still needs further validation and repeats to confirm its use. A potential complementary technique could be to isolate Xist directly by using biotinylated probes against the PBSb sequence.

    The authors further claim the identification of a novel Xist RNA chaperone (La/Ssb) which they say facilitates XCI progression. This would be a novel finding in the field; however, the data is currently not robust enough to support this

    *- Place the work in the context of the existing literature (provide references, where appropriate).*

    This work has focused on the development of a milder methodology for purifying Xist RNA during XCI. Others have published similar methodologies predominantly focusing on purifying Xist RNA directly with biotinylated probes (McHugh et al. 2015; Minaji et al. 2015; and Chu et al. 2015). Although this method boasts a milder purification method, it seems to be low yielding in Xist specific proteins. Others have shown a more robust identification of bona fide Xist binding proteins which are currently missing in this manuscript. A recent preprint from the Plath lab has identified new factors involved in XCI during differentiation and their tethering/rescue experiments are far more convincing than the ones shown in this manuscript https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.979369v1. The candidate protein Ha et al. have identified has multiple roles in developing cells and has shown to be important during mouse development. However, Ha et al do not robustly show that the knockdown of Ssb causes X-linked cell mortality. Alternatively, as would be presumed from Ssb's essential role in many housekeeping short non-coding RNAs, the cell death seems more ubiquitous upon shRNA KD. Therefore, the link the authors are making here are relatively weak.

    Ssb KD rescues cell death caused by forced induction of Xist in male ESCs. In addition, Ssb KD leads to cell death in differentiating female ESCs, while it has a negligible effect on cell death in differentiating male ESCs. These data clearly demonstrated X-linked cell survival/mortality by Ssb KD.

    Plath lab’s work is different from ours. In their manuscript, the authors report the observation of a protein condensation which is assembled by Xist but sustains in absence of Xist. TDP-43 (a.k.a. Tardbp) happens to be one protein factor involved in the protein condensation and also one candidate protein selected for further validation in our study. In our study, Tardbp KD did not rescue cell death caused by induced XCI in male cells. Thus, Tardbp is not further studied. In the manuscript, we have discussed the possibility that low efficiency of knockdown and redundancy might contribute to the failure in validation of Tardbp

    *- State what audience might be interested in and influenced by the reported findings.*

    The audience may be interested in the novel technique and the finding of a novel Xist binding protein.

    *- Define your field of expertise with a few keywords to help the authors contextualize your point of view. Indicate if there are any parts of the paper that you do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate.*

    RNA biochemistry and developmental biology

    Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

    **Summary:**

    This manuscript describes a novel "FLAG-out" system, where the authors sought to identify Xist RNA binding proteins. The authors focused on a specific protein found in their screen and also identified in several other screens for Xist RNA binding proteins, Ssb/La, and further characterize the role of this protein in XCI. This manuscript describes the loss of Ssb/La and suggest that it predominately impacts the canonical 'cloud' formation of Xist RNA on the X chromosome during XCI initiation. Further, they determine that loss of Ssb/La decreases Xist RNA half-life and alters folding of Xist RNA transcripts. Based on their findings, the authors propose that Ssb/La functions to directly bind and fold Xist RNA transcripts in a manner that stabilizes Xist RNA, allowing for proper 'cloud' formation and successful initiation of XCI.

    **Major comments:**

    The authors made an interesting findings that the SLE-relevant autoantigen Ssb/La stabilizes Xist RNA transcripts, and there is some evidence that this occurs by binding and maintaining proper folding of Xist RNA. Despite these intriguing observations, there are many parts of the manuscript that need to be addressed in order to support the authors main conclusions.

    The most troubling aspect of this manuscript is the persistent use of an artificial XCI system in male cells to draw strong conclusions about the function of Ssb in XCI. This issue is prevalent throughout the manuscript, and I question why the authors chose to perform most of their experiments in male cells when the same experiments can be (and have previously been by other groups) performed in female cells. Using male ESCs and then making conclusions for XCI, which is a female-specific process, is a major concern.

    In addition to iXist male ESC line, many experiments, such as cell death/survival (Figure 3B, C), allelotype (Figure 3E), Xist could formation (Figure 4A), H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub IF (Figure 5), were performed in female ESC. We chose to do SHAPE and Xist RNA stability assays in iXist male ESC line, because the onset of XCI is much more synchronized in this system. Moreover, in female cells, Xa causes additional layers of complication/noise in the ATAC-sequencing which may not be fully cleared up by data analysis. On the other hand, inducible Xist expression in male ESCs can be used as an experimental system to recapitulate the silencing step of XCI (Ha et al. 2018; Wutz et al. 2002).

    Out of the 138 identified binding proteins, the authors chose to only validate three: Mybbp1a, Tardbp, and Ssb/La. The logic for choosing these candidates is weak, and the authors are only able to validate 1 out of 3 of these proteins.

    In theory, all candidate proteins in the list are possibly involved in XCI. There is no method which can help to make accurate prediction. We did not follow a clear-cut logic in selecting candidates for validation, but we do consider the candidate gene’s knockout phenotype, “early embryonic lethality”, as a phenotype consistent with a critical role of the candidate gene in XCI. Meanwhile, in the manuscript, we have discussed why we chose the three proteins for validation as the following:

    “……From the candidate proteins, we shortlisted three proteins for individual validation. Myb-binding protein 1A (Mybbp1a, Q7TPV4) and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (Tardbp, Q921F2) were selected because they are known transcription repressors (11, 12). The Lupus autoantigen La (P32067, encoding-gene name: Ssb) was selected because systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by a strikingly high female to male ratios of 9:1 (13). Moreover, its autoimmune antigen La is a ubiquitous and versatile RNA-binding protein and a known RNA chaperone (14). All the three selected candidates have also been identified as Xist-binding proteins in previous studies (2, 4). Moreover, the knockout of these three genes all lead to early embryonic death. Tardbp knockout causes embryonic lethality at the blastocyst implantation stage (15). Mybbp1a and Ssb knockout affect blastocyst formation (16, 17).* Early embryonic lethality is a mutant phenotype consistent with a critical role of the mutated gene in XCI (1) ……”*

    We used cell death/survival assay to further validate the role of Xist binding protein candidates in XCI. This is a stringent assay. It requires not only that Xist binding protein candidates bind to Xist, but also that the candidates have to be functionally important in XCI.

    Indeed, it has been demonstrated by Plath lab (the BioRxix manuscript mentioned by reviewer 1) that Tardbp (also named TDP-43), together with other RBPs, bind to the E repeat of Xist to form a condensate and create an Xi-domain. Yet, Tardbp KD did not rescue cell death caused by forced XCI in male cells in our studies. Thus, only 1 out of 3 of these candidates is validated and further studied. In the manuscript, we also discussed that low efficiency of knockdown and redundancy might contribute to the failure in validation of Tardbp and Mybbp1a.

    Use of the cell death assay is not strong enough to "confirm that La is involved in induced XCI" as stated by the authors. This is a huge overstatement.

    Given the diverse functions of Ssb in cell differentiation and proliferation, ribosome biogenesis, transcriptional control and tRNA maturation, one would expect less surviving Ssb knockdown cells. In contrast, more Ssb knockdown cells survives in the presence of Dox, suggesting that Ssb plays an important role in XCI. Considering the reviewer’s comment, we revised the sentence to “further suggest that Ssb is involved in induced XCI”.

    While the authors observed differences in X-linked gene expression after Ssb KD, they did not examine expression of these genes in after KD of either Mybbp1a or Tardbp. Are the changes observed in these genes specific to Ssb KD? Or could there still be alterations of X-linked gene expression in the non-validated KDs? This experiment should be performed and included in the manuscript, either within Fig 2 or in the supplemental. As well, inclusion of a well characterized positive control, for example Hnrnpu, as comparison to Ssb should be included.

    Mybbp1a and Tardbp were not validated by the cell death assay. Thus, compared with Ssb, Mybbp1a and Tardbp are less important for XCI functionally. We only focused on Ssb in the subsequent studies. Mybbp1a and Tardbp KD could be additional negative controls. Yet, we have used empty vector as a negative control. We do not need so many controls.

    As mentioned, Tardbp indeed binds to Xist RNA. It is very likely that Tardbp KD might alter some X-linked gene expression. This rules out Tardbp KD as a good negative control.

    If we do not see any effect of Ssb KD on X-linked gene expression, a positive control is absolutely required. However, we have detected that Ssb KD compromises the silencing of several X-linked gene. A positive control might not be essential.

    The authors perform RIP to validate the interaction of Ssb with Xist, but this is performed in male ES cells with induced Xist RNA and with FLAG-tagged Ssb. Aside from these cells being male, in this system Xist RNA expression is much higher than would be found endogenously. RIP should have been done in female differentiated ESCs if there is in fact a role for XCI.

    The authors need to include more details in the methods section to explain how the FLAG-Ssb is expressed in these cells, and why the authors chose to use a tagged contrast over endogenous Ssb. Due to these issues the result from this experiment is essentially meaningless and is not convincing of Ssb interaction with Xist RNA. There is no reason RIP cannot be performed in female cells, and the authors should repeat this experiment in the relevant experimental condition. As well, if a validated Ssb antibody exists the authors should perform RIP using the endogenous protein.

    If required, we could try to perform RIP and/or CLIP using Ssb antibody in female cells.

    The authors state in Fig 3A-C that the results of the cell death and differentiation experiments "...support a functional role of La in XCI". The authors state earlier that Ssb is a ubiquitous protein that is embryonic lethal (in both female and males). Based on this, the cell death results shown do not support a functional role of La in XCI as the Ssb KD could be having an indirect affect due to its other developmental functions. This manuscript lacks a direct functional link between Ssb and XCI; more data is necessary.

    Given the diverse functions of Ssb in cell differentiation and proliferation, ribosome biogenesis, transcriptional control and tRNA maturation, one would expect less surviving Ssb knockdown cells. In contrast, more Ssb knockdown cells survives in the presence of Dox, suggesting that Ssb plays an important role in XCI.

    For the data in Fig 3A-C, Ssb KD causes the death of female differentiating cells, but not male differentiating cells. Therefore, it rules out that the death of female cells is due to the general function of Ssb. Rather, the specific role of Ssb in XCI contributes to the female specific cell death.

    In Fig 3D, the authors perform ATAC-seq in inducible male ES cells. The authors claim that the extremely slight reduction in chromatin compaction of the Ssb KD compared to control iXist "directly connect La to the heterochromatinization of Xi, supporting a functional role of La in XCI". This is also an overstatement based on the minimal, and possibly indirect, change in compaction. The positive control i-detaA-Xist sample has significantly less compaction (and thus significantly higher compaction defect) than the Ssb KD again disputing the claim stated above. It is unclear why performing ATAC-seq is even necessary, as Ssb isn't stated to have a function in regulating chromatin architecture. In addition, why the authors performed ATAC-seq in the artificial male XCI system and not in the F1 female cells, and the N of the experiment is unclear. If the authors want to include the ATAC-seq in further revisions it should be repeated n=3 in the female system.

    The male induced XCI system provides a more synchronized onset of XCI. More importantly, in the male induced XCI system, only one X chromosome exists, avoiding the interference from the active X chromosome in female cells. If ATAC-seq was performed in female cells, only loci with SNPs can be distinguished. The sequencing reads from Xa will create additional layers of complication/noise which may not be cleared up fully by data analysis

    “i-delat-Xist” is a positive control to show the experimental system works. It is not justified to compare the chromatin accessibility of the mutant, which is only a Ssb “knockdown” mutant, and the control “i-delat-Xist”, in which the Repeat A is “deleted”. We admit that ATAC-Seq results did not reveal a drastic difference in chromatin accessibility between the wild type sample and the mutant sample. However, as what we discussed in the manuscript, clear difference can still be seen at the 14 h time point. This is shown clearly by the heatmap (Fig. 3E) and the sequencing coverage profile (Fig. S4A).

    In Fig 6, the authors state in their methods that "The shRNA construct, which worked efficiently against Ssb, was not designed against the 3' UTR of the RNA. Therefore, the shRNA is against some of the rescue plasmid constructs. Nonetheless, transfecting the Ssb knockdown cells with the rescue plasmids should compensate the effect of Ssb knockdown and serve as a rescue assay to study the functional domains of La.". This is troubling and seems like a major experimental issue; the specific rescue constructs that may be impacted by this issue are not stated and should be explicitly mentioned. This becomes more confusing when examining the data from rescue experiments.

    We pointed out this issue in the original manuscript. We agree that the experiment was not perfectly designed. In the revision, we added in the information on the shRNA target site. Our shRNA targets the LAM domain, so the expression of ∆LAM is not affected by the shRNA. We agree that the detected GFP expression levels of ∆RRM1 and ∆RRM2 are too low to be conclusive. In the revision, we have removed the data point of ∆RRM1 and ∆RRM2. Meanwhile, it is clear that ∆RRM1&2 has a better rescuing effect than ∆NLS, when ∆RRM1&2 and ∆NLS are expressed at similar levels. Ssb is a well-known RNA chaperone/RNA helicase. Identifying Ssb is an Xist-binding protein already suggests the functional role of Ssb in XCI. The data of the plasmid rescue experiments further suggests that Ssb is involved in XCI as a RNA chaperone/RNA helicase.

    If it is necessary, we could redo this experiments using a shSsb targeting 3’-UTR or expressing GFP-Ssb immune to shSsb.

    In Figure S7, the expression of the rescue constructs deltaRRM1 and deltaRRM2 is extremely low, yet the authors observe a rescue of the cloud phenotype (fig 6D) from those constructs that reaches almost the level of full length Ssb. This is confusing, and the authors need to address this by performing a western blot to show the protein levels of these rescue constructs and discuss further how such a low level of expression can show a rescue phenotype. The results would also be stronger if the authors examined H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub1 enrichment since they observed decreased overlap of these marks with Xist RNA after Ssb KD. Finally, the authors state that "...all three RNA-binding domains are required for the functionality of La in XCI..." however I have trouble coming to this conclusion based on the above issues. As well, if the authors want to support direct function, they should repeat the RIP experiments with these rescues constructs to show that the domains capable of rescue can still bind to Xist RNA.

    Reviewer 1 raised similar concerns. In Figure 6C, the live cell counts of ∆RRM1 and ∆NLS are about the same. It might be due to the low expression level of ∆RRM1 (Figure S7). It is clear that ∆RRM1&2 has a better rescuing effect than ∆NLS, when ∆RRM1&2 and ∆NLS are expressed as similar levels. To make the data more straight forward, we removed the data point of ∆RRM1 and ∆RRM2, because of their low expression levels.

    As for the Western blot and GFP fluorescence (IF), we have tried both. Neither of them detected GFP signal, reflecting the low expression level of these GFP fusion proteins. The shSsb is not targeting the 5’ or 3’-UTR region, therefore interfering the exogenous Ssb as well. This might be a reason for the low expression of these GFP fusion proteins. If it is necessary, we could redo this experiments using a shSsb targeting 3’–UTR or expressing GFP-Ssb immune to shSsb.

    We deleted the sentence "all three RNA-binding domains are required for the functionality of La in XCI".

    **Minor comments:**

    The authors may want to consider better highlighting the strengths of their "FLAG-out" system. As written, is it difficult to tell how this system sets them apart from the previously published studies referenced in the text, especially as some of these studies used similar crosslinking conditions and cell types. Additionally, the logic and questions the authors pose in the introduction as to why they performed this project are too general and not very strong. For example, the authors mention how might protein machinery may assemble on Xist RNA, and how might Xist RNA may spread on the X chromosome. However neither of these topics are actually addressed in their experiments or discussion. These are interesting questions, but the authors should either discuss them further within the context of their results or take these questions out. It would also be helpful if the authors could better label Figure 4, as it is unclear in the figure itself that Fig 4A is in reference to female cells, but remaining panels are in male cells.

    The inducible XCI in male cells is a valid system to recapitulate the silencing step of XCI. It also provides unique advantages in many experiments, such as ATAC-seq. Meanwhile, we did perform extensive functional analysis on the endogenous XCI process using female cells. However, we do realize that presenting the data of induced XCI in male cells together with the data from female cells is confusing to many readers. We have revised the labelling on Figure 3, 4, 5, 7 S6 and S9 (S5 and S8 before revision).

    To understand “how the protein machinery is assembled by Xist” and “how Xist spreads along its host chromosome territory” are not specifically the initial aims of this study. We removed the sentences from the introduction section. However, we believe Ssb may provide clues for the future studies to fully address these questions, and we did provide the following thoughts in the discussion section:

    “……Secondly, as Ssb is able to utilize ATP to unwind RNA-RNA and RNA-DNA duplex, it may play a more active role in controlling the structural dynamics of Xist in living cells (14, 23). These structural dynamics may be important for recruiting proteins onto the RNA and spreading of the RNA along its host chromosome territory……”

    Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

    I am not convinced the this manuscript, as written, has sufficient novelty. Ssb/La has been previously identified to be an Xist RNA binding protein with older/different approaches. However, there are some interesting observations in this manuscript. Major revisions are necessary.

    We agree with the reviewer that identification of Ssb as an Xist RNA binding protein is not novel. The novelty of our discovery lies in: 1) we developed a new method for isolating lincRNA associated proteins; 2) we confirmed that Ssb is an important player involved in XCI; 3) we showed that Ssb regulates the folding of Xist RNA, consequently the stability of Xist and the formation of Xist cloud.

  3. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #2

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    This manuscript describes a novel "FLAG-out" system, where the authors sought to identify Xist RNA binding proteins. The authors focused on a specific protein found in their screen and also identified in several other screens for Xist RNA binding proteins, Ssb/La, and further characterize the role of this protein in XCI. This manuscript describes the loss of Ssb/La and suggest that it predominately impacts the canonical 'cloud' formation of Xist RNA on the X chromosome during XCI initiation. Further, they determine that loss of Ssb/La decreases Xist RNA half-life and alters folding of Xist RNA transcripts. Based on their findings, the authors propose that Ssb/La functions to directly bind and fold Xist RNA transcripts in a manner that stabilizes Xist RNA, allowing for proper 'cloud' formation and successful initiation of XCI.

    Major comments:

    The authors made an interesting findings that the SLE-relevant autoantigen Ssb/La stabilizes Xist RNA transcripts, and there is some evidence that this occurs by binding and maintaining proper folding of Xist RNA. Despite these intriguing observations, there are many parts of the manuscript that need to be addressed in order to support the authors main conclusions.

    • The most troubling aspect of this manuscript is the persistent use of an artificial XCI system in male cells to draw strong conclusions about the function of Ssb in XCI. This issue is prevalent throughout the manuscript, and I question why the authors chose to perform most of their experiments in male cells when the same experiments can be (and have previously been by other groups) performed in female cells. Using male ESCs and then making conclusions for XCI, which is a female-specific process, is a major concern.

    • Out of the 138 identified binding proteins, the authors chose to only validate three: Mybbp1a, Tardbp, and Ssb/La. The logic for choosing these candidates is weak, and the authors are only able to validate 1 out of 3 of these proteins.

    • Use of the cell death assay is not strong enough to "confirm that La is involved in induced XCI" as stated by the authors. This is a huge overstatement.

    • While the authors observed differences in X-linked gene expression after Ssb KD, they did not examine expression of these genes in after KD of either Mybbp1a or Tardbp. Are the changes observed in these genes specific to Ssb KD? Or could there still be alterations of X-linked gene expression in the non-validated KDs? This experiment should be performed and included in the manuscript, either within Fig 2 or in the supplemental. As well, inclusion of a well characterized positive control, for example Hnrnpu, as comparison to Ssb should be included.

    • The authors perform RIP to validate the interaction of Ssb with Xist, but this is performed in male ES cells with induced Xist RNA and with FLAG-tagged Ssb. Aside from these cells being male, in this system Xist RNA expression is much higher than would be found endogenously. RIP should have been done in female differentiated ESCs if there is in fact a role for XCI.

    • The authors need to include more details in the methods section to explain how the FLAG-Ssb is expressed in these cells, and why the authors chose to use a tagged contrast over endogenous Ssb. Due to these issues the result from this experiment is essentially meaningless and is not convincing of Ssb interaction with Xist RNA. There is no reason RIP cannot be performed in female cells, and the authors should repeat this experiment in the relevant experimental condition. As well, if a validated Ssb antibody exists the authors should perform RIP using the endogenous protein.

    • The authors state in Fig 3A-C that the results of the cell death and differentiation experiments "...support a functional role of La in XCI". The authors state earlier that Ssb is a ubiquitous protein that is embryonic lethal (in both female and males). Based on this, the cell death results shown do not support a functional role of La in XCI as the Ssb KD could be having an indirect affect due to its other developmental functions. This manuscript lacks a direct functional link between Ssb and XCI; more data is necessary.

    • In Fig 3D, the authors perform ATAC-seq in inducible male ES cells. The authors claim that the extremely slight reduction in chromatin compaction of the Ssb KD compared to control iXist "directly connect La to the heterochromatinization of Xi, supporting a functional role of La in XCI". This is also an overstatement based on the minimal, and possibly indirect, change in compaction. The positive control i-detaA-Xist sample has significantly less compaction (and thus significantly higher compaction defect) than the Ssb KD again disputing the claim stated above. It is unclear why performing ATAC-seq is even necessary, as Ssb isn't stated to have a function in regulating chromatin architecture. In addition, why the authors performed ATAC-seq in the artificial male XCI system and not in the F1 female cells, and the N of the experiment is unclear. If the authors want to include the ATAC-seq in further revisions it should be repeated n=3 in the female system.

    • In Fig 6, the authors state in their methods that "The shRNA construct, which worked efficiently against Ssb, was not designed against the 3' UTR of the RNA. Therefore, the shRNA is against some of the rescue plasmid constructs. Nonetheless, transfecting the Ssb knockdown cells with the rescue plasmids should compensate the effect of Ssb knockdown and serve as a rescue assay to study the functional domains of La.". This is troubling and seems like a major experimental issue; the specific rescue constructs that may be impacted by this issue are not stated and should be explicitly mentioned. This becomes more confusing when examining the data from rescue experiments.

    • In Figure S7, the expression of the rescue constructs deltaRRM1 and deltaRRM2 is extremely low, yet the authors observe a rescue of the cloud phenotype (fig 6D) from those constructs that reaches almost the level of full length Ssb. This is confusing, and the authors need to address this by performing a western blot to show the protein levels of these rescue constructs and discuss further how such a low level of expression can show a rescue phenotype. The results would also be stronger if the authors examined H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub1 enrichment since they observed decreased overlap of these marks with Xist RNA after Ssb KD. Finally, the authors state that "...all three RNA-binding domains are required for the functionality of La in XCI..." however I have trouble coming to this conclusion based on the above issues. As well, if the authors want to support direct function, they should repeat the RIP experiments with these rescues constructs to show that the domains capable of rescue can still bind to Xist RNA.

    Minor comments:

    The authors may want to consider better highlighting the strengths of their "FLAG-out" system. As written, is it difficult to tell how this system sets them apart from the previously published studies referenced in the text, especially as some of these studies used similar crosslinking conditions and cell types. Additionally, the logic and questions the authors pose in the introduction as to why they performed this project are too general and not very strong. For example, the authors mention how might protein machinery may assemble on Xist RNA, and how might Xist RNA may spread on the X chromosome. However neither of these topics are actually addressed in their experiments or discussion. These are interesting questions, but the authors should either discuss them further within the context of their results or take these questions out. It would also be helpful if the authors could better label Figure 4, as it is unclear in the figure itself that Fig 4A is in reference to female cells, but remaining panels are in male cells.

    Significance

    I am not convinced the this manuscript, as written, has sufficient novelty. Ssb/La has been previously identified to be an Xist RNA binding protein with older/different approaches. However, there are some interesting observations in this manuscript. Major revisions are necessary.

  4. Review Commons

    Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

    Learn more at Review Commons

    Referee #1

    Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

    Summary:

    Provide a short summary of the findings and key conclusions (including methodology and model system(s) where appropriate).

    Here Ha et al. has further developed their Pumilio RNA tagging methodology for the isolation of UV-crosslinked proteins that are suggested to associate with Xist RNA in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). Within this study the authors claim to have found the Lupus antigen RNA binding protein (La) as a novel Xist interacting partner that influences the efficacy of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI). The authors use a number of different techniques such as qPCR, fluorescent imaging, ATAC-SEQ and SHAPE to show aberration of XCI upon La shRNA knockdown. However, this study has significant flaws in the efficient isolation and validation of Xist associated proteins using their FLAG-out methodology. Furthermore, later experiments predominantly focus on cell death/survival assays, which is somewhat troubling given the essential roles La plays in processes such as cell differentiation and proliferation, ribosome biogenesis, transcriptional control and tRNA maturation. I feel the authors need to robustly address the potential effects La knockdown may be having on their mESCs.

    Major comments:

    -Are the key conclusions convincing?

    My major concern is in their Xist RNA purification. First of all, I couldn't find any data on proving the enrichment of Xist RNA itself in their Pumilio pull-down experiment. It would have been useful to show Xist RNA enrichment before benzonase step. Secondly, it is hard to imagine the protocol would successfully isolated Xist RNA-protein complexes from the cell. An earlier report by Clemson et al., (J Cell Biol., 1996) has shown that majority of Xist RNA is still stuck in the nucleus after nuclear matrix prep protocol using detergent, which is not so different from the authors' protocol. Moreover, the authors used UV crosslink, which would have made even harder to purify Xist RNA without sonication. Thirdly, as the tag is located on 5' of Xist RNA, it is rather surprising to see that Spen is not detected in their pulldown. Spen is one of the main functional interactors with Xist, robustly detected by several previous reports. Similarly, other high-affinity binders of Xist such as hnRNP-K and Ciz1 were also lacking from this screen. Finally, the peptides found associated with FLAG-out Xist are extremely low in comparison with other data using glutaraldehyde or formaldehyde crosslinking. For example, HnRNP-M found in Chu et al 2015 has 1120 peptide counts in differentiated cells. The authors here use HnRNP-M as a baseline for specific interactions and show a total of 6 peptide counts in Xist expressing cells and 5 in i-Empty cells (Supplementary excel sheet 1). Similarly, the La protein of interest in this study has 8 counts in i-FLAG-Xist and 6 counts in i-Empty. I struggle to see how this result indicate specific Xist binding. Worryingly this is the starting rationale for the rest of their experiments, it is hard to therefore accept the rest of their conclusions either.

    The other key conclusion the authors make is from the use of numerous cell death/survival assays for both male and female cell lines. This is extremely troubling in the context of assessing their target protein La. La is involved in multiple RNA maturation events of rRNAs, tRNAs and other polIII transcripts. Furthermore, La has been implicated in binding to the mRNA for Cyclin D1 in both human cells and mouse fibroblasts (NIH/3T3 - male) which show a significant effect on cell proliferation upon siRNA knockdown https://www.nature.com/articles/onc2010425. This, along with the observation that La knock-out blastocysts fail to develop any mice or ES cell lines (male or female) show the effect observed in the authors results is most likely not X-linked cell death https://mcb.asm.org/content/mcb/26/4/1445.full.pdf. The authors need to show that their shRNA KD isn't affecting the proliferation and general fitness of their mESC lines.

    - Should the authors qualify some of their claims as preliminary or speculative, or remove them altogether?

    As discussed above, I feel the authors have not clearly demonstrated Xist specific protein enrichment and haven't proven X-linked cell death. Due to the lack of necessary control experiments as discussed below, I feel the notion that La is involved directly in XCI as an RNA chaperone is currently preliminary/speculative.

    - Would additional experiments be essential to support the claims of the paper? Request additional experiments only where necessary for the paper as it is, and do not ask authors to open new lines of experimentation.

    I would suggest them to show RT-qPCR results of Xist RNA enrichment from the sample after flagIP before benzonase treatment.

    Also, it would have been more convincing if their negative control construct (i-Empty) would contain 25 copies of PBSb RNA at least.

    In Fig1b, the total amount of proteins loaded on the gel is not equivalent between two lanes. The gel should show equivalent amounts of proteins on the gel. It looks like if the negative control sample had been loaded at the same amount as the one with Xist, the band pattern wouldn't be distinguishable between the two samples. Furthermore, as these samples were used in the following mass spectrometry screen it may suggest that the minimal increase in peptide counts observed in the iXist FLAG-out were due to an increased amount of sample being loaded? No controls are conducted to account for this.

    The authors quantify cell death in figures 2C - E. It seems clear that shSsb 1 and 2 have an effect on cell count even in the absence of Dox. The rescue effect seen upon Dox addition is minimal when compared to Empty + Dox 2D. The authors ∆A-iXist line with and without Ssb KD/Dox would be an informative control on whether the increase in cell survival that they see is X-linked.

    The qPCR results used to validate silencing defects show minor changes in expression and also don't show significant silencing of X-linked genes sufficient for cell death. Could this be because only ~ 50 - 60% of Male iXist cells seem to be expressing in the movies and that this will have an effect on the observed qPCR results? Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that expression in the Empty male cells increases in 48h compared to 14h. Is this due to cell death and positive selection of cells less able to silence their X-chromosome? How would these data look in the female XX line? How would the data look in a ∆A-iXist line in the presence and absence of shSsb/Dox?

    Confusingly, the male line in Fig 3C shows a drop in live cell count at day 6 of differentiation? Surely given their previous results in Fig 2 the Ssb KD should increase cell viability with +Dox? Ssb KD seems to have an adverse effect on ES cells during extended differentiation protocols. In Figure S1 the authors show ~ 8 - 10% survival of male lines during differentiation. Could the recombination of the Xist sequence around the loxP sites enable the cells to outcompete the dead cells? How would iEmpty and ∆A-iXist cells compare here? Have the differentiated cells been tested for their expression of Xist? Additionally, how are there similar live cell counts for male vs female lines when ~90% of male cells die during differentiation? Were more cells plated at day 4? If so, this would bias the competition of male cell survival and therefore make the male line an inappropriate control. Given the essential role of La during development a control is needed to prove that this death is X-linked in the female 3F1 line. For example, an XO cell line retaining the Cast allele and shSsb expression could show the amount of death caused from shSsb alone independent of X-linked cell death.

    If I understood correctly, the RNA FISH used dsDNA probes ("Sx9") against 40 kb of the X-inactivation centre (Xic). Surely Tsix or other Xic transcripts will also be visible? Can the authors use their RNA FISH to determine the XX or XO status of their cells? In Figure S5 a number of cells appear to show a single pinpoint of transcription. This could either be low levels of Xist transcripts or Xic transcription from an XO line in which the 129 chromosome is missing. It would be best to solely quantify cells which have two x chromosomes and if a significant amount of X chromosomes have been kicked out, this should be discussed and controlled for.

    In Fig6, the authors generated a number of Ssb constructs for a rescue assay. However, these results complicate the matter and raise more questions than they address. It seems odd that the ∆RRM1 does not rescue based on comparison with their putative negative control, ∆NLS. However, the ∆RRM1 + 2 and ∆LAM do rescue the phenotype better than the full length Ssb? This makes no logical sense and highlights the inherent variation in cell viability these generated cell lines seem to show. Following on from this, figure S7 quantifies the GFP tag mRNA levels, depicting all ∆RRM mutants with expression below ~30%? How can ∆RRM1 or 2 be rescuing in this scenario? Have these lines been tested for their XX or XO status? The loss of an X chromosome would lead to a rescue of the cell death phenotype, which is a process known to occur in XX lines that have been cultured for extended periods of time. Could it also be that the cell lines derived are more or less sensitive to exogenous shRNA expression? Also, further validation is needed to assess the efficiency of KD in these lines as theoretically most of these constructs will be targeted by shRNA? What is the endogenous Ssb expression level in these lines? Where in the mRNA sequence are the shRNAs targeted to? Does this make sense on the relative expression levels of ∆RRM1/2 for example? Further testing of GFP expression could also be assessed by quantitative western blot of GFP or even visualised in their RNA FISH/IF samples (Figure S8), currently neither are shown. In addition, some kind of information of stability of each Ssb protein constructs has not been demonstrated.

    For the data shown in Figure 7A and B the authors quantify the % of cells with Xist signal. The authors have already shown a defect in Xist visualisation in Ssb KD. Surely it is plausible to assume a faster loss of Xist signal below background in weaker expressing cells. A more appropriate quantification would be the % loss of Xist signal per cell over time.

    With Figure 7C and D, the samples have been treated with actinomycin D which globally affects the transcription of cells even the PolIII associated genes Ssb is needed to mature. This treatment could have an added effect on cell mortality and function. Data confirming that actinomycin D doesn't affect the cells disproportionately is needed. The difference in half-life could be attributed to such a treatment.

    In summarising the authors claim that La binds Xist to facilitate folding and appropriate spreading of Xist along the X-chromosome. No direct interaction has been shown, CLIP-seq data would resolve this, however I do understand this is a challenging technique. The authors have instead opted for RIP followed by qPCR (Figure S2). However, this process has a greater potential for non-specific recovery of RNAs via indirect binding. Furthermore, qPCR may also amplify the relative abundance of the RNA detected. As multiple nucleolar proteins came down in the mass spec screen and FLAG-Ssb is being over expressed, it is plausible to assume some transient Xist interactions may arise from nucleolar association at which La will be in high abundance. Positive and negative nuclear RNA controls (e.g. 7SK and U1 snRNA respectively) could be used so to determine the amount of non-specific Protein-RNA interactions in their RIP pull downs. Cytoplasmic actin is not an appropriate control as it is cytosolic.

    Other than this the authors may want to probe (via IF) for the presence of La accumulation on the X? Many other know factors such as Ciz1, hnrnpK and PRC1/2 complexes show clear accumulation on the X. If I understand correctly, there are many La antibodies on the market and endogenous levels on the X could be assessed. These antibodies may be useful in IP's and pull downs also.

    -Are the suggested experiments realistic in terms of time and resources? It would help if you could add an estimated cost and time investment for substantial experiments.

    The experiments suggested above are centrally focussed on the cell lines that are currently in the authors possession with maybe exceptions with the ∆A-iXist-shSsb line suggested. However, this should be reasonably quick to obtain given their previous work for this paper. Most experiments suggested will focus on the validation of karyotype, Xist expression, rescue construct expression, further RNA FISH classification and repeating more appropriate positive and negative controls for a number of experiments. In theory this can be obtained relatively simply and quickly from current resources. But with the sheer volume of further experiments that are required here, this may take a significant amount of time. One vital improvement needed is the replication of mass spec data and the validation of Xist specific recovery and protein enrichment. As it stands this manuscript seems to not have any replicates of the FLAG-out methodology and mass spec data. This is troubling given the poor recovery and specificity of the protein samples obtained. Repeating these experiments would be costly in time and also financially. As it stands, I feel this is essential to conclusively validate their target of interest.

    - Are the data and the methods presented in such a way that they can be reproduced?

    The data is presented relatively well, however, it would be beneficial if deailed methods were in the main text and not in a supplementary file. Similarly, more information about the process of differentiation and how cell death/survival was quantified and validated is needed.

    - Are the experiments adequately replicated and statistical analysis adequate?

    In the most part yes, however there seems to be no replicates of the FLAG-out mass spec screen which is worrying given the minimal specificity observed in the current data.

    Minor comments:

    - Specific experimental issues that are easily addressable.

    Unfortunately, the majority of experimental issues need to be addressed with more robust data which are highlighted above. However, some image analysis, quantification and classification can be amended relatively easily. For example, the live-cell imaging data should be quantified as loss of signal as discussed and RNA FISH should be used to classify XX positive cells and the XO cells can be discarded from analysis.

    - Are prior studies referenced appropriately?

    Most papers regarding Xist pull down and biology are discussed and referenced appropriately. However, the role in which La plays during development and its aberrant affects upon KD are seemingly downplayed. I would like to see more discussion of potential defects that could be caused due to globally altering cellular RNA folding.

    - Are the text and figures clear and accurate?

    For the most part, lots of the figures are clear and accurate. Apart from these exceptions.

    1.The Y-axis of Figure 2D is confusing. What does 0.3 as a "sum of area" equate to? 30% of the area was ES cells? This doesn't look to be the case from Fig 2C. Also, how does the intensity of the signal compare? The area may not be a good quantification due to ES cells growing in colonies.

    2.In the Movies S1-7 there are boxes around certain cells and marked with "Figure 5a - c". This seems to be incorrect as figure 5 is currently the IF staining of polycomb marks. I assume this is in relation to Figure 4b-d?

    3.Similarly, in Movies S1-7, the intensities of Xist foci seem by eye to be similar. In the paper it is claimed that the Xist clouds that do form are lower in intensity. Are the Movies depicting the same range of pixel intensities? If not, this should be amended. Similarly, figure 7 seems to show relatively equivalent RNA signal at 0 h?

    4.In figure 4A the data is from female XX cells, this should be highlighted to limit confusion with the male iXist data shown below in 4B-E. It would also be helpful to have the male/female icons (as in figure 3B), for each figure that has images of cells. Currently Figure 4, 5, 7, S5 and S8 are lacking these icons.

    5.No explanation of the Flag-Ssb expression is given for figure S2. Furthermore, is it really necessary to express Flag-Ssb? There are reasonably good antibodies out there for Ssb as this was how it was originally found in Systemic Lupus patients. Also, no data showing the amount of Ssb being overexpressed is shown. This may have big implication to the validity of the RIP-qPCR analysis.

    - Do you have suggestions that would help the authors improve the presentation of their data and conclusions?

    Most of the data is presented reasonably well, but the robustness of the data somewhat retracts from their conclusions. I feel the certainty of their conclusion regarding Xist specific La binding and RNA chaperone activity is still presumptive and should be rewritten unless more robust data can confirm Xist interaction. I would also suggest deciding on the nomenclature for the protein of interest and use either La or Ssb, the continued use of both through the figures and text can get a little confusing to the reader.

    Significance

    - Describe the nature and significance of the advance (e.g. conceptual, technical, clinical) for the field.

    It was a good trial to use PBSb-PUFb system to purify Xist RNA binding proteins, compared to previous reports had used anti-sense oligo purification using complementary sequence to Xist RNA sequences. But currently the purification still needs further validation and repeats to confirm its use. A potential complementary technique could be to isolate Xist directly by using biotinylated probes against the PBSb sequence. The authors further claim the identification of a novel Xist RNA chaperone (La/Ssb) which they say facilitates XCI progression. This would be a novel finding in the field; however, the data is currently not robust enough to support this.

    - Place the work in the context of the existing literature (provide references, where appropriate).

    This work has focused on the development of a milder methodology for purifying Xist RNA during XCI. Others have published similar methodologies predominantly focusing on purifying Xist RNA directly with biotinylated probes (McHugh et al. Minaji et al and Chu et al.). Although this method boasts a milder purification method, it seems to be low yielding in Xist specific proteins. Others have shown a more robust identification of bona fide Xist binding proteins which are currently missing in this manuscript. A recent preprint from the Plath lab has identified new factors involved in XCI during differentiation and their tethering/rescue experiments are far more convincing than the ones shown in this manuscript https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.979369v1. The candidate protein Ha et al have identified has multiple roles in developing cells and has shown to be important during mouse development. However, Ha et al do not robustly show that the knockdown of Ssb causes X-linked cell mortality. Alternatively, as would be presumed from Ssb's essential role in many housekeeping short non-coding RNAs, the cell death seems more ubiquitous upon shRNA KD. Therefore, the link the authors are making here are relatively weak.

    - State what audience might be interested in and influenced by the reported findings.

    The audience may be interested in the novel technique and the finding of a novel Xist binding protein.

    - Define your field of expertise with a few keywords to help the authors contextualize your point of view. Indicate if there are any parts of the paper that you do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate.

    RNA biochemistry and developmental biology

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.07.981860v2 on bioRxiv
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.07.981860v1 on bioRxiv