Regulated mRNA recruitment in dinoflagellates is reflected in hyper-variable mRNA spliced leaders and novel eIF4Es
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This important study provides previously unappreciated insights into the functions of protist eIF4E 5'mRNA cap-binding protein family members, thereby contributing to a better understanding of translation regulation in these organisms. The authors provide solid evidence to support the major conclusions of the article. However, the study may further benefit from establishing whether all of the eIF4E family members are indeed involved in translation and more direct evidence for the selectivity of their binding.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Molecular Biology (eLife)
Abstract
Dinoflagellates are eukaryotic algae with large genomes that rely heavily on post-transcriptional control for the regulation of gene expression. Dinoflagellate mRNAs are trans -spliced with a conserved 22 base spliced leader sequence (SL) that includes the 5’-cap to which the translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) binds to facilitate ribosomal recruitment. The binding of an eIF4E to a specific mRNA SL is a potential regulatory point in controlling dinoflagellate gene expression. Here we show that m 7 G is the 5’-cap base of the 65 bp SL RNA with additional methylations throughout the SL to give a mixture of novel multi-methylated sequences in Amphidinium carterae (CCMP1314). There is also sequence variability in all four bases seen at the first position followed by a variety of polymorphisms. Three novel clades of eIF4E have been shown in dinoflagellates that are distinct from the three metazoan classes of eIF4E. Members of each clade differ significantly from each other, but all bear the distinctive features of a cap-binding protein. Here we show large differences in expression and activity in six of the eight eIF4E family members from A. carterae . Transcripts of each are expressed throughout the diel cycle, but only eIF4E-1 family members and eIF4E-2a show discernable expression at the level of protein. Recombinant eIF4E-1 family members and eIF4E-3a, but not eIF4E-2a, are able to bind to m 7 GTP substrates in vitro . Overall, eIF4E-1a emerges with characteristics consistent with the role of a prototypical initiation factor; eIF4E-1a is the most conserved and highly expressed eIF4E family member, has the highest affinity for m 7 GpppG and m 7 GpppC by surface plasmon resonance, and is able to complement a yeast strain conditionally deficient in eIF4E. The large number of eIF4E family members along with the sequence and methylation state variability in the mRNA SLs underscore the unique nature of the translational machinery in the dinoflagellate lineage and suggest a wide range of possibilities for differential recruitment of mRNAs to the translation machinery. In the dinoflagellate, A. carterae , hyper-variable mRNA spliced leaders and novel eIF4Es reflect the reliance of dinoflagellates on variable mRNA recruitment for the regulation of gene expression .
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This important study provides previously unappreciated insights into the functions of protist eIF4E 5'mRNA cap-binding protein family members, thereby contributing to a better understanding of translation regulation in these organisms. The authors provide solid evidence to support the major conclusions of the article. However, the study may further benefit from establishing whether all of the eIF4E family members are indeed involved in translation and more direct evidence for the selectivity of their binding.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Using A. carterae as a model system, this work investigates the properties of the trans-spliced SL leader sequences and the dinoflagellate eIF4E protein family members.
Analysis was performed to identify the 5' cap type of the SL leader. Variation in the SL leader sequence and an abundance of modified bases was documented.
Various aspects of the sequence and expression of the eIF4E family members were examined. This included phylogeny, mRNA, and protein expression levels in A. carterae, and the ability of eIF4E proteins to bind cap structures. Differences in expression levels and cap-binding capacity were characterized, leading to the proposition that eIF4E-1a serves as the major cap-binding protein in A. carterae.
A major discussion point is the potential for differential eIF4E binding to specific SL leader …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Using A. carterae as a model system, this work investigates the properties of the trans-spliced SL leader sequences and the dinoflagellate eIF4E protein family members.
Analysis was performed to identify the 5' cap type of the SL leader. Variation in the SL leader sequence and an abundance of modified bases was documented.
Various aspects of the sequence and expression of the eIF4E family members were examined. This included phylogeny, mRNA, and protein expression levels in A. carterae, and the ability of eIF4E proteins to bind cap structures. Differences in expression levels and cap-binding capacity were characterized, leading to the proposition that eIF4E-1a serves as the major cap-binding protein in A. carterae.
A major discussion point is the potential for differential eIF4E binding to specific SL leader sequences as a regulatory mechanism, which is an exciting prospect. However, despite indications of sequence variability and the presence of various nucleotide modifications in the SL, and the several eIF4E variants, direct evidence to support this hypothesis is lacking.
It is an extensive and highly descriptive study. The work is presented clearly, although it is rather lengthy and contains repetition across the introduction, results, and discussion sections. Its style leans more towards a review format. As a non-expert in the field, I appreciated the extensive background however I do believe the paper would benefit from a more concise format.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Jones et al. extend their previous work on the translation machinery in Dinoflagellate. In particular, they study the species Amphidium carterae. They characterize the type of cap structure mRNAs possess in this species, as well as the eight eIF4E family members A. carterae possesses and their affinity to the mRNA cap. They also establish the leader sequences of the transpliced mRNAs that A. carterae generates during gene expression.
Strengths:
The authors performed a solid phylogenetic and biochemical study to understand the structure of Dinoflagellate mRNAs at the 5'-UTR as well as the divergence and biochemical features of eIF4Es across Dinoflagellate. They also establish eIF4E-1a as the prototypical paralog of the eIF4E family of proteins. The scientific questions they ask are very relevant to …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Jones et al. extend their previous work on the translation machinery in Dinoflagellate. In particular, they study the species Amphidium carterae. They characterize the type of cap structure mRNAs possess in this species, as well as the eight eIF4E family members A. carterae possesses and their affinity to the mRNA cap. They also establish the leader sequences of the transpliced mRNAs that A. carterae generates during gene expression.
Strengths:
The authors performed a solid phylogenetic and biochemical study to understand the structure of Dinoflagellate mRNAs at the 5'-UTR as well as the divergence and biochemical features of eIF4Es across Dinoflagellate. They also establish eIF4E-1a as the prototypical paralog of the eIF4E family of proteins. The scientific questions they ask are very relevant to the gene expression field across eukaryotes. The experiments and the phylogenetic analysis are performed with a very high quality. They perform a wide spectrum of experimental approaches and techniques to answer the questions.
Weaknesses:
The authors assume all eIF4E from Dinoflagellate are involved in translation, i.e., mRNA recruitment to the ribosome. Indeed, they think that the diverse biochemical features of all eIF4E in A. carterae have to do with the possible recruitment of different subsets of mRNAs to the ribosome for translation. I think that the biochemical differences among all paralogs also might be due to the involvement of some of them in different processes of RNA metabolism, other than translation. For instance, some of them could be involved only in RNA processing in the nucleus or mRNA storage in cytoplasmic foci.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this article, the authors provide an inventory of the 5' spliced leader sequences, cap structures, and eIF4E isoforms present in the model dinoflagellate species A. carterae. They provide evidence that the 5' cap structure is m7G, as it is in most characterized eukaryotes that do not employ trans-splicing for mRNA maturation, and that there are additional methylated nucleotides throughout the spliced leader RNAs. They then show that of the 8 different eIF4E species in A. carterae, only a subset of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 proteins are detected and that the levels change according to time of day. Interestingly, while the eIF4E1 proteins bind a canonical cap nucleotide and are able to complement eIF4E-deficiency in yeast, an eIF4E2 paralog does not bind the traditional cap.
Strengths:
A strength of the …
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this article, the authors provide an inventory of the 5' spliced leader sequences, cap structures, and eIF4E isoforms present in the model dinoflagellate species A. carterae. They provide evidence that the 5' cap structure is m7G, as it is in most characterized eukaryotes that do not employ trans-splicing for mRNA maturation, and that there are additional methylated nucleotides throughout the spliced leader RNAs. They then show that of the 8 different eIF4E species in A. carterae, only a subset of eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 proteins are detected and that the levels change according to time of day. Interestingly, while the eIF4E1 proteins bind a canonical cap nucleotide and are able to complement eIF4E-deficiency in yeast, an eIF4E2 paralog does not bind the traditional cap.
Strengths:
A strength of the article is that the authors have clearly presented the findings and by straying away from traditional model organisms, they have highlighted unique and interesting features of an understudied system for translational control. They provide complementary evidence for most findings using multiple techniques. E.g. the evidence that eIF4E1A binds m7GTP is supported by both pulldowns using m7GTP sepharose as well as SPR experiments to directly monitor binding of recombinant protein with affinity measurements. The methods are extremely detailed noting cell numbers, volumes, concentrations, etc. used in the experiments to be easily replicated.
Weaknesses:
While not necessary to support the author's conclusions, the significance of the work would be further enhanced by additional experiments to gain insights into mechanisms for translational control and to link specific SLs to organismal functions or mechanisms of mRNA recruitment.
-Monitoring diel expression of SLs and direct sequencing of mature mRNA would yield insights into whether there is regulated expression of RNAs with different SLs or the SLs themselves. This would also allow the authors to perform gene ontology to link SL expression at different points in the diel cycle to related functions, e.g. photosynthesis.
-In addition, the work would be strengthened by polysome sequencing or ribosome profiling as a function of the diel cycle, with analyses of when various spliced leader sequences are recruited to ribosomes in parallel with western blotting of polysome fractions to determine when various eIF4E isoforms are present on polysomes. This is a substantial expansion though from what the authors focused on in this manuscript, and not having these experiments does not undermine the findings presented. Alternatively, they could attempt to make bioinformatic comparisons with existing ribosome profiling datasets from a related dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium polyedrum, discussed briefly, if there were sufficient overlap between SL RNAs in these organisms.
-
