4.7 Article

The Affinity of the S9.6 Antibody for Double-Stranded RNAs Impacts the Accurate Mapping of R-Loops in Fission Yeast

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 430, Issue 3, Pages 272-284

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.016

Keywords

R-loops; S9.6; dsRNA; DRIPc-seq; RNAse H1

Funding

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (TRACC)
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CHX)
  3. Comite du Rhone de la Ligue contre le Cancer
  4. National Institutes of Health [GM120607]
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

R-loops, which result from the formation of stable DNA:RNA hybrids, can both threaten genome integrity and act as physiological regulators of gene expression and chromatin patterning. To characterize R-loops in fission yeast, we used the S9.6 antibody-based DRIPc-seq method to sequence the RNA strand of R-loops and obtain strand-specific R-loop maps at near nucleotide resolution. Surprisingly, preliminary DRIPc-seq experiments identified mostly RNase H-resistant but exosome-sensitive RNAs that mapped to both DNA strands and resembled RNA:RNA hybrids (dsRNAs), suggesting that dsRNAs form widely in fission yeast. We confirmed in vitro that S9.6 can immuno-precipitate dsRNAs and provide evidence that dsRNAs can interfere with its binding to R-loops. dsRNA elimination by RNase III treatment prior to DRIPc-seq allowed the genome-wide and strand-specific identification of genuine R-loops that responded in vivo to RNase H levels and displayed classical features associated with R-loop formation. We also found that most transcripts whose levels were altered by in vivo manipulation of RNase H levels did not form detectable R-loops, suggesting that prolonged manipulation of R-loop levels could indirectly alter the transcriptome. We discuss the implications of our work in the design of experimental strategies to probe R-loop functions. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available