4.7 Article

Defining the regulatory network of the tissue-specific splicing factors Fox-1 and Fox-2

Journal

GENES & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 22, Issue 18, Pages 2550-2563

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gad.1703108

Keywords

tissue-specific alternative splicing; splicing regulatory network; Fox-1/A2BP1; Fox-2/RBM9; UGCAUG; comparative genomics

Funding

  1. NIH [GM74688]
  2. Damon-Runyon Cancer Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The precise regulation of many alternative splicing (AS) events by specific splicing factors is essential to determine tissue types and developmental stages. However, the molecular basis of tissue-specific AS regulation and the properties of splicing regulatory networks (SRNs) are poorly understood. Here we comprehensively predict the targets of the brain- and muscle-specific splicing factor Fox-1 (A2BP1) and its paralog Fox-2 (RBM9) and systematically define the corresponding SRNs genome-wide. Fox-1/2 are conserved from worm to human, and specifically recognize the RNA element UGCAUG. We integrate Fox-1/2- binding specificity with phylogenetic conservation, splicing microarray data, and additional computational and experimental characterization. We predict thousands of Fox-1/2 targets with conserved binding sites, at a false discovery rate (FDR) of similar to 24%, including many validated experimentally, suggesting a surprisingly extensive SRN. The preferred position of the binding sites differs according to AS pattern, and determines either activation or repression of exon recognition by Fox-1/2. Many predicted targets are important for neuromuscular functions, and have been implicated in several genetic diseases. We also identified instances of binding site creation or loss in different vertebrate lineages and human populations, which likely reflect fine-tuning of gene expression regulation during evolution.

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