4.8 Article

Next-generation sequencing reveals two populations of damage-induced small RNAs at endogenous DNA double-strand breaks

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 22, 页码 11869-11882

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1107

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2015-04553, 1403003]
  2. Swedish Cancer Society [CAN 2016/460]
  3. Department of Molecular Biosciences, Wenner-Gren Institute at Stockholm University Doctoralship
  4. Faculty of Science at the Stockholm University, SFO Funding
  5. Stockholm University
  6. Vinnova [2015-04553] Funding Source: Vinnova
  7. Swedish Research Council [2015-04553] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that transcription takes place at DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), that transcripts at DSBs are processed by Drosha and Dicer into damage-induced small RNAs (diRNAs), and that diRNAs are required for DNA repair. However, diRNAs have been mostly detected in reporter constructs or repetitive sequences, and their existence at endogenous loci has been questioned by recent reports. Using the homing endonuclease I-PpoI, we have investigated diRNA production in genetically unperturbed human and mouse cells. I-PpoI is an ideal tool to clarify the requirements for diRNA production because it induces DSBs in different types of loci: the repetitive 28S locus, unique genes and intergenic loci. We show by extensive sequencing that the rDNA locus produces substantial levels of diRNAs, whereas unique genic and intergenic loci do not. Further characterization of diRNAs emerging from the 28S locus reveals the existence of two diRNA subtypes. Surprisingly, Drosha and its partner DGCR8 are dispensable for diRNA production and only one diRNAs subtype depends on Dicer processing. Furthermore, we provide evidence that diRNAs are incorporated into Argonaute. Our findings provide direct evidence for diRNA production at endogenous loci in mammalian cells and give insights into RNA processing at DSBs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据