4.6 Article

Molecular and genetic dissection of recursive splicing

期刊

LIFE SCIENCE ALLIANCE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

LIFE SCIENCE ALLIANCE LLC
DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202101063

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-NS083833, R01-GM083300]
  2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Core Grant [P30-CA008748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the mechanisms regulating the choice between intronic ratchet points (RPs) and recursive splicing (RS) exons in Drosophila were investigated. It was found that competition between splice donors can suppress the inclusion of cryptic exons, exonic sequences can influence the choice of RS-exon usage, and splicing can suppress the utilization of RPs. The study highlights the multiple factors influencing splicing of RS-exons in Drosophila.
Intronic ratchet points (RPs) are abundant within long introns in the Drosophila genome and consist of juxtaposed splice acceptor and splice donor (SD) sites. Although they appear to encompass zero nucleotide exons, we recently clarified that intronic recursive splicing (RS) requires a cryptic exon at the RP (an RS-exon), which is subsequently always skipped and thus absent from mRNA. In addition, Drosophila encodes a smaller set of expressed exons bearing features of RS. Here, we investigate mechanisms that regulate the choice between RP and RS-exon SDs. First, analysis of Drosophila RP SD mutants demonstrates that SD competition suppresses inclusion of cryptic exons in endogenous contexts. Second, characterization of RS-exon reporters implicates exonic sequences as influencing choice of RS-exon usage. Using RS-exon swap and mutagenesis assays, we show exonic sequences can determine RS-exon inclusion. Finally, we provide evidence that splicing can suppress utilization of RP SDs to enable RS-exon expression. Overall, multiple factors can influence splicing of Drosophila RS-exons, which usually result in their complete suppression as zero-nucleotide RPs, but occasionally yield translated RS-exons.

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

4.6
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