Prescott L. Deininger

LINE-1 RNA splicing and influences on mammalian gene expression

Long interspersed element-1 elements compose on average one-fifth of mammalian genomes. The expression and retrotransposition of L1 is restricted by a number of cellular mechanisms in order to limit their damage in both germ-line and somatic cells. L1 transcription is largely suppressed in most tissues, but L1 mRNA and/or proteins are still detectable in testes, a number of specific somatic cell types, and malignancies. Down-regulation of L1 expression via premature polyadenylation has been found to be a secondary mechanism of limiting L1 expression. We demonstrate that mammalian L1 elements contain numerous functional splice donor and acceptor sites. Efficient usage of some of these sites results in extensive and complex splicing of L1. Several splice variants of both the human and mouse L1 elements undergo retrotransposition. Some of the spliced L1 mRNAs can potentially contribute to expression ofopen reading frame 2-related products and therefore have implications for the mobility of SINEs even if they are incompetent for L1 retrotransposition. Analysis of the human EST database revealed that L1 elements also participate in splicing events with other genes. Such contribution of functional splice sites by L1 may result in disruption of normal gene expression or formation of alternative mRNA transcripts.

L1 mobile element expression causes multiple types of toxicity.

LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposons represent one of the most successful families of autonomous retroelements, accounting for at least 17% of the human genome. The expression of these elements can be deleterious to a cell. L1 expression has been shown to result in insertional mutagenesis, genomic deletions and rearrangements as well as double-strand DNA breaks. Also, L1 expression has been linked to the induction of apoptosis. These recent discoveries, in addition to correlations of L1 expression with cancer progression, prompted us to further characterize the effect of L1 expression on cellular viability. We show a marked decrease in the overall cellular vitality with expression of the L1 that was primarily dependent on the second open reading frame (ORF2). Both the endonuclease and reverse transcriptase domains of ORF2 can individually contribute to the deleterious effects of L1 expression. L1 decreases cellular viability both by the previously reported apoptotic signaling, but also by inducing a senescence-like state.

ERCC1/XPF limits L1 retrotransposition

Retrotransposons are currently active in the human and mouse genomes contributing to novel disease mutations and genomic variation via de novo insertions. However, little is known about the interactions of non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons with the host DNA repair machinery. Based on the model of retrotransposition for the human and mouse LINE-1 element, one likely intermediate is an extension of cDNA that is heterologous to the genomic target, a flap intermediate. To determine whether a human flap endonuclease could recognize and process this potential intermediate, the genetic requirement for the ERCC1/XPF heterodimer during LINE-1 retrotransposition was characterized. Reduction of XPF in human cells increased retrotransposition whereas complementation of ERCC1-deficiency in hamster cells reduced retrotransposition. These results demonstrate for the first time that DNA repair enzymes act to limit non-LTR retrotransposition and may provide insight into the genetic instability phenotypes of ercc1 and xpf individuals.

The impact of multiple splice sites in human L1 elements

LINE-1 elements represent a significant proportion of mammalian genomes. The impact of their activity on the structure and function of the host genomes has been recognized from the time of their discovery as an endogenous source of insertional mutagenesis. L1 elements contain numerous functional internal polyadenylation signals and splice sites that generate a variety of processed L1 transcripts. These sites are also reported to contribute to the generation of hybrid transcripts between L1 elements and host genes. Using northern blot analysis we demonstrate that L1 splicing, but not L1 polyadenylation, is delayed during the course of L1 expression. L1 splicing can also be negatively regulated by EBV SM protein known to alter this process. These results suggest a potential for L1 mRNA processing to be regulated in a tissue- and/or development-specific manner. The delay in L1 splicing may also serve to protect host genes from the excessive burden of L1 interference with their normal expression via aberrant splicing.

LINE-1 ORF1 protein enhances Alu SINE retrotransposition

Retroelements have contributed over one third of the human genome mass. The currently active LINE-1 (L1) codes for two proteins (ORF1p and ORF2p), both strictly required for retrotransposition. In contrast, the non-coding parasitic SINE (Alu) only appears to need the L1 ORF2p for its own amplification. This requirement was previously determined using a tissue culture assay system in human cells (HeLa). Because HeLa are likely to express functional L1 proteins, it is possible that low levels of endogenous ORF1p are necessary for the observed tagged Alu mobilization. By individually expressing ORF1 and ORF2 proteins from both human (L1RP and LRE3) and rodent (L1A102 and L1spa) L1 sources, we demonstrate that increasing amounts of ORF1 expressing vector enhances tagged Alu mobilization in HeLa cells. In addition, using chicken fibroblast cells as an alternate cell culture source, we confirmed that ORF1p is not strictly required for Alu mobilization in our assay. Supporting our observations in HeLa cells, we find that tagged Alu retrotransposition is improved by supplementation of ORF1p in the cultured chicken cells. We postulate that L1 ORF1p plays either a direct or indirect role in enhancing the interaction between the Alu RNA and the required factors needed for its retrotransposition.

Human retroelements may introduce intragenic polyadenylation signals.

In the human genome, the insertion of LINE-1 and Alu elements can affect genes by sequence disruption, and by the introduction of elements that modulate the gene’s expression. One of the modulating sequences retroelements may contribute is the canonical polyadenylation signal (pA), AATAAA. L1 elements include these within their own sequence and AATAAA sequences are commonly created in the A-rich tails of both SINEs and LINEs. Computational analysis of 34 genes randomly retrieved from the human genome draft sequence reveals an orientation bias, reflected as a lower number of L1s and Alus containing the pA in the same orientation as the gene. Experimental studies of Alu-based pA sequences when placed in pol II or pol III transcripts suggest that the signal is very weak, or often not used at all. Because the pA signal is highly affected by the surrounding sequence, it is likely that the Alu constructs evaluated did not provide the required recognition signals to the polyadenylation machinery. Although the effect of pA signals contributed by Alus is individually weak, the observed reduction of “sense” oriented pA-containing L1 and Alu elements within genes reflects that even a modest influence causes a change in evolutionary pressure, sufficient to create the biased distribution.

Tandem insertions of Alu elements.

Alu elements are non-autonomous, non-LTR retroposons that represent the most abundant mobile elements in the human genome (1.1 × 106 copies/genome). They preferentially insert adjacent to existing Alu elements. It has been proposed that Alu elements utilize LINE-1 machinery for their retroposition. The LINE-1 endonuclease cleaves at a loose consensus sequence. We have utilized a bioinformatics approach to show the order of insertion of pairs of young (Y) and old (S or J) Alu subfamily members. Our data suggest that the consensus LINE-1 endonuclease cleavage site used for insertion of the old Alu elements can be reused for integration of the younger ones inserting adjacent to them. However, there is also a preference at the 3′ end of Alu into a non-ideal cleavage site that may represent unique properties of the A-tail for integration. Alu elements inserting adjacent to one another may suggest the saturation of the optimal integration sites with existing Alu elements, rather than any innate preference for Alu elements to integrate adjacent to other Alus.