Comparative analyses of vertebrate CPEB proteins define two subfamilies with coordinated yet distinct functions in post-transcriptional gene regulation.

BACKGROUND: Vertebrate CPEB proteins bind mRNAs at cytoplasmic polyadenylation elements (CPEs) in their 3' UTRs, leading to cytoplasmic changes in their poly(A) tail lengths; this can promote translational repression or activation of the mRNA. However, neither the regulation nor the mechanisms of action of the CPEB family per se have been systematically addressed to date. RESULTS: Based on a comparative analysis of the four vertebrate CPEBs, we determine their differential regulation by phosphorylation, the composition and properties of their supramolecular assemblies, and their target mRNAs. We show that all four CPEBs are able to recruit the CCR4-NOT deadenylation complex to repress the translation. However, their regulation, mechanism of action, and target mRNAs define two subfamilies. Thus, CPEB1 forms ribonucleoprotein complexes that are remodeled upon a single phosphorylation event and are associated with mRNAs containing canonical CPEs. CPEB2-4 are regulated by multiple proline-directed phosphorylations that control their liquid-liquid phase separation. CPEB2-4 mRNA targets include CPEB1-bound transcripts, with canonical CPEs, but also a specific subset of mRNAs with non-canonical CPEs. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, these results show how, globally, the CPEB family of proteins is able to integrate cellular cues to generate a fine-tuned adaptive response in gene expression regulation through the coordinated actions of all four members.

Challenges of CRISPR/Cas9 applications for long non-coding RNA genes.

The CRISPR/Cas9 system provides a revolutionary genome editing tool for all areas of molecular biology. In long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) research, the Cas9 nuclease can delete lncRNA genes or introduce RNA-destabilizing elements into their locus. The nuclease-deficient dCas9 mutant retains its RNA-dependent DNA-binding activity and can modulate gene expression when fused to transcriptional repressor or activator domains. Here, we systematically analyze whether CRISPR approaches are suitable to target lncRNAs. Many lncRNAs are derived from bidirectional promoters or overlap with promoters or bodies of sense or antisense genes. In a genome-wide analysis, we find only 38% of 15929 lncRNA loci are safely amenable to CRISPR applications while almost two-thirds of lncRNA loci are at risk to inadvertently deregulate neighboring genes. CRISPR- but not siPOOL or Antisense Oligo (ASO)-mediated targeting of lncRNAs NOP14-AS1, LOC389641, MNX1-AS1 or HOTAIR also affects their respective neighboring genes. Frequently overlooked, the same restrictions may apply to mRNAs. For example, the tumor suppressor TP53 and its head-to-head neighbor WRAP53 are jointly affected by the same sgRNAs but not siPOOLs. Hence, despite the advantages of CRISPR/Cas9 to modulate expression bidirectionally and in cis, approaches based on ASOs or siPOOLs may be the better choice to target specifically the transcript from complex loci.