The skeletal muscle circadian clock regulates titin splicing through RBM20

Abstract

Circadian rhythms are maintained by a cell autonomous, transcriptional-translational feedback loop known as the molecular clock. While previous research suggests a role of the molecular clock in regulating skeletal muscle structure and function, no mechanisms have connected the molecular clock to sarcomere filaments. Utilizing inducible, skeletal muscle specific, Bmal1 knockout (iMSBmal1-/-) mice, we showed that knocking out skeletal muscle clock function alters titin isoform expression using RNAseq, LC-MS, and SDS-VAGE. This alteration in titin's spring length resulted in sarcomere length heterogeneity. We demonstrate the direct link between altered titin splicing and sarcomere length in vitro using U7 snRNPs that truncate the region of titin altered in iMSBmal1-/- muscle. We identified a mechanism whereby the skeletal muscle clock regulates titin isoform expression through transcriptional regulation of Rbm20, a potent splicing regulator of titin. Lastly, we used an environmental model of circadian rhythm disruption and identified significant down-regulation of Rbm20 expression. Our findings demonstrate the importance of the skeletal muscle circadian clock in maintaining titin isoform through regulation of RBM20 expression. Because circadian rhythm disruption is a feature of many chronic diseases, our results highlight a novel pathway that could be targeted to maintain skeletal muscle structure and function in a range of pathologies.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code: GSE189865

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lance A Riley

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainsville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Xiping Zhang

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Collin M Douglas

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Joseph M Mijares

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainsville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. David W Hammers

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2129-4047
  6. Christopher A Wolff

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5129-5692
  7. Neil B Wood

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Hailey R Olafson

    Department of Molecular Genetics of Microbiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ping Du

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Siegfried Labeit

    Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Michael J Previs

    Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Eric T Wang

    Department of Molecular Genetics of Microbiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2655-5525
  13. Karyn A Esser

    Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    For correspondence
    kaesser@ufl.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5791-1441

Funding

NIH Office of the Director (DP5OD017865)

  • Eric T Wang

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR066082,F31AR070625)

  • Karyn A Esser

National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (R01HL157487)

  • Michael J Previs

Fondation Leducq (13CVD04)

  • David W Hammers
  • Siegfried Labeit

The authors declare that the funders had no impact on the design or data collection or writing of this manuscript

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were conducted in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and approved and monitored by the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Protocols (IACUC numbers: 201809136, IACUC202100000018).

Copyright

© 2022, Riley et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,025
    views
  • 463
    downloads
  • 10
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Lance A Riley
  2. Xiping Zhang
  3. Collin M Douglas
  4. Joseph M Mijares
  5. David W Hammers
  6. Christopher A Wolff
  7. Neil B Wood
  8. Hailey R Olafson
  9. Ping Du
  10. Siegfried Labeit
  11. Michael J Previs
  12. Eric T Wang
  13. Karyn A Esser
(2022)
The skeletal muscle circadian clock regulates titin splicing through RBM20
eLife 11:e76478.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76478

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76478

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Kourosh Hayatigolkhatmi, Chiara Soriani ... Simona Rodighiero
    Tools and Resources

    Understanding the cell cycle at the single-cell level is crucial for cellular biology and cancer research. While current methods using fluorescent markers have improved the study of adherent cells, non-adherent cells remain challenging. In this study, we addressed this gap by combining a specialized surface to enhance cell attachment, the FUCCI(CA)2 sensor, an automated image analysis pipeline, and a custom machine learning algorithm. This approach enabled precise measurement of cell cycle phase durations in non-adherent cells. This method was validated in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines NB4 and Kasumi-1, which have unique cell cycle characteristics, and we tested the impact of cell cycle-modulating drugs on NB4 cells. Our cell cycle analysis system, which is also compatible with adherent cells, is fully automated and freely available, providing detailed insights from hundreds of cells under various conditions. This report presents a valuable tool for advancing cancer research and drug development by enabling comprehensive, automated cell cycle analysis in both adherent and non-adherent cells.

    1. Cell Biology
    Fatima Tleiss, Martina Montanari ... C Leopold Kurz
    Research Article

    Multiple gut antimicrobial mechanisms are coordinated in space and time to efficiently fight foodborne pathogens. In Drosophila melanogaster, production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) together with intestinal cell renewal play a key role in eliminating gut microbes. A complementary mechanism would be to isolate and treat pathogenic bacteria while allowing colonization by commensals. Using real-time imaging to follow the fate of ingested bacteria, we demonstrate that while commensal Lactiplantibacillus plantarum freely circulate within the intestinal lumen, pathogenic strains such as Erwinia carotovora or Bacillus thuringiensis, are blocked in the anterior midgut where they are rapidly eliminated by antimicrobial peptides. This sequestration of pathogenic bacteria in the anterior midgut requires the Duox enzyme in enterocytes, and both TrpA1 and Dh31 in enteroendocrine cells. Supplementing larval food with hCGRP, the human homolog of Dh31, is sufficient to block the bacteria, suggesting the existence of a conserved mechanism. While the immune deficiency (IMD) pathway is essential for eliminating the trapped bacteria, it is dispensable for the blockage. Genetic manipulations impairing bacterial compartmentalization result in abnormal colonization of posterior midgut regions by pathogenic bacteria. Despite a functional IMD pathway, this ectopic colonization leads to bacterial proliferation and larval death, demonstrating the critical role of bacteria anterior sequestration in larval defense. Our study reveals a temporal orchestration during which pathogenic bacteria, but not innocuous, are confined in the anterior part of the midgut in which they are eliminated in an IMD-pathway-dependent manner.