Abstract

N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA modification impacts mRNA fate primarily via reader proteins, which dictate processes in development, stress, and disease. Yet little is known about m6A function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which occurs solely during early meiosis. Here we perform a multifaceted analysis of the m6A reader protein Pho92/Mrb1. Cross-linking immunoprecipitation analysis reveals that Pho92 associates with the 3’end of meiotic mRNAs in both an m6A-dependent and independent manner. Within cells, Pho92 transitions from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, and associates with translating ribosomes. In the nucleus Pho92 associates with target loci through its interaction with transcriptional elongator Paf1C. Functionally, we show that Pho92 promotes and links protein synthesis to mRNA decay. As such, the Pho92-mediated m6A-mRNA decay is contingent on active translation and the CCR4-NOT complex. We propose that the m6A reader Pho92 is loaded co-transcriptionally to facilitate protein synthesis and subsequent decay of m6A modified transcripts, and thereby promotes meiosis.

Data availability

The miCLIP, iCLIP and RNA-seq RAW and processed data are available to review GEO accession GSE193561:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE193561

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Radhika A Varier

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    radhikaav@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1302-3159
  2. Theodora Sideri

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5674-0804
  3. Charlotte Capitanchik

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Zornitsa Manova

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alice Rossi

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raghu R Edupuganti

    Department of Molecular Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Imke Ensinck

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Vincent WC Chan

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6638-5498
  10. Harshil Patel

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Joanna Kirkpatrick

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter Faull

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ambrosius P Snijders

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Michiel Vermeulen

    Department of Molecular Biology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Markus Ralser

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jernej Ule

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2452-4277
  17. Nicholas M Luscombe

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Folkert Jacobus van Werven

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    folkert.vanwerven@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6685-2084

Funding

Wellcome Trust (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Cancer Research UK (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Medical Research Council (FC001203)

  • Radhika A Varier
  • Theodora Sideri
  • Zornitsa Manova
  • Alice Rossi
  • Imke Ensinck
  • Folkert Jacobus van Werven

Wellcome Trust (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Cancer Research UK (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (FC010110)

  • Charlotte Capitanchik
  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (FC001134)

  • Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  • Markus Ralser

Cancer Research UK (FC001134)

  • Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  • Markus Ralser

Dutch Cancer Society

  • Raghu R Edupuganti
  • Michiel Vermeulen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Varier 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

  • 1,740
    views
  • 297
    downloads
  • 18
    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. Radhika A Varier
  2. Theodora Sideri
  3. Charlotte Capitanchik
  4. Zornitsa Manova
  5. Enrica Calvani Enrica.Calvani
  6. Alice Rossi
  7. Raghu R Edupuganti
  8. Imke Ensinck
  9. Vincent WC Chan
  10. Harshil Patel
  11. Joanna Kirkpatrick
  12. Peter Faull
  13. Ambrosius P Snijders
  14. Michiel Vermeulen
  15. Markus Ralser
  16. Jernej Ule
  17. Nicholas M Luscombe
  18. Folkert Jacobus van Werven
(2022)
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) reader Pho92 is recruited co-transcriptionally and couples translation to mRNA decay to promote meiotic fitness in yeast
eLife 11:e84034.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84034

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84034

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Marius Landau, Sherif Elsabbagh ... Joachim E Schultz
    Research Article

    The biosynthesis of cyclic 3′,5′-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by mammalian membrane-bound adenylyl cyclases (mACs) is predominantly regulated by G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Up to now the two hexahelical transmembrane domains of mACs were considered to fix the enzyme to membranes. Here, we show that the transmembrane domains serve in addition as signal receptors and transmitters of lipid signals that control Gsα-stimulated mAC activities. We identify aliphatic fatty acids and anandamide as receptor ligands of mAC isoforms 1–7 and 9. The ligands enhance (mAC isoforms 2, 3, 7, and 9) or attenuate (isoforms 1, 4, 5, and 6) Gsα-stimulated mAC activities in vitro and in vivo. Substitution of the stimulatory membrane receptor of mAC3 by the inhibitory receptor of mAC5 results in a ligand inhibited mAC5–mAC3 chimera. Thus, we discovered a new class of membrane receptors in which two signaling modalities are at a crossing, direct tonic lipid and indirect phasic GPCR–Gsα signaling regulating the biosynthesis of cAMP.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Shraddha KC, Kenny H Nguyen ... Thomas C Boothby
    Research Article

    The conformational ensemble and function of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) are sensitive to their solution environment. The inherent malleability of disordered proteins, combined with the exposure of their residues, accounts for this sensitivity. One context in which IDPs play important roles that are concomitant with massive changes to the intracellular environment is during desiccation (extreme drying). The ability of organisms to survive desiccation has long been linked to the accumulation of high levels of cosolutes such as trehalose or sucrose as well as the enrichment of IDPs, such as late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins or cytoplasmic abundant heat-soluble (CAHS) proteins. Despite knowing that IDPs play important roles and are co-enriched alongside endogenous, species-specific cosolutes during desiccation, little is known mechanistically about how IDP-cosolute interactions influence desiccation tolerance. Here, we test the notion that the protective function of desiccation-related IDPs is enhanced through conformational changes induced by endogenous cosolutes. We find that desiccation-related IDPs derived from four different organisms spanning two LEA protein families and the CAHS protein family synergize best with endogenous cosolutes during drying to promote desiccation protection. Yet the structural parameters of protective IDPs do not correlate with synergy for either CAHS or LEA proteins. We further demonstrate that for CAHS, but not LEA proteins, synergy is related to self-assembly and the formation of a gel. Our results suggest that functional synergy between IDPs and endogenous cosolutes is a convergent desiccation protection strategy seen among different IDP families and organisms, yet the mechanisms underlying this synergy differ between IDP families.