Intergenerational transport of double-stranded RNA limits heritable epigenetic changes

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Intergenerational transport of double-stranded RNA limits heritable epigenetic changes" Shugarts and colleagues investigate intergenerational dsRNA transport in the nematode C. elegans. They induce oxidative damage in worms, blocking dsRNA import into cells (and potentially affecting the worms in other ways). Oxidative stress inhibits dsRNA import and the associated heritable regulation of gene expression in the adult germline (Fig. 2). The authors identify a novel gene, sid-1-dependent gene-1 (sdg-1), which is induced upon inhibition of SID-1 (Fig. 3). Both transient inhibition and genetic depletion of SID-1 lead to the upregulation of sdg-1 and a second gene, sdg-2 (Fig. 5). The expression of SDG-1 is variable, potentially indicating buffering regulation. While the expression of Sdg-1 could be consistent with a role in intergenerational transport of dsRNA, neither its overexpression nor loss-of-function impacts dsRNA-mediated silencing (Fig. 7) in the germline. It would be interesting to test if sdg-2 functions redundantly.

In summary, the authors have identified a novel worm-specific protein (sdg-1) that is induced upon loss of dsRNA import via SID-1, but is not required to mediate SID-1 RNA regulatory effects.

Remaining Questions:

• The authors use an experimental system that induces oxidative damage specifically in neurons to release dsRNAs into the circulation. Would the same effect be observed if oxidative damage were induced in other cell types?

• Besides dsRNA, which other RNAs and cellular products (macromolecules and small signalling molecules) are released into the circulation that could affect the observed changes in germ cells?

• SID-1 modifies RNA regulation within the germline (Fig. 7) and upregulates sdg-1 and sdg-2 (Fig. 5). However, SID-1's effects do not appear to be mediated via sdg-1. Testing the role of sdg-2 would be intriguing.

• Are sdg-1 or sdg-2 conserved in other nematodes or potentially in other species? Sdg-1 appears to be encoded or captured by a retro-element in the C. elegans genome and exhibits stochastic expression in different isolates. Is this a recent adaptation in the C. elegans genome, or is it present in other nematodes? Does loss-of-function of sdg-1 or sdg-2 have any observable effect?

Clarification for Readability:

To enhance readability and avoid misunderstandings, it is crucial to specify the model organism and its specific dsRNA pathways that are not conserved in vertebrates:

• In the first sentence of the paragraph "Here, we dissect the intergenerational transport of extracellular dsRNA ...", the authors should specify "in the nematode C. elegans". Unlike vertebrates, which recognise dsRNA as a foreign threat, worms and other invertebrates pervasively use dsRNA for signalling. Additionally, worms, unlike vertebrates and insects, encode RNA-dependent RNA polymerases that generate dsRNA from ssRNA substrates, enabling amplification of small RNA production. Especially in dsRNA biology, specifying the model organism is essential to avoid confusion about potential effects in humans.

• Similarly, the authors should specify "in C. elegans" in the sentence "Therefore, we propose that the import of extracellular dsRNA into the germline tunes intracellular pathways that cause heritable RNA silencing." This is important because C. elegans small RNA pathways differ significantly from those in other organisms, particularly in the PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA) pathways, which depend on dsRNA in C. elegans but uses ssRNA in vertebrates. Specification is crucial to prevent misinterpretation by the reader. It is well understood that mechanisms of transgenerational inheritance that operate in nematodes or plants are not conserved in mammals.

• The first sentence of the discussion, "Our analyses suggest a model for ...", would also benefit from specifying "in C. elegans". The same applies to the figure captions. Clarification of the model organism should be added to the first sentence, especially in Figure 1.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

RNAs can function across cell borders and animal generations as sources of epigenetic information for development and immunity. The specific mechanistic pathways how RNA travels between cells and progeny remains an open question. Here, Shugarts, et al. use molecular genetics, imaging, and genomics methods to dissect specific RNA transport and regulatory pathways in the C. elegans model system. Larvae ingesting double stranded RNA is noted to not cause continuous gene silencing throughout adulthood. Damage of neuronal cells expressing double stranded target RNA is observed to repress target gene expression in the germline. Exogenous supply of short or long double stranded RNA required different genes for entry into progeny. It was observed that the SID-1 double-stranded RNA transporter showed different expression over animal development. Removal of the sid-1 gene caused upregulation of two genes, the newly described sid-1-dependent gene sdg-1 and sdg-2. Both genes were observed to also be negatively regulated by other small RNA regulatory pathways. Strikingly, loss then gain of sid-1 through breeding still caused variability of sdg-1 expression for many, many generations. SDG-2 protein co-localizes with a Z-granule marker, an intracellular site for heritable RNA silencing machinery. Collectively, sdg-1 presents a model to study how extracellular RNAs can buffer gene expression in germ cells and other tissues.

Strengths:

(1) Very clever molecular genetic methods and genomic analyses, paired with thorough genetics, were employed to discover insights into RNA transport, sdg-1 and sdg-2 as sid-1-dependent genes, and sdg-1's molecular phenotype.

(2) The manuscript is well cited, and figures reasonably designed.

(3) The discovery of the sdg genes being responsive to the extracellular RNA cell import machinery provides a model to study how exogenous somatic RNA is used to regulate gene expression in progeny. The discovery of genes within retrotransposons stimulates tantalizing models how regulatory loops may actually permit the genetic survival of harmful elements.

Weaknesses:

(1) As presented, the manuscript is incredibly broad, making it challenging to read and consider the data presented. This concern is exemplified in the model figure, that requires two diagrams to summarize the claims made by the manuscript.

(2) The large scope of the manuscript denies space to further probe some of the ideas proposed. The first part of the manuscript, particularly Figures 1 and 2, presents data that can be caused by multiple mechanisms, some of which the authors describe in the results but do not test further. Thus, portions of the results text come across as claims that are not supported by the data presented.

(3) The manuscript focuses on the genetics of SDGs but not the proteins themselves. Few descriptions of the SDGs functions are provided nor is it clarified why only SDG-1 was pursued in imaging and genetic experiments. Additionally, the SDG-1 imaging experiments could use additional localization controls.