497
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Perspective

Elaborate security TRAINing to fight against expression of genomic junk

Pages 553-554 | Published online: 31 Jan 2013

Abstract

A new study shows that the expression of two classes of repetitive elements in the mouse genome is controlled through two complementary mechanisms: DNA methylation and p53-mediated transcription suppression.¹ When both lines of defense fail, expression of the repeats yields large quantities of double-stranded RNA, triggering interferon response that leads to caspase-dependent cell death. These notable findings highlight two fundamental trends: tight coupling of defense and cell death mechanisms that appears to be universal in cellular life and the exploitation of the expression of “junk” DNA as a signal triggering “altruistic” cell suicide.

Double-stranded (ds) RNA is a major distress signal in eukaryotic cells.Citation2 Transcripts of regular eukaryotic genes do not normally form extensive duplexes. The presence of long stretches of dsRNA in a eukaryotic cell is a telltale sign of virus infection that is sensed by multiple defense (innate immunity) systems, including RNA interference that appears to be ancestral in eukaryotesCitation3,Citation4 and the interferon (IFN) pathways that are vertebrate-specific.Citation5,Citation6 A new study from Andrei Gudkov’s group reveals novel, unanticipated aspects of the dsRNA response in mammals and in a striking manner links this form of antivirus defense with tumorigenesis and with mammalian genome evolution. Leonova et al. describe a previously unsuspected phenomenon they denote TRAIN, for transcription of repeats activates interferon.Citation1 This discovery brings together, in a fine-tuned circuit, two distinct mechanisms of mammalian gene expression control, namely transcription suppression by p53 and by DNA methylation, with the IFN-dependent pathway of programmed cell death.

Approximately 60% of mammalian genomes consists of various classes of repetitive elements, most of which propagate via reverse transcription followed by ectopic integration.Citation7,Citation8 Typically, the expression of repeats is tightly controlled, in particular by DNA methylation at CpG sites that suppresses transcription.Citation9 Leonova et al.Citation1 have shown that this form of control of repeat transcription is complemented by a distinct mechanism that depends on p53, the key tumor suppressor known as a universal “genome guardian.”Citation10,Citation11 In p53-knockout cells, but not in wild-type cells, a DNA-demethylating agent causes a major increase in the expression of several classes of repeats, in particular short interspersed nuclear elements, SINEs (represented by B1 and B2 elements in the mouse genome) and tandem satellite repeats (GSAT). The transcripts of both the SINEs and the GSATs form dsRNA owing to extensive secondary structure and/or symmetrical transcription. Leonova et al. directly demonstrate that the resulting level of dsRNA is sufficient to trigger IFN response that induces caspase-dependent cell death.Citation1 In tumor cells, demethylation also induces repeat transcription, and moreover, in many tumors repeats are transcribed spontaneously, but the interferon response does not follow, apparently because this mechanism of apoptosis induction is impaired in tumors.

These discoveries are remarkable from several perspectives. Perhaps the least surprising, but nevertheless notable, is the expansion of the functions of p53 as a “genome guardian” to include prevention of repeat expression. Leonova et al. have detected p53-binding sites in different classes of repeats and have further shown that these sites mutate less often than the rest of the repeat sequence. There is also evidence that p53 can bind these sites, albeit apparently weakly, compatible with direct suppression of transcription.Citation1 Most strikingly, the p53-binding sites were detected both in the SINE elements from mouse (B1 and B2) and those from human (Alu) that do not share a common origin.Citation12,Citation13 This finding implies parallel evolution of the p53-binding sites in the primate and rodent lineages that conceivably was driven by strong positive selection for curtailment of repeat expression in the face of repeated bursts of repetitive elements propagation.Citation14,Citation15

On a more fundamental level, the results of Gudkov’s group shed light on the long-standing problem of “junk DNA.” The discovery of pervasive transcription predictably reinvigorated the idea that complex eukaryotic genomes, in particular those of mammals, contain no or little junk, and that the lack of evolutionary conservation notwithstanding, (nearly) all transcripts perform unique, albeit mostly enigmatic functions.Citation16,Citation17 I believe that the tight, double control of repeat expression reported by Leonova et al.Citation1 is excellent evidence against these speculations. Moreover, these findings, along with previously reported data on piRNAs that inhibit transposon expression in mammalian germ line,Citation18,Citation19 imply that a substantial fraction of the genome is not simply junk but, literally, toxic waste that requires secure containment. These findings are fully compatible with the non-adaptationist view of the evolution of the genome complexityCitation20,Citation21 but add an important new twist: the poisonous genomic garbage can be employed as a signal of distress triggering “altruistic” cell suicide.

Finally, the discovery of the coupling between the defense against repeat expression with the suicide decision caused by the failure of defense systems appears to reflect a fundamental feature of cellular life. This discovery complements numerous other findings that implicate p53 in apoptosis induction in response to genotoxic stress.Citation22,Citation23 Furthermore, analogous coupling between immunity and cell suicide is likely to exist in bacteria and archaea.Citation24 All cells that evolve in an incessant arms race with parasitic selfish elementsCitation25 face these life or death decisions.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

References

  • Leonova KI, Brodsky L, Lipchick B, Pal M, Novototskaya L, Chenchik AA, et al. p53 cooperates with DNA methylation and a suicidal interferon response to maintain epigenetic silencing of repeats and noncoding RNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110:E89 - 98; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216922110; PMID: 23236145
  • Luo D, Kohlway A, Pyle AM. Duplex RNA Activated ATPases (DRAs): Platforms for RNA sensing, signaling and processing. RNA Biol 2012; 10:10; PMID: 23228901
  • Shabalina SA, Koonin EV. Origins and evolution of eukaryotic RNA interference. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23:578 - 87; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.005; PMID: 18715673
  • Ketting RF. The many faces of RNAi. Dev Cell 2011; 20:148 - 61; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2011.01.012; PMID: 21316584
  • Pestka S, Krause CD, Walter MR. Interferons, interferon-like cytokines, and their receptors. Immunol Rev 2004; 202:8 - 32; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.00204.x; PMID: 15546383
  • Takaoka A, Yanai H. Interferon signalling network in innate defence. Cell Microbiol 2006; 8:907 - 22; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2006.00716.x; PMID: 16681834
  • Mills RE, Bennett EA, Iskow RC, Devine SE. Which transposable elements are active in the human genome?. Trends Genet 2007; 23:183 - 91; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2007.02.006; PMID: 17331616
  • Makałowski W, Pande A, Gotea V, Makałowska I. Transposable elements and their identification. Methods Mol Biol 2012; 855:337 - 59; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-582-4_12; PMID: 22407715
  • Klose RJ, Bird AP. Genomic DNA methylation: the mark and its mediators. Trends Biochem Sci 2006; 31:89 - 97; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2005.12.008; PMID: 16403636
  • Lane DP. Cancer. p53, guardian of the genome. Nature 1992; 358:15 - 6; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/358015a0; PMID: 1614522
  • Sengupta S, Harris CC. p53: traffic cop at the crossroads of DNA repair and recombination. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2005; 6:44 - 55; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm1546; PMID: 15688066
  • Kramerov DA, Vassetzky NS. Short retroposons in eukaryotic genomes. Int Rev Cytol 2005; 247:165 - 221; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7696(05)47004-7; PMID: 16344113
  • Kriegs JO, Churakov G, Jurka J, Brosius J, Schmitz J. Evolutionary history of 7SL RNA-derived SINEs in Supraprimates. Trends Genet 2007; 23:158 - 61; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2007.02.002; PMID: 17307271
  • Quentin Y. Successive waves of fixation of B1 variants in rodent lineage history. J Mol Evol 1989; 28:299 - 305; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02103425; PMID: 2471838
  • Jurka J, Bao W, Kojima KK, Kohany O, Yurka MG. Distinct groups of repetitive families preserved in mammals correspond to different periods of regulatory innovations in vertebrates. Biol Direct 2012; 7:36; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-7-36; PMID: 23098210
  • Mattick JS. The central role of RNA in human development and cognition. FEBS Lett 2011; 585:1600 - 16; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2011.05.001; PMID: 21557942
  • Pennisi E. Genomics. ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA. Science 2012; 337:1159 - 61, 1161; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.337.6099.1159; PMID: 22955811
  • Juliano C, Wang J, Lin H. Uniting germline and stem cells: the function of Piwi proteins and the piRNA pathway in diverse organisms. Annu Rev Genet 2011; 45:447 - 69; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132541; PMID: 21942366
  • Lee HC, Gu W, Shirayama M, Youngman E, Conte D Jr., Mello CC. C. elegans piRNAs mediate the genome-wide surveillance of germline transcripts. Cell 2012; 150:78 - 87; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.016; PMID: 22738724
  • Lynch M. (2007) The origins of genome archiecture. Sinauer Associates.
  • Koonin EV. (2011) The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. FT press.
  • Gudkov AV, Komarova EA. The role of p53 in determining sensitivity to radiotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3:117 - 29; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrc992; PMID: 12563311
  • Slee EA, O’Connor DJ, Lu X. To die or not to die: how does p53 decide?. Oncogene 2004; 23:2809 - 18; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207516; PMID: 15077144
  • Makarova KS, Anantharaman V, Aravind L, Koonin EV. Live virus-free or die: coupling of antivirus immunity and programmed suicide or dormancy in prokaryotes. Biol Direct 2012; 7:40; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-7-40; PMID: 23151069
  • Forterre P, Prangishvili D. The great billion-year war between ribosome- and capsid-encoding organisms (cells and viruses) as the major source of evolutionary novelties. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1178:65 - 77; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04993.x; PMID: 19845628

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.