Search

SummaryDetection and quantitation of the RNA-interacting proteome is commonly achieved by applying SILAC labeling, following by data-dependent acquisition (DDA) of proteomic data. However, the limited sensitivity of the DDA approach often restricts detection to relatively abundant proteins, necessitating peptide fractionation prior to mass spectrometry. Here we report a pipeline for SILAC analysis using data-independent acquisition (DIA). The spectral library is constructed using gas-phase window separation of light material, followed byin silicoprediction of heavy spectra. The resulting DIA datasets gave 30-40% greater protein detection relative to the same biological materials analyzed using DDA, while abolishing the requirement for fractionation of peptides following pre-MS reverse-phase separation. For proteins detected in both acquisitions, lower inter-replicate variation was seen with DIA. As a test, we determined the effects of arsenite treatment on the RNA-bound proteome of HEK293T cells, recovered following total RNA-associated proteome purification (TRAPP). The DIA dataset yielded clear GO term enrichment for RNA-binding proteins involved in cellular stress responses, while enrichment in the DDA dataset was relatively weak. Dataset normalization of with Cyclic Loess slightly improved the DDA-DIA correlation over median normalization for DIA datasets, but not for DDA dataset relative to default MaxQuant normalization. Overall, the DIA SILAC approach improved both protein detection and biological significance over conventional DDA SILAC.

The nucleolus is best known for housing the highly ordered assembly line that produces ribosomal subunits. The >100 ribosome assembly factors in the nucleolus are thought to cycle between two states: an operative state (when integrated into subunit assembly intermediates) and a latent state (upon release from intermediates). Although it has become commonplace to refer to the nucleolus as “being a multilayered condensate,” and this may be accurate for latent factors, there is little reason to think that such assertions pertain to the operative state of assembly factors.

Ssd1, a conserved fungal RNA-binding protein, is important in stress responses, cell division and virulence. Ssd1 is closely related to Dis3L2 of the RNase II family of nucleases, but lacks catalytic activity and likely suppresses translation of bound mRNAs. Previous studies identified RNA motifs enriched in Ssd1-associated transcripts, yet the sequence requirements for Ssd1 binding are not defined. Here, we identify precise binding sites of Ssd1 on RNA using in vivo cross-linking and cDNA analysis. These sites are enriched in 5′ untranslated regions of a subset of mRNAs encoding cell wall proteins. We identified a conserved bipartite motif that binds Ssd1 with high affinity in vitro. Active RNase II enzymes have a characteristic, internal RNA binding path; the Ssd1 crystal structure at 1.9 Å resolution shows that remnants of regulatory sequences block this path. Instead, RNA binding activity has relocated to a conserved patch on the surface of the protein. Structure-guided mutations of this surface prevent Ssd1 from binding RNA in vitro and phenocopy Ssd1 deletion in vivo. These studies provide a new framework for understanding the function of a pleiotropic post-transcriptional regulator of gene expression and give insights into the evolution of regulatory and binding elements in the RNase II family.

SummaryEnhancer of Zeste Homologue 2 (EZH2) modulates gene transcription during endothelial cell (EC) dysfunction, via interaction with non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs). Thus, EZH2 can act as a rheostat in deposition of histone H3K27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) to repress many genes. We profiled EZH2-RNA interactions using formaldehyde/UV assisted cross-linking ligation and sequencing of hybrids (FLASH-seq) in primary human ECs. Transcriptome-wide EZH2-associated ncRNAs and RNA–RNA interactome were obtained. This approach revealed EZH2 directly binding maternally expressed gene (MEG3) and MEG3:MEG3 hybrid structures. By chromatin immunoprecipitation with sequencing (ChIP-seq) following depletion of MEG3, we discovered that MEG3 targets and controls recruitment of EZH2/H3K27me3 onto a regulatory region of integrin subunit alpha 4 (ITGA4). MEG3 knockdown or pharmacological inhibition of EZH2 de-repressed ITGA4, whilst improving endothelial cell function in vitro, and increasing ITGA4 expression in vivo. Our study demonstrates new role for MEG3, as instrumental in epigenetic regulation of EC function by EZH2, through targeting of integrin-dependent signalling.

HAX1 is a human protein with no known homologues or structural domains, mutations in which cause severe congenital neutropenia through mechanisms that are poorly understood. Previous studies reported RNA-binding capacity of HAX1, but the role of this binding in physiology and pathology remains unexplained. Here we report transcriptome-wide characterization of HAX1 RNA targets using RIP-seq and CRAC, indicating that HAX1 binds transcripts involved in ribosome biogenesis and rRNA processing. Using CRISPR knockouts we find that RNA targets of HAX1 partially overlap with transcripts downregulated in HAX1 KO, implying a role in mRNA stabilization. Gene ontology analysis demonstrated that genes differentially expressed in HAX1 KO (including genes involved in ribosome biogenesis and translation) are also enriched in a subset of genes whose expression correlates with HAX1 expression in four analyzed neoplasms. Functional connection to ribosome biogenesis was also demonstrated by gradient sedimentation ribosome profiles, which revealed differences in the small subunit:monosome ratio in HAX1 WT/KO. We speculate that changes in HAX1 expression may be important for the etiology of HAX1-linked diseases through dysregulation of translation.

The fungal cell wall provides protection and structure, and is an important target for antifungal compounds. A MAP kinase cascade termed the cell wall integrity (CWI) pathway regulates transcriptional responses to cell wall damage. Here we describe a posttranscriptional pathway that plays an important complementary role. We discovered that the RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) Mrn1 and Nab6 specifically target the 3’ UTRs of a largely overlapping set of cell wall-related mRNAs. These mRNAs are downregulated in the absence of Nab6, indicating a function in target mRNA stabilization. Nab6 acts in parallel to CWI signaling to maintain appropriate expression of cell wall genes during stress. Cells lacking both pathways are hypersensitive to antifungal compounds targeting the cell wall. Deletion of MRN1 partially alleviates growth defects associated with Δnab6 and Mrn1 has an opposing function in mRNA destabilization. Our results uncover a novel posttranscriptional pathway which mediates cellular resistance to antifungal compounds.

Summary Spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) sustain spermatogenesis and fertility throughout adult male life. The conserved RNA-binding protein NANOS2 is essential for the maintenance of SSCs, but its targets and mechanisms of function are not fully understood. Here, we generated a fully functional epitope-tagged Nanos2 mouse allele and applied the highly stringent cross-linking and analysis of cDNAs to define NANOS2 RNA occupancy in SSC lines. NANOS2 recognizes the AUKAAWU consensus motif, mostly found in the 3′ untranslated region of defined messenger RNAs (mRNAs). We find that NANOS2 is a regulator of key signaling and metabolic pathways whose dosage or activity are known to be critical for SSC maintenance. NANOS2 interacts with components of CCR4-NOT deadenylase complex in SSC lines, and consequently, NANOS2 binding reduces the half-lives of target transcripts. In summary, NANOS2 contributes to SSC maintenance through the regulation of target mRNA stability and key self-renewal pathways., Graphical abstract, Highlights • NANOS2 is a 3′UTR mRNA binding protein and recognizes the AUKAAWU consensus • CCR4-NOT deadenylase complex is the primary interactor of NANOS2 in spermatogonia • NANOS2 binding results in mRNA destabilization • NANOS2 regulates key spermatogonial signaling and metabolic pathways, Biological sciences; Molecular biology; Developmental biology; Omics; Transcriptomics

Altered expression of box C/D small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) is implicated in human diseases, including cancer. Box C/D snoRNAs canonically direct site-specific, 2’-O-methylation but the extent to which they participate in other functions remains unclear. To identify RNA targets of box C/D snoRNAs in human cells, we applied two techniques based on UV crosslinking, proximity ligation and sequencing of RNA hybrids (CLASH and FLASH). These identified hundreds of novel snoRNA interactions with rRNA, snoRNAs and mRNAs. We developed an informatic pipeline to rigorously call interactions predicted to direct methylation. Multiple snoRNA-rRNA interactions identified were not predicted to direct RNA methylation. These potentially modulate methylation efficiency and/or contribute to folding dynamics. snoRNA-mRNA hybrids included 1,300 interactions between 117 snoRNA families and 940 mRNAs. Human U3 is substantially more abundant than other snoRNAs and represented about 50% of snoRNA-mRNA hybrids. The distribution of U3 interactions across mRNAs also differed from other snoRNAs. Following U3 depletion, mRNAs showing altered abundance were strongly enriched for U3 CLASH targets. Most human snoRNAs are excised from pre-mRNA introns. Enrichment for snoRNA association with branch point regions of introns that contain snoRNA genes was common, suggesting widespread regulation of snoRNA maturation.

RMRP encodes a non-coding RNA forming the core of the RNase MRP ribonucleoprotein complex. Mutations cause Cartilage Hair Hypoplasia (CHH), characterized by skeletal abnormalities and impaired T cell activation. Yeast RNase MRP cleaves a specific site in the pre-ribosomal RNA (pre-rRNA) during ribosome synthesis. CRISPR-mediated disruption of RMRP in human cells lines caused growth arrest, with pre-rRNA accumulation. Here, we analyzed disease-relevant primary cells, showing that mutations in RMRP impair mouse T cell activation and delay pre-rRNA processing. Patient-derived human fibroblasts with CHH-linked mutations showed similar pre-rRNA processing delay. Human cells engineered with the most common CHH mutation (70AG in RMRP) show specifically impaired pre-rRNA processing, resulting in reduced mature rRNA and a reduced ratio of cytosolic to mitochondrial ribosomes. Moreover, the 70AG mutation caused a reduction in intact RNase MRP complexes. Together, these results indicate that CHH is a ribosomopathy, and the first processing-specific human disorder to be described.HighlightsMutations in RMRP lncRNA impair pre-rRNA processing and T cell activationPatient derived fibroblasts show impaired pre-rRNA processingCells with the most common disease-linked mutation have specific processing defectsCytoplasmic ribosomes and intact RNase MRP complexes are also reduced in these cells

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is expected to result in substantial reorganization of host cell RNA metabolism. We identified 14 proteins that were predicted to interact with host RNAs or RNA binding proteins, based on published data for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Here, we describe a series of affinity-tagged and codon-optimized expression constructs for each of these 14 proteins. Each viral gene was separately tagged at the N-terminus with Flag-His8, the C-terminus with His8-Flag, or left untagged. The resulting constructs were stably integrated into the HEK293 Flp-In TREx genome. Each viral gene was expressed under the control of an inducible Tet-On promoter, allowing expression levels to be tuned to match physiological conditions during infection. Expression time courses were successfully generated for most of the fusion proteins and quantified by western blot. A few fusion proteins were poorly expressed, whereas others, including Nsp1, Nsp12, and N protein, were toxic unless care was taken to minimize background expression. All plasmids can be obtained from Addgene and cell lines are available. We anticipate that availability of these resources will facilitate a more detailed understanding of coronavirus molecular biology.

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution. We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [3, 4, 5, 6]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites. To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [7]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [8]. Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with 32P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using 32P labeling have been reported (e.g., [6]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform. Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [7, 9].

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution. We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [3, 4, 5, 6]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites. To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [7]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [8]. Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with 32P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using 32P labeling have been reported (e.g., [6]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform. Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [7, 9].

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution. We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [3, 4, 5, 6]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites. To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [7]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [8]. Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with 32P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using 32P labeling have been reported (e.g., [6]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform. Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [7, 9].

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution. We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [3, 4, 5, 6]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites. To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [7]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [8]. Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with 32P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using 32P labeling have been reported (e.g., [6]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform. Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [7, 9].

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution. We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [3, 4, 5, 6]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites. To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [7]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [8]. Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with 32P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using 32P labeling have been reported (e.g., [6]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform. Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [7, 9].