Advances in the characterization of RNA‐binding proteins
Abstract
From transcription, to transport, storage, and translation,
For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
INTRODUCTION
Since ‘the central dogma’ was formulated (the genetic information flows from DNA to protein passing through RNA), our knowledge on the transcriptome has progressed enormously.1, 2 We now know that genes do not code for just a single protein but produce a number of variants: the activity of nuclear RNAs (snRNAs and snoRNAs) and several splicing factors generates several messenger RNAs (mRNAs) with different lengths and exon compositions (Figure 1).2 In addition to protein production, RNA participates in other essential processes such as mRNAs expression regulation (microRNAs, miRNA; small interfering RNAs, siRNA; long noncoding RNAs, lncRNAs)1, 2 and genome protection by transposon silencing (PIWI‐interacting RNA, piRNA).3 RNAs also perform a number of structural and functional tasks, as in the case of rRNAs, which constitute 60% of the ribosome,4 and tRNAs, which carry the amino acids to the ribosome during the translation process.1, 2
Every aspect of RNA life, from birth (polymerases) to degradation (nucleases), involves protein binding (Figure 1). A correct interplay between RNAs and RNA‐binding proteins (RBPs) is crucial for the development of cellular processes: miRNAs, for instance, require Argonaute proteins to reach target mRNAs as well as piRNAs associate with PIWI proteins to form silencing complexes that protect the germline genome from transposons.1, 2 Moreover, the interplay between RBPs and RNAs can promote formation of membrane‐less organelles (e.g., P‐bodies, stress granules),5, 6, 7 whose composition can be rapidly adapted to the cell state and the environment conditions (e.g., stress conditions).8 Mutations in RBPs, aberrant interactions or altered RNA processing have been related to a number of human diseases, from neurological disorders to cancer.9, 10, 11, 12
Protein–RNA interactions have been studied using a range of quantitative approaches such as electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA),13 fluorescent anisotropy/polarization,14 Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET),15 surface plasmon resonance (SPR)16 or, more recently, microscale thermophoresis (MST)17, 18 and stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM).19 Although these approaches have proved to be powerful to assess the specificity and affinity of protein–RNA interactions, they only allow the study of single or few molecular interactions at a time.
The recent development of large‐scale quantitative methods, exploiting next‐generation sequencing20, 21 and protein mass spectrometry,22 contributes to the genome‐wide identification of RBPs, RNA targets and cofactors.2 Deep‐sequencing approaches combined with RBPs immunoprecipitation as well as in vitro methods, such as Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment SELEX,23, 24 revealed the binding ability of a number of RBPs and showed that many RBPs bind to thousands of transcripts.
In parallel to experimental advances, a number of in silico methods have been developed to predict protein–RNA interactions and to detect binding‐sites. Computational tools are particularly useful to predict potential ribonucleoprotein associations and to narrow down a list of interaction partners for experimental validation. For instance, some RBPs recognize particular nucleotide sequences, whereas others bind to the backbone or double‐stranded RNA.25 When modeling protein–RNA interactions, many factors should be considered, including secondary structures, folding and characteristics of binding interfaces.26 Especially physicochemical properties of amino acids, such as structural disorder and polarity, are relevant to characterize the RNA‐binding ability of proteins.27, 28 Indeed, recent studies reported that in addition to classical RNA‐binding domains other regions found in ribosomal proteins, translation elongation factors, zinc fingers as well as structurally disordered parts participate in contacting transcripts.29
Here we review the most recent experimental and computational advances for the detection of protein–RNA interactions and introduce new challenges for future developments in the field.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR DETECTION OF PROTEIN–RNA INTERACTIONS
Transcripts are never naked and form complexes with partner proteins in ribonucleoprotein particles from their birth to their degradation (Figure 1).30 The assembly of functional complexes and the delivery to final destination involves progression through a series of intermediate complexes and subcellular localizations. For instance, Cajal bodies are sites of noncoding ribonucleoprotein particles maturation, where assembly factors gather to accelerate complicated biochemical reactions. Complexes containing mRNAs often undergo remodeling as they travel from the site of transcription to the cytoplasm where they are translated.
The advent of sequencing technologies, together with the introduction of various cross‐linking chemistries, has enabled the development of new high‐throughput methods for the simultaneous detection of hundreds to thousands interactions in a single experiment. The methods can be classified into ‘protein‐centric’ approaches, which reveal RNAs bound to a known protein, and ‘RNA‐centric’ approaches, which characterize proteins interacting with an RNA of interest.
Protein‐Centric Approaches
The predominant protein‐centric methods are based on protein immunoprecipitation from cell lines or tissues, and detection of the co‐purified RNAs (Table 1 and Figure 2).
| Method | Advantages | Challenges | Disease‐Related? RBP/?RNA | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protein‐centric | In vivo | RIP | Genome‐wide Applicable to tissues | High background noise Possible artifacts Low resolution | ELAVL1 (epilepsy, cancer) CELF1 (myotonic dystrophy) IGF2BP1 (cancer) ADAR (Dyschromatosis symmetrica, spastic paraplegia) | Tenenbaum et al.31 |
| HiTS‐CLIP PAR‐CLIP iCLIP eCLIP | Genome‐wide High specificity High resolution (binding sites) | False negative due to low cross‐linking efficiency Time consuming Challenging set‐up Not applicable to tissues (PAR‐CLIP) | CELF4 (epilepsy, hyperactivity) ELAVL1 (epilepsy, cancer) FMR1 (Fragile‐X mental retardation, autism spectrum disorders) FUS (FTLD, ALS) MBNL1/2 (myotonic dystrophy) NOVA1/2 (POMA) PARK7 (Parkinon's disease) TARDBP (FTLD, ALS) RBFOX (autism) | Licatalosi et al.32 Hafner et al.33 Konig et al.20 Van Nostrand et al.34 | ||
| In vitro | RNA‐compete SEQRS RBNS RNA‐MaP HiTS‐RAP MITOMI | Large‐scale Measurement of interaction affinity and specificity Analysis of multiple proteins | Nonphysiological conditions | ELAVL4 NOVA1 (POMA) HNRNPA0 (cancer) MBNL1 (myotonic dystrophy) CELF1 (myotonic dystrophy) | Ray et al.35 Campbell et al.24 Lambert et al.36 Buenrostro et al.37 Tome et al.38 Martin et al.39 | |
| RNA‐centric | In vitro | TRAP/RAT RaPID RiboTrap RNA‐assisted chromatography | Relatively easy and flexible Easy purification protocols | High background noise Possible perturbation of RNA folding Large amounts of starting material | Hogg and Collins40 Slobodin and Gerst41 Michlewski and Cáceres42 | |
| Protein microarray | Large‐scale Relatively easy and fast | Possible artifacts due to nonphysiological conditions (protein folding, accessibility, post‐translational modifications, etc.,) | TP53 HRAS MYC (cancer) BCL2 PWRN1 (Prader Willi syndrome) | Scherrer et al.43 Siprashvili et al.44 | ||
| In vivo | MS2‐BioTRAP | Fast and easy set‐up Large‐scale Low amounts of starting material | Challenges associated with cell transfection Possible artifacts due to tag | Tsai et al.45 | ||
| ChIRP CHART RAP‐MS | Study of protein–RNA interactions under physiological conditions | Time and cost consuming Large amounts of starting material required Challenging set‐up | MALAT1 (cancer) NEAT1 (cancer) | Chu et al.46 Simon47 | ||
| Interactome capture | Study of protein–RNA interactions under physiological conditions Identification of unknown RBPs | Possible artifacts (positive and false negative) due to cross‐linking Time consuming Challenging set‐up | Castello et al.29 | |||
RIP, RNA Immunoprecipitation, HiTS‐CLIP, High‐throughput sequencing of RNA isolated by cross‐linking immunoprecipitation, PAR‐CLIP, Photoactivable ribonucleoside enhanced CLIP, iCLIP, individual‐nucleotide resolution Cross‐Linking and ImmunoPrecipitation, SEQRS, in?vitro selection high‐throughput sequencing of RNA and sequence specificity landscape, RBNS, RNA Bind‐n‐Seq, RNA‐Map, RNA on a massively parallel array, HiTS‐RAP, High‐throughput sequencing RNA affinity profiling, RNA‐MITOMI, RNA mechanically induced trapping of molecular interactions, TRAP, Tandem RNA affinity purification, RAT, RNA affinity in tandem, RaPID, RNA‐binding protein purification and identification, MS2‐BioTRAP, MS2 in vivo biotin tagged RNA affinity purification, ChIRP, Chromatin isolation by RNA purification, CHART, Capture hybridization analysis of RNA targets, RAP‐MS, RNA antisense purification‐mass spectrometry.
Schematic representation of experimental methods for the identification of protein–RNA interactions. Protein‐centric methods. (a) In vivo approaches include native purification protocols (RNA Immunoprecipitation, RIP) and denaturing protocols (Cross‐linking and Immunoprecipitation, CLIP). In the fist case, RNAs bound to a specific protein are immunoprecipitated from cell lysate in native conditions by using a protein‐specific antibody and, after wash and protein removal by proteinase K treatment, RNAs are reverse transcribed and identified through RNA sequencing.48 In the second case, cells are UV cross‐linked to ‘freeze’ protein–RNA complexes. RNA is digested to obtain fragments of a defined size and the obtained complexes are immunoprecipitated and resolved on an SDS‐PAGE. After isolation from membrane and proteinase K digestion, the RNA fragments are reverse transcribed and sequenced.49 In red and yellow are represented simulated enrichment values of a target and nontarget RNA respectively (lower part of the panel). (b) As an example of in vitro approaches, the schematic workflow of RNA compete is represented.35 RNA libraries are generated by in vitro transcription. Transcripts are incubated with the protein of interest immobilized on an affinity matrix (e.g., streptavidin‐biotin tag system) and the bound fragments are then fluorescently labeled and detected by hybridization on a microarray platform. RNA‐centric methods. (c) In vivo approaches for the identification of proteins bound to an RNA of interest often derive from methods used for the identification of genomic DNA loci targeted by noncoding RNAs. Cells are cross‐linked and lysed. Chromatin is sheared and protein–RNA–DNA complexes are pull‐down by using biotinylated oligos complementary to the sequence of the RNA. After RNA digestion, proteins can be identified by western blot or mass spectrometry analysis.46 (d) In vitro approaches commonly exploit the use of RNA tags to immobilize the RNA of interest onto an affinity matrix. Upon incubation with cell lysate, proteins bind to the immobilized RNA. After washes, the protein–RNA complexes are eluted from the matrix and proteins are characterized by western blot or mass spectrometry.50
RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) implies the purification of RNA–protein interactions in native conditions by using a protein‐specific antibody, and detection of interacting RNAs by either microarray (RIP‐chip) or sequencing (RIP‐seq).31, 51, 52 Despite the genome‐wide potential, the method has practical limitations. Indeed, it is prone to detect nonspecific interactions due to the nonphysiological formation of protein–RNA complexes in solution. As a consequence, interactions identified using native purification methods often require additional validation.
RIP limitations have been overcome with the introduction of cross‐linking and denaturing methods, namely cross‐linking and immunoprecipitation (CLIP). CLIP combines UV cross‐linking of RBPs to their cognate RNA molecules with stringent purification of protein–RNA complexes that are resolved and size‐selected on an SDS‐PAGE before proceeding to high‐throughput sequencing of cDNA library (HITS‐CLIP).32 Photoactivable ribonucleoside enhanced CLIP (PAR‐CLIP) and individual‐nucleotide resolution CLIP (iCLIP) are approaches derived from modified cross‐linking or library‐preparation protocols that allow the identification of cross‐linking sites at a single‐nucleotide resolution.32, 33, 53, 54
CLIP has enabled the characterization of RNA binding profiles of several RBPs involved in neurologic disorders and cancer, thus helping in understanding their role in disease. The first CLIP experiment, published by Ule et al., shed light on the role of NOVA 1 and 2 proteins in paraneoplastic opsoclonus‐myoclonus‐ataxia (POMA), an autoimmune neurologic disease characterized by abnormal motor inhibition.55 NOVA proteins were found to regulate alternative splicing of RNAs encoding multiple components of inhibitory synapses, such as GABAβ 2 receptor and GIRK2, which mediate slow inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, the K+ voltage‐gated channel KCNQ3 or the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors β2 and α2, highly represented in the GABAergic interneurons.55
The combination of RIP‐chip and CLIP approaches has allowed the identification of targets of the mammalian ELAVl family whose four members, ELAVL 1,2,3 and 4, (also known as HuR, HuB, HuC, and HuD) are implicated in different cancers and neurological diseases.56, 57 In particular, ELAVL1, the only member of the family expressed in both neuronal and non neuronal cells, has been found particularly abundant in breast, ovary, colon, and brain cancers58 associated with poor prognosis.59 RIP‐chip and CLIP have identified a transcriptome‐wide list of targets (including Cyclin D1, E1, A2 and B1, EGF, c‐Myc, p27, COX‐2, and BRCA1) and indicated that ELAVL1 functions as a major hub for regulating RNA metabolism in the cell at different levels, from pre‐mRNA alternative splicing to mature mRNA stability and microRNA biogenesis.57, 60 The other three members, ELAVL2–4 (nELAVl), are highly enriched in neurons and show a unique hierarchical expression during cortical development.61 HITS‐CLIP on mice cortical tissue has revealed that nELAVl regulated transcripts are mainly involved in synaptic cytoskeleton assembly and disassembly, amino acid and sugar biosynthetic pathways. In particular, nELAVl have been found to regulate the alternative splicing of the gene coding for the glutaminase enzyme, the major responsible for the synthesis of the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate.56
The complex protocol and bioinformatics required for data analysis represent the main disadvantage of CLIP approaches (Figure 2). As a matter of fact, high experimental failure rates are reported. Recently, an enhanced CLIP (eCLIP) protocol has been developed.34 In addition to reducing hands‐on time to as few as 4 days, eCLIP dramatically decreases required library amplification by 1000 fold and enhances the rate of success at generating libraries with high usable reads percentages across diverse RBPs, maintaining the single‐nucleotide resolution of previous methods. In addition, paired‐matched input controls improve the signal‐to‐noise ratio for the discovery of authentic binding sites. 102 eCLIP experiments for 73 diverse RBPs have been generated (available at https://www.encodeproject.org), providing an unprecedented source of data for the study of protein–RNA functional networks. Despite its successful applications, a major concern when using CLIP is that UV‐induced cross‐linking is still poorly understood at the biophysical level. Only a very small percentage (1–5%) of protein–RNA complexes present in the cells can be efficiently cross‐linked, and it is not clear which types of interactions might be unseen.62 For instance, several RBP families do not directly associate with nucleic acid bases but interact with other elements (i.e., the sugar phosphate backbone) showing low cross‐linking efficiency. Moreover, UV only cross‐links direct protein–RNA interactions but it does not capture interactions occurring with protein complexes, thus providing just part of the information.
The study of in vivo interactions is limited to contacts formed in a certain cell type and at a specific time point. To better understand the physicochemical properties controlling protein–RNA interactions, a number of new methods allow the in vitro screening of interactions between proteins and libraries of randomly generated RNA sequences by combining the use of microarray and microfluidic platforms with molecule fluorescent labeling and RNA sequencing technologies. While in vitro evolution SELEX has bias towards highest‐affinity targets,36 other methods enable the characterization of lower‐specificity and medium‐range affinities with single proteins or multiprotein complexes.63 Incubation of RNA libraries with a protein of interest immobilized on an affinity matrix is followed by fluorescent labeling of selected RNAs and hybridization to a microarray, in the case of RNA‐compete (Figure 2), or deep sequencing in the case of in vitro selection high‐throughput sequencing of RNA and sequence specificity landscape (SEQRS) and RNA Bind‐n‐Seq (RBNS).25, 36 These methods are often applied to identify consensus elements of RBPs (see also Computational Methods for Detection of Protein–RNA Interactions).
Quantitative analysis of RNA on a massively parallel array (RNA‐MaP) and high‐throughput sequencing RNA affinity profiling (HiTS‐RAP), consist in the in situ synthesis of RNA libraries inside an Illumina sequencing flow cell followed by incubation with a fluorescently labeled protein and quantification of molecular interactions.37, 38 These approaches, together with RBNS, provide quantitative measurements of dissociation constants (Kd) through the use of multiple protein concentrations. Moreover, methods relying on the use of fluorescent proteins, such as the previously mentioned RNA‐MaP and HiTS‐RAP, as well as the RNA mechanically induced trapping of molecular interactions (RNA‐MITOMI),39 provide effective visualization of multiple proteins simultaneously, thus revealing the effects of protein partners. These approaches have great range of applicability, especially considering that RNA metabolism is regulated by multiple RBPs to form functional particles (e.g., small nuclear ribonucleoproteins, telomerases, ribosomal subunits, UTR‐regulatory complexes, etc).
RNA‐Centric Approaches
RNA‐centric methods aim to identify RBPs targeting a single RNA of interest. The majority of the existing methods exploit tagged RNAs as a bait to capture and characterize all proteins bound to it by mass spectrometry analysis (Table 1 and Figure 2). In vitro synthesized RNA can be chemically tagged through the incorporation of modified ribonucleotides that contain biotin, fluorescent dyes, or, alternatively, natural or artificial aptamers (e.g., S1, D8, MS2 hairpin loop, etc.,) can be incorporated.40, 41, 42 In addition to their in vitro application (e.g., TRAP, RAT, RaPID, RiboTrap, RNase‐assisted RNA chromatography), RNA tagging system can be applied in vivo, as in the example of MS2‐BioTRAP method, where a MS2 hairpin loop tagged RNA and the bacteriophage MS2 coat protein fused to a protein tag (e.g., HB or streptavidin), are co‐expressed to capture the RNA of interest by exploiting the high affinity interaction between the MS2 protein and the MS2 hairpin loop.45 All these methods are relatively flexible, and their in vivo applicability allows the study of protein–RNA interactions in physiological conditions. Nevertheless, the incorporation of a tag into the RNA bait may alter its secondary structures and possibly the formation of ribonucleoprotein complexes. In addition, MS2‐BioTRAP is only applicable in easy‐to‐transfect cells and the overexpression of at least one of the two interacting molecules might lead to experimental artifacts.
Capture hybridization analysis of RNA targets (CHART), Chromatin isolation by RNA purification (ChIRP) and RNA antisense purification (RAP) are methods designed to identify DNA and proteins targeted by noncoding‐RNAs in vivo (Figure 2). These approaches involve cell cross‐linking and pull‐down of the RNA of interest using short biotinylated oligodeoxyribonucleotides that are complementary to the endogenous RNA. After reversion of cross‐linking, the RNA‐associated DNA and proteins are identified by sequencing and mass spectrometry (MS) analysis, respectively.46, 47, 64, 65 The design of antisense oligonucleotides with high affinity to accessible single‐stranded regions of RNAs is often a challenging step in these approaches. Moreover, these protocols are time consuming and usually require large amounts of starting material in order to generate sufficient product for MS.
CHART was first applied for the characterization of protein interactors of the human long noncoding RNAs NEAT1 (nuclear‐enriched abundant transcript 1) and MALAT1 (metastasis‐associated lung adenocarcinoma transcript 1) that localize to nuclear speckles and paraspeckles, respectively.66 Speckles and paraspeckles are nuclear bodies in close proximity to each other, comprising many RBPs, including splicing factors. Interestingly, paraspeckles have been implicated in sequestering RNAs that respond to cellular stress. Although NEAT1 and MALAT1 have specific binders, the overlap of their protein interactome suggested potential redundancy or cooperation in regulating nuclear organization around nuclear bodies.
ChiRP and RAP‐MS have been applied to the discovery of the protein interactome of Xist (X‐inactive specific transcript), a lncRNA required for X chromosome inactivation (XCI) of one of the two X chromosomes in female cells, enabling dosage compensation between XX females and XY males.66 Through an RAP‐MS approach, McHugh and colleagues recently characterized ten Xist‐specific interactors in mouse embryonic stem cells (mESC).67 One of them, SAF‐A (scaffold attachment factor‐A, also known as HNRNPU) was previously shown to be required for tethering Xist to the inactive X chromosome in differentiated cells, while five of these proteins are implicated in transcriptional repression, chromatin regulation, and nuclear organization. These results partially overlap with a ChiRP‐MS based study conducted on the same year by Chu and colleagues, in which 81 Xist interactors were described.68 These proteins are mainly involved in chromatin modification, nuclear matrix and RNA remodeling pathways. Notably, this analysis reveals two sets of proteins that interact with Xist in a developmentally regulated manner, shedding light on a potential step‐wise assembly of Xist binding proteins from the pluripotent state to cell differentiation.
A number of other methods based on the in vitro or in vivo screening of protein libraries have been developed. As an example, protein microarrays have been recently used to test the binding of proteins with a specific RNA in vitro.43, 44 The RNA is fluorescently labeled and hybridized on a protein chip. This method allows the screening of thousands of proteins in less than a day, and relatively small amounts of RNA are required. On the other hand, the quality of the data is less robust because it strongly depends on the proteins conditions on the array (i.e., folding, RBDs accessibility, post‐translational modifications, etc).
Finally, the interactome capture, a method developed in 2012 by Castello et al., allows the simultaneous recovery and characterization of the whole proteome associated with mRNAs in living cells.29 This approach, originally applied to HeLa and Hek293 cells,69 and lately to mouse embryonic stem cells70 and yeast,71 led to the discovery of new potential RBPs lacking the canonical RNA‐binding domains but enriched in features such as protein disorder and repetitive low complexity amino acid regions. The majority of these candidate RBPs have also enzymatic activity, and, while the RNA binding capacity of some of them has been validated, further evidence should be provided for the large majority of these proteins.
Future Experimental Challenges
Despite the enormous progress done in the last few decades, it is clear that each of the experimental methods offers a partial, and in some cases potentially erroneous, view on protein–RNA interactions. In this scenario, two main questions arise: to what extent in vitro interactions are relevant in vivo? Does in vivo binding imply functionality?
As regulatory regions interact with competing RBPs and RNAs, only a small percentage of in vitro determined binding sites is actually occupied in vivo. Very often, binding regions become inaccessible due to mRNA localization into granular assemblies (see section Beyond the Protein–RNA Complex: Membrane‐Less Organelles).72 It should be also mentioned that RNAs lacking annotated biding sites are found to interact in vivo because of indirect interactions or as a result of molecule sequestration in subcellular compartments, where high concentrations favor low affinity or unspecific interactions.71
Most importantly, in vivo occupancy not always indicates functionality. As a matter of fact, to unravel the complexity of the RNA biology, it will be essential to develop new tools for the integration of interaction data with global functional assays, such as for instance Ribosome profiling.73
COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR DETECTION OF PROTEIN–RNA INTERACTIONS
A large number of computational methods address the problem of characterizing RNA partners of specific RBPs. MEME,74RBPmap,75SeAMotE,76 and RNAcontext77 identify motifs enriched in RNA targets.26 The use of sequence motifs allows discovery of targets in RNA datasets, but ab initio predictions of RNA interactions are not possible without previous experimental knowledge on the RBPs of interest.
A different class of computational approaches aims to identify RNA‐binding residues78, 79, 80 and RNA‐binding regions using primary‐, secondary‐ or tertiary‐structure information.81, 82, 83 Methods such as Struct‐NB,84PRIP,85SPOT‐Seq,86 and OPRA87 predict the RNA‐binding ability by identifying regions in the protein surface that accommodate nucleotide chains. As three‐dimensional structures are needed to perform the calculations, these approaches are limited by the existence of available templates. Yet, using a library of 1164 nonredundant protein–RNA complexes (95% sequence identity cutoff) and the folding recognition technique SPARKS X88 the SPOT‐Seq‐RNA approach89 has been used to characterize 2418 novel RBPs in the human proteome of which 291 are reported in interactome capture experiments29 (see RNA‐centric methods in section Experimental Methods for Detection of Protein–RNA Interactions).
Algorithms relying on primary‐structure features have a clear advantage over tertiary‐structure methods that require three‐dimensional references to compare structures87 and atomistic details90 to study interactions. Methods based on primary‐structure exploit evolutionary information (i.e., conservation of specific residues in sequence alignments), secondary‐structure propensities and information on physicochemical properties of amino acids (e.g., hydrophobicity). The binding elements are often classified using machine‐learning methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Naïve Bayes (NB). For further information about the algorithms, we refer the Reader to reviews describing features and techniques in detail.81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 In the following text we will provide a short description of the most used algorithms (Table 2) and their published performances.
| Prediction | Examples | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binding motif (RNA) | MEME | de novo binding site discovery | High‐throughput data are required as input | Bailey et al.94 |
| SeAMotE | Sequence complexity is a limitation | Agostini et al.76 | ||
| Binding residue | Pprint | Evolutionary information | RNA‐binding domains cannot be identified | Kumar et al.79 |
| BindN+ | Wang et al.78 | |||
| RNAbindR+ | Walia et al.80 | |||
| Domain (protein) | HMMER | Domain recognition | Annotation of RNA‐binding domains are required | Finn et al.95 |
| catRAPID signature | Annotation of RNA‐binding domains are not required | Single amino acid resolution has not been implemented | Livi et al.83 | |
| RNA–protein interaction | catRAPID | Runs on high‐throughput data | RNA < 1200 nt | Bellucci et al.96 Agostini et al.97 |
| RPISeq | High sensitivity | Low specificity | Muppirala et al.98 | |
BindN68 predicts DNA‐ and RNA‐binding residues through a SVM trained on hydrophobicity, dissociation constant (pKa), and molecular mass of amino acids. The method was validated on a dataset of 100 protein–RNA complexes characterized through X‐ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and shows a cross‐validation accuracy of 0.69. Using a slightly different codification of physicochemical properties and integrating them with evolutionary information, the BindN+ algorithm78 reaches an accuracy to of 0.78. The evolutionary information is derived from a position‐specific scoring matrix (PSSM) generated by PSI‐BLAST,99 that searches against a nonredundant database of protein sequences. With the same approach, Pprint100 combines evolutionary information from PSSMs with SVMs, thus predicting RNA‐binding sites with an accuracy of 0.81. Similarly, RNAProB101 employs a smoothed PSSM encoding scheme to predict RNA‐binding sites on proteins and shows an accuracy of 0.89. Slightly different types of physicochemical properties are combined in RNABindR,27 that exploits accessible surface area, sequence specific entropy, hydrophobicity, secondary structure propensities, and electrostatics. In the testing phase, RNABindR identifies interface residues with an accuracy of 0.85. Adding the contribution of HomPRIP,55 a sequence homology‐based method for prediction of RNA‐binding sites, RNABindR+ shows an accuracy of 0.83 on a larger benchmark set of 200 proteins.80 The working principles of these algorithms are based on different assumptions: the conservation, physicochemical properties or topological properties of the binding site. Hence, it is challenging to compare the algorithms; their applicability depends on the kind of dataset that needs to be analyzed. For more details, the Reader can refer to comparative studies that describe the tools in more detail.92, 102
While BindN,68 Pprint,100 RNAProB,101 and RNABindR27 predict the RNA‐binding ability of individual amino acids without considering the sequence context, HMMER82 is designed to perform homology searches in protein sequences using Hidden Markov Models and multiple sequence alignments of domain families. HMMER functionality is limited to previously annotated domain‐families, as the tool does not perform de novo detection of binding‐domains. A recent method, catRAPID signature,83 identifies RNA‐binding regions by considering physicochemical properties that are present in known RBPs.83catRAPID signature exploits properties such as hydrophobicity, secondary structure, disorder, and burial.83 Each feature defines a unique signature, or profile, containing position‐specific information arranged in sequential order from the N‐ to the C‐terminus.28, 103 In addition to the RNA‐binding score, catRAPID signature predicts regions contacting RNA. On a test set of mouse proteins harboring noncanonical RNA‐binding domains,70catRAPID signature shows an accuracy of 0.71 in predicting the RNA‐binding ability. When applied to newly discovered RBPs, the algorithm discriminates RBPs from nonRBPs with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.76.29, 69 In Table 3, we show the performances of catRAPID signature,83 BindN+,78 Pprint,100 and RNABindR+80 to identify nonclassical RNA‐binding domains.70
| Method | ACCa | sensb | specc | precd |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| catRAPID | 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.60 | 0.65 |
| BindN+ | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.38 |
| PPrint | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.49 |
| RNAbindR+ | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.48 |
We analyzed 102 proteins containing nonclassical RNA‐binding domains and 102 without annotated RNA‐binding domains with catRAPID signature and three other algorithms.27, 68, 83, 100 The performances are measured using a. accuracy, b. sensitivity, c. specificity, and d. precision.
We also compared the prediction performances of BindN,93 BindN+,78 Pprint,79 RNAproB,101 RNABindR+,80 and catRAPID signature83 using structural data from 90 folds, 126 families and 100 superfamilies retrieved from the SCOP database102 (Figure 3). In all the classifications, catRAPID signature and BindN+ show the best performances102 recognizing contacts identified at a distance cutoff of 3.5 Å. We note that while BindN,93 BindN+,78 Pprint,79 RNAproB,101 and RNABindR+80 have been designed to predict the RNA‐binding ability of individual residues in protein sequences, catRAPID signature identifies binding regions (Table 2).
Methods to predict RNA binding sites. We calculated performances of BindN,93 BindN+,78 Pprint,79 RNAproB,101 RNABindR+,80 and catRAPID signature83 on a set of proteins whose RNA‐binding sites have been validated through X‐ray and NMR techniques. As in a recent work,102 three protein classes ‘fold,’ ‘family,’ and ‘superfamily’ were retrieved from SCOP.102 Performances were estimated using the formula (sensitivity + specificity)/2 on 90 folds, 126 families, and 100 superfamilies (details at http://service.tartaglialab.com/static_files/shared/documentation_signature.html).
Only a few methods address the question whether a protein of interest interacts with a specific RNA exploiting the properties of both interaction partners. catRAPID96, 97 estimates the interaction potential through van der Waals, hydrogen bonding and secondary structure propensities of both protein and RNA sequences (total of 10 features per molecule)81 and allows identification of binding partners with high confidence (training accuracy = 0.89; testing accuracy = 0.78; see also Cirillo et al.91; Table 2). catRAPID identified the interaction of the N‐terminus of Fragile Mental Retardation Protein FMRP104 with dendritic nontranslatable brain cytoplasmic RNA BC1105 before crystallographic studies determined the presence of tandem Agenet and KH domains.106 Similarly, catRAPID predictions for the physical binding of heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein U SAF‐A with the long noncoding Xist107 have been recently confirmed by ChiRP‐MS experiments.68 In addition, catRAPID can be used to perform proteome‐ and transcriptome‐wide calculations,97 which is useful to complement experimental approaches, such as interactome capture29 (see also Experimental Methods for Detection of Protein–RNA Interactions) and to identify target partners.108 Owing to the complexity of the conformational space, a fragmentation procedure,107, 109 based on division of polypeptide and nucleotide sequences into overlapping regions, is used for RNAs longer than 1000 nucleotides and proteins longer than 750 amino acids.
Another method called RPISeq predicts interactions combining protein and RNA features in SVM and RF classifiers.98 In RPISeq, RNA sequences are encoded by frequency of nucleotide tetrads (i.e., 4‐mer combinations of [A,C,G,U]), while protein sequences are represented using 3‐mer of 7 amino acid types ([A,G,V], [I,L,F,P], [Y,M,T,S], [H,N,Q,W], [R,K], [D,E], and [C]). More specifically, the RNA is represented by a 4 × 4 × 4 or 256‐dimensional vector, in which each feature represents the 4‐mer normalized frequency appearing in a RNA sequence (e.g., CCAU, AUUG, and GACA). The protein instead is encoded by a 7 × 7 × 7 or 343‐dimensional vector, where each element of the vector corresponds to the normalized frequency of the corresponding triple of amino acids in the sequence. The protein and RNA vectors serve as input for the SVM and RF to predict whether the protein–RNA pair interacts. RPISeq shows significantly high performances in the training phase (accuracy = 0.89) and high sensitivity / low specificity when applied to other sets.81, 92, 106
Future Computational Challenges
catRAPID and other computational tools96, 98 predict the interaction propensity of a protein–RNA pair to interact, dismissing other proteins involved in the physical binding. As a matter of fact, RBPs often form complexes and bind together to their target RNAs (see also ‘RIP’ section in Experimental Methods for Detection of Protein–RNA Interactions).110 A recent computational approach developed to predict transcription factor binding sites suggests that additional information retrieved from protein–protein interactions improves the performances of current predictions.111 Thus, as done for DNA‐binding proteins, integration of protein–protein network layers112 could boost considerably interaction predictions. We envisage that network‐based methods will shed light on the complex life of newly discovered RBPs, their dynamics and role in human diseases.113
A number of reports indicate that RBPs with many partners are enriched in structural disorder.114, 115 The lack of stable tertiary structure increases the ability of RBPs to interact with multiple partners116 and promotes the formation of transient ribonucleoprotein complexes, which are discussed in section Beyond the Protein–RNA Complex: Membrane‐Less Organelles. Moreover, some RBPs have been found to be enriched in glycine, arginine, lysine, and tyrosine motifs29 as well as a number of other patterns71 that could promote transient interactions. Thus, to reach a complete and biologically relevant understanding of protein–RNA interactions, complex formation should be studied as a dynamic process. Data based on techniques such as surface plasmon resonance could allow measurement of interactions in real time providing both equilibrium and kinetic information for the development of new methods.16
BEYOND THE PROTEIN–RNA COMPLEX: MEMBRANE‐LESS ORGANELLES
RBPs and RNAs interact through different types of contacts that facilitate not only the formation of oligomeric complexes but also other types of dynamic assemblies.31 Interestingly, a number of RBPs associate through weak contacts present in structurally disordered regions117 to trigger a process known as liquid‐to‐liquid phase separation.118 Through liquid‐liquid demixing, ribonucleoprotein assemblies form distinct compartments in the cytoplasm and nucleoplasm119 that in vivo can act as membrane‐less organelles.5, 6, 7 The liquid nature of these assemblies allows rapid diffusion favoring chemical reactions on biological timescales.
Two of the most common macromolecular assemblies are processing‐bodies (P‐bodies) and stress granules.7, 120 These assemblies are associated with mRNA degradation and storage, respectively, and are built in response to different environmental stimuli.8 P‐bodies and stress granules are conserved throughout evolution and appear in yeast, plant, nematode, fly, and mammalian cells.121
Ribonucleoprotein assemblies have special physicochemical properties that can be investigated using computational approaches such as the multicleverMachine.122, 123 With respect to the yeast proteome (globular proteins with sequence redundancy < 40%), the multicleverMachine predicts that proteins forming P‐bodies and stress granules are depleted in hydrophobicity and enriched in structural disorder and RNA‐binding ability (p‐values < 10−5; Fisher's exact test; Figure 4), which is in agreement with experimental evidence.72, 126 Hydrophobicity and structural disorder highly discriminate the two sets (areas under the ROC curve AUC in the range of 0.70–0.80; calculations available at http://www.tartaglialab.com/cs_multi/confirm/1207/c51ef6cff3/).
Features of yeast proteins forming ribonucleoprotein assemblies. Using physicochemical properties, the multicleverMachine approach122, 123 discriminates P‐bodies and stress granules from other globular proteins. The datasets employed in this analysis comprise 52 P‐body and 62 stress granule proteins, previously reported in experimental works,124 as well as five random sets of 100 globular proteins from Astral SCOPe 2.05 (<40% sequence identity).125 Three specific properties are reported: (a) nucleic acid binding, (b) hydrophobicity, and (c) disorder propensity. For each feature, enrichment or depletion of a set is indicated with a specific color: green indicates that proteins contained in P‐bodies or stress granules are enriched with respect to proteome subsamples; red means depletion with respect to the proteome subsamples; yellow indicates no significant differences between the sets. As observed in previous experimental works,63, 104 proteins found in P‐bodies and stress granules are more structurally disordered and prone to bind nucleic acids as well as less hydrophobic (p‐values <10−5; Fisher's exact test). Sets and results can be accessed at http://www.tartaglialab.com/cs_multi/confirm/1207/c51ef6cff3/ where additional statistical analyses are also reported.
An important property of the membrane‐less organelles is the wide spectrum of structural states,126 which is promoted by the different type of interactions between protein and RNA components. The RNA content influences viscoelasticity of assemblies, as well as exchange rate with the surrounding milieu, fusion and fission kinetics.127 As a matter of fact, the protein–RNA contacts can be quite diverse: strong to stabilize RNAs from synthesis to degradation or weak to bind RNAs at a precise moment and place.128 A better understanding of the physical characteristics of ribonucleoprotein components is crucial to investigate their function and dysfunction.
RBP Assemblies and Disease
Current literature indicates that the structure of a ribonucleoprotein assembly depends on a delicate equilibrium between protein and RNA components that is regulated by the quality control machinery (e.g., chaperones).129 Incorrect assembly/disassembly of such macrostructures can jeopardize molecular cell homeostasis. Intriguingly, RBPs found in liquid phase‐separated assemblies are enriched in structural disorder that is also associated with a high risk of misfolding and the formation of toxic protein aggregates.126, 129 Neurons appear to be especially susceptible to failures in proteostasis, a major source of neurodegenerative diseases. Indeed, several dementias and motor‐neuron diseases are associated with accumulation of disordered RBPs, such as TAR‐DNA‐binding protein 43 in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) or Ataxin 1 in Ataxia.130
In this context, chaperones perform the important task to keep protein homeostasis and prevent disease. They are upregulated upon cellular stress (e.g., diabetes‐induced [glyc]oxidation stresses) to limit the accumulation of damage131 via folding assistance, blocking aberrant interactions, disaggregating proteins, and facilitating protein degradation.132, 133, 134, 135, 136 We speculate that the ability to form phase‐separated ribonucleoprotein assemblies requires a tightly regulated control machinery, that in stress conditions and aging can be compromised and drive to formation of toxic aggregates. Thus, chaperones can be applied to develop therapeutic interventions, from controlling the initial aggregative events in the ER, to blocking the assembly of cytotoxic aggregates.
Future Challenges in the Characterization of RBP Assemblies
A major challenge in the future will be to identify the components of each ribonucleoprotein assembly and pinpoint the defects associated with RBP dysfunction.128, 137 Currently the characterisation of solid phase separated aggregates is possible.138 However, the study of the liquid phase assemblies is more complex due to their fast exchange with the cell milieu, i.e., their rapid dissolution impeding its isolation.
Solid aggregates appear in many diseases, including Huntington's, Creutzfeldt‐Jakob, and Alzheimer's disease. This suggests a common hallmark139 and the existence of common pathways for pharmacotherapeutic targeting.137, 140 In this context, it is crucial to understand the cellular mechanisms controlling health conditions as well as the factors triggering toxicity. Interestingly, the metastable nature of the liquid assemblies offers the possibility to use endogenous biochemical pathways to reverse pathological states.137 As a matter of fact, prion protein neurodegeneration can be reduced by inhibition of RNA granules pathway and stimulation of protein synthesis.140
CONCLUSION
RBPs functions include protection, modification, and transport of transcripts to their translation or degradation sites (Figure 1). The scenario is particularly complex considering the fact that not only RBPs regulate RNAs but also RNAs regulate RBPs.141, 142 Experimental techniques aiming to reveal RNA–protein contacts will have to uncover more details of such interactions (see ‘protein‐centric’ and ‘RNA‐centric’ experimental methods). The study of RBPs will benefit from new computational approaches taking into account information of protein–protein networks (see section Computational Methods for Detection of Protein–RNA Interactions).
An important aspect to consider while building computational models is that many proteins exhibit RNA‐binding activity without having canonical RNA‐binding domains.30, 71, 117 As observed for protein–protein interactions, structurally disordered regions bind with high specificity and low affinity.143 Hence, noncanonical domains, which are enriched in structural disorder, could promote low affinity interactions with RNA molecules.108 Accordingly, computational methods predict that the RNA‐binding ability of structural disorder is more pronounced in noncanonical RBPs, indicating that unfolded regions promote RNA interactions.108 With respect to the RNA‐binding ability of full‐length proteins, the contribution of disorder is high at low‐interaction propensities, which suggests that a large number of transcripts can be targeted by noncanonical domains.108 How many other RBPs lacking canonical binding domains exist in nature?69, 83 The repertoire of RBPs needs to be expanded in order to link transcriptomic with metabolomic properties,144 which will involve the development of new computational strategies.80, 83
Most importantly, future computational and experimental investigations will have to focus on noncanonical protein–RNA complexes.145 Indeed, transient interactions, promoted by structurally disordered regions in RBPs, often induce phase‐separation in the nucleus or cytoplasm (see section Beyond the Protein–RNA Complex: Membrane‐Less Organelles).6 The functionality of phase‐separated protein–RNA assemblies is still under investigation but appearance of solid protein–RNA aggregates has been linked with devastating diseases, such as for instance ALS (see section RBP Assemblies and Disease).137, 140 Thus, studying protein–RNA assemblies will be essential to better understand the etiopathogenesis of specific diseases and to design new therapeutic strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research leading to this work has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007‐2013), through the European Research Council, under grant agreement RIBOMYLOME_309545 (Gian Gaetano Tartaglia), and from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (BFU2014‐55054‐P). We also acknowledge support from AGAUR (2014 SGR 00685) and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness ‘Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2013–2017’ (SEV‐2012‐0208).
References
- 1.
MorrisKV ,MattickJS . The rise of regulatory RNA. Nat Rev Genet2014, 15:423–437.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 2.
GerstbergerS ,HafnerM ,TuschlT . A census of human RNA‐binding proteins. Nat Rev Genet2014, 15:829–845.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 3.
IwasakiYW ,SiomiMC ,SiomiH . PIWI‐interacting RNA: its biogenesis and functions. Annu Rev Biochem2015, 84:405–433.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 4.
VerschoorA ,SrivastavaS ,GrassucciR ,FrankJ . Native 3D structure of eukaryotic 80s ribosome: morphological homology with E. coli 70S ribosome. J Cell Biol1996, 133:495–505.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 5.
CourchaineE ,NeugebauerKM . Paraspeckles: paragons of functional aggregation. J Cell Biol2015, 210:527–528.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 6.
BrangwynneCP ,EckmannCR ,CoursonDS ,RybarskaA ,HoegeC ,GharakhaniJ ,JülicherF ,HymanAA . Germline P granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation. Science2009, 324:1729–1732.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 7.
ChenD ,HuangS . Nucleolar components involved in ribosome biogenesis cycle between the nucleolus and nucleoplasm in interphase cells. J Cell Biol2001, 153:169–176.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 8.
Giménez‐BarconsM ,DíezJ . Yeast processing bodies and stress granules: self‐assembly ribonucleoprotein particles. Microb Cell Fact2011, 10:73.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 9.
WardAJ ,CooperTA . The pathobiology of splicing. J Pathol2010, 220:152–163.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 10.
NussbacherJK ,BatraR ,Lagier‐TourenneC ,YeoGW . RNA‐binding proteins in neurodegeneration: Seq and you shall receive. Trends Neurosci2015, 38:226–236.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 11.
CastelloA ,FischerB ,HentzeMW ,PreissT . RNA‐binding proteins in Mendelian disease. Trends Genet2013, 29:318–327.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 12.
LukongKE ,ChangK ,KhandjianEW ,RichardS . RNA‐binding proteins in human genetic disease. Trends Genet2008, 24:416–425.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 13.
SetzerDR . Measuring equilibrium and kinetic constants using gel retardation assays. Methods Mol Biol1999, 118:115–128.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 14.
Wilson, G.M. ,Sutphen, K. ,ChuangKy , null, and Brewer, G. (2001) Folding of A + U‐rich RNA elements modulates AUF1 binding. Potential roles in regulation of mRNA turnover. J Biol Chem, 276:8695–8704.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 15.
WalterNG ,HampelKJ ,BrownKM ,BurkeJM . Tertiary structure formation in the hairpin ribozyme monitored by fluorescence resonance energy transfer. EMBO J1998, 17:2378–2391.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 16.
KatsambaPS ,ParkS ,Laird‐OffringaIA . Kinetic studies of RNA‐protein interactions using surface plasmon resonance. Methods2002, 26:95–104.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 17.
MartinD ,CharpilienneA ,ParentA ,BoussacA ,D'AutreauxB ,PouponJ ,PoncetD . The rotavirus nonstructural protein NSP5 coordinates a [2Fe‐2S] iron‐sulfur cluster that modulates interaction to RNA. FASEB J2013, 27:1074–1083.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 18.
SchulzS ,DollerA ,PendiniNR ,WilceJA ,PfeilschifterJ ,EberhardtW . Domain‐specific phosphomimetic mutation allows dissection of different protein kinase C (PKC) isotype‐triggered activities of the RNA binding protein HuR. Cell Signal2013, 25:2485–2495.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 19.
SunwooH ,WuJY ,LeeJT . The Xist RNA‐PRC2 complex at 20‐nm resolution reveals a low Xist stoichiometry and suggests a hit‐and‐run mechanism in mouse cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2015, 112:E4216–4225.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 20.
KonigJ ,ZarnackK ,RotG ,CurkT ,KayikciM ,ZupanB ,TurnerDJ ,LuscombeNM ,UleJ . iCLIP—transcriptome‐wide mapping of protein‐RNA interactions with individual nucleotide resolution. J Vis Exp2011, 50.[Google Scholar] - 21.
AscanoM ,HafnerM ,CekanP ,GerstbergerS ,TuschlT . Identification of RNA–protein interaction networks using PAR‐CLIP. WIREs RNA2012, 3:159–177.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 22.
MannM . Functional and quantitative proteomics using SILAC. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2006, 7:952–958.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 23.
MarshallKA ,EllingtonAD . In vitro selection of RNA aptamers. Methods Enzymol2000, 318:193–214.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 24.
CampbellZT ,BhimsariaD ,ValleyCT ,Rodriguez‐MartinezJA ,MenichelliE ,WilliamsonJR ,AnsariAZ ,WickensM . Cooperativity in RNA‐protein interactions: global analysis of RNA binding specificity. Cell Rep2012, 1:570–581.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 25.
CookKB ,HughesTR ,MorrisQD . High‐throughput characterization of protein–RNA interactions. Brief Funct Genomics2015, 14:74–89.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 26.
LiviCM ,BlanzieriE . Protein‐specific prediction of mRNA binding using RNA sequences, binding motifs and predicted secondary structures. BMC Bioinformatics2014, 15:123.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 27.
TerribiliniM ,SanderJD ,LeeJ‐H ,ZabackP ,JerniganRL ,HonavarV ,DobbsD . RNABindR: a server for analyzing and predicting RNA‐binding sites in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res2007, 35(Web Server issue):W578–584.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 28.
KlusP ,BolognesiB ,AgostiniF ,MarcheseD ,ZanzoniA ,TartagliaGG . The cleverSuite approach for protein characterization: predictions of structural properties, solubility, chaperone requirements and RNA‐binding abilities. Bioinformatics2014, 30:1601–1608.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 29.
CastelloA ,FischerB ,EichelbaumK ,HorosR ,BeckmannBM ,StreinC ,DaveyNE ,HumphreysDT ,PreissT ,SteinmetzLM , et al. Insights into RNA biology from an atlas of mammalian mRNA‐binding proteins. Cell2012, 149:1393–1406.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 30.
TartagliaGG . The grand challenge of characterizing ribonucleoprotein networks. Front Mol Biosci2016, 3:24.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 31.
TenenbaumSA ,CarsonCC ,LagerPJ ,KeeneJD . Identifying mRNA subsets in messenger ribonucleoprotein complexes by using cDNA arrays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2000, 97:14085–14090.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 32.
LicatalosiDD ,MeleA ,FakJJ ,UleJ ,KayikciM ,ChiSW ,ClarkTA ,SchweitzerAC ,BlumeJE ,WangX , et al. HITS‐CLIP yields genome‐wide insights into brain alternative RNA processing. Nature2008, 456:464–469.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 33.
HafnerM ,LandthalerM ,BurgerL ,KhorshidM ,HausserJ ,BerningerP ,RothballerA ,AscanoMJr ,JungkampA‐C ,MunschauerM , et al. Transcriptome‐wide identification of RNA‐binding protein and microRNA target sites by PAR‐CLIP. Cell2010, 141:129–141.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 34.
Van NostrandEL ,PrattGA ,ShishkinAA ,Gelboin‐BurkhartC ,FangMY ,SundararamanB ,BlueSM ,NguyenTB ,SurkaC ,ElkinsK , et al. Robust transcriptome‐wide discovery of RNA‐binding protein binding sites with enhanced CLIP (eCLIP). Nat Methods2016, 6:508–514.[Google Scholar] - 35.
RayD ,KazanH ,ChanET ,CastilloLP ,ChaudhryS ,TalukderS ,BlencoweBJ ,MorrisQ ,HughesTR . Rapid and systematic analysis of the RNA recognition specificities of RNA‐binding proteins. Nat Biotechnol2009, 27:667–670.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 36.
LambertN ,RobertsonA ,JangiM ,McGearyS ,SharpPA ,BurgeCB . RNA Bind‐n‐Seq: quantitative assessment of the sequence and structural binding specificity of RNA binding proteins. Mol Cell2014, 54:887–900.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 37.
BuenrostroJD ,ArayaCL ,ChircusLM ,LaytonCJ ,ChangHY ,SnyderMP ,GreenleafWJ . Quantitative analysis of RNA‐protein interactions on a massively parallel array reveals biophysical and evolutionary landscapes. Nat Biotechnol2014, 32:562–568.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 38.
TomeJM ,OzerA ,PaganoJM ,GhebaD ,SchrothGP ,LisJT . Comprehensive analysis of RNA‐protein interactions by high‐throughput sequencing‐RNA affinity profiling. Nat Methods2014, 11:683–688.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 39.
MartinL ,MeierM ,LyonsSM ,SitRV ,MarzluffWF ,QuakeSR ,ChangHY . Systematic reconstruction of RNA functional motifs with high‐throughput microfluidics. Nat Methods2012, 9:1192–1194.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 40.
HoggJR ,CollinsK . RNA‐based affinity purification reveals 7SK RNPs with distinct composition and regulation. RNA2007, 13:868–880.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 41.
SlobodinB ,GerstJE . RaPID: an aptamer‐based mRNA affinity purification technique for the identification of RNA and protein factors present in ribonucleoprotein complexes. Methods Mol Biol2011, 714:387–406.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 42.
MichlewskiG ,CáceresJF . RNase‐assisted RNA chromatography. RNA2010, 16:1673–1678.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 43.
ScherrerT ,MittalN ,JangaSC ,GerberAP . A screen for RNA‐binding proteins in yeast indicates dual functions for many enzymes. PLoS One2010, 5:e15499.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 44.
SiprashviliZ ,WebsterDE ,KretzM ,JohnstonD ,RinnJL ,ChangHY ,KhavariPA . Identification of proteins binding coding and non‐coding human RNAs using protein microarrays. BMC Genomics2012, 13:633.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 45.
TsaiBP ,WangX ,HuangL ,WatermanML . Quantitative profiling of in vivo‐assembled RNA‐protein complexes using a novel integrated proteomic approach. Mol Cell Proteomics2011, 10:M110.007385.[Google Scholar] - 46.
ChuC ,QuinnJ ,ChangHY . Chromatin isolation by RNA purification (ChIRP). J Vis Exp2012, 61:3912.[Google Scholar] - 47.
SimonMD . Capture hybridization analysis of RNA targets (CHART). Curr Protoc Mol Biol, Wiley Online Library, NY UUEE, Chapter 21, Unit 21.25, 2013. - 48.
KeeneJD ,KomisarowJM ,FriedersdorfMB . RIP‐Chip: the isolation and identification of mRNAs, microRNAs and protein components of ribonucleoprotein complexes from cell extracts. Nat Protoc2006, 1:302–307.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 49.
UleJ ,JensenK ,MeleA ,DarnellRB . CLIP: a method for identifying protein‐RNA interaction sites in living cells. Methods2005, 37:376–386.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 50.
FaoroC ,AtaideSF . Ribonomic approaches to study the RNA‐binding proteome. FEBS Lett2014, 588:3649–3664.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 51.
TrifillisP ,DayN ,KiledjianM . Finding the right RNA: identification of cellular mRNA substrates for RNA‐binding proteins. RNA1999, 5:1071–1082.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 52.
BrooksSA ,RigbyWF . Characterization of the mRNA ligands bound by the RNA binding protein hnRNP A2 utilizing a novel in vivo technique. Nucleic Acids Res2000, 28:E49.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 53.
KönigJ ,ZarnackK ,RotG ,CurkT ,KayikciM ,ZupanB ,TurnerDJ ,LuscombeNM ,UleJ . iCLIP reveals the function of hnRNP particles in splicing at individual nucleotide resolution. Nat Struct Mol Biol2010, 17:909–915.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 54.
WangT ,XiaoG ,ChuY ,ZhangMQ ,CoreyDR ,XieY . Design and bioinformatics analysis of genome‐wide CLIP experiments. Nucleic Acids Res2015, 43:5263–5274.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 55.
UleJ ,JensenKB ,RuggiuM ,MeleA ,UleA ,DarnellRB . CLIP identifies Nova‐regulated RNA networks in the brain. Science2003, 302:1212–1215.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 56.
Ince‐DunnG ,OkanoHJ ,JensenKB ,ParkW‐Y ,ZhongR ,UleJ ,MeleA ,FakJJ ,YangC ,ZhangC , et al. Neuronal Elav‐like (Hu) proteins regulate RNA splicing and abundance to control glutamate levels and neuronal excitability. Neuron2012, 75:1067–1080.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 57.
LuY‐C ,ChangS‐H ,HafnerM ,LiX ,TuschlT ,ElementoO ,HlaT . ELAVL1 modulates transcriptome‐wide miRNA binding in murine macrophages. Cell Rep2014, 9:2330–2343.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 58.
DenkertC ,KochI ,von KeyserlingkN ,NoskeA ,NiesporekS ,DietelM ,WeichertW . Expression of the ELAV‐like protein HuR in human colon cancer: association with tumor stage and cyclooxygenase‐2. Mod Pathol2006, 19:1261–1269.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 59.
AbdelmohsenK ,GorospeM . Posttranscriptional regulation of cancer traits by HuR. WIREs RNA2010, 1:214–229.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 60.
MukherjeeN ,CorcoranDL ,NusbaumJD ,ReidDW ,GeorgievS ,HafnerM ,AscanoM ,TuschlT ,OhlerU ,KeeneJD . Integrative regulatory mapping indicates that the RNA‐binding protein HuR couples pre‐mRNA processing and mRNA stability. Mol Cell2011, 43:327–339.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 61.
OkanoHJ ,DarnellRB . A hierarchy of Hu RNA binding proteins in developing and adult neurons. J Neurosci1997, 17:3024–3037.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 62.
DarnellRB . HITS‐CLIP: panoramic views of protein‐RNA regulation in living cells. WIREs RNA2010, 1:266–286.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 63.
JankowskyE ,HarrisME . Specificity and nonspecificity in RNA‐protein interactions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2015, 16:533–544.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 64.
UlitskyI ,BartelDP . lincRNAs: genomics, evolution, and mechanisms. Cell2013, 154:26–46.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 65.
EngreitzJM ,Pandya‐JonesA ,McDonelP ,ShishkinA ,SirokmanK ,SurkaC ,KadriS ,XingJ ,GorenA ,LanderES , et al. The Xist lncRNA exploits three‐dimensional genome architecture to spread across the X chromosome. Science2013, 341:1237973.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 66.
WestJA ,DavisCP ,SunwooH ,SimonMD ,SadreyevRI ,WangPI ,TolstorukovMY ,KingstonRE . The long noncoding RNAs NEAT1 and MALAT1 bind active chromatin sites. Mol Cell2014, 55:791–802.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 67.
McHughCA ,ChenC‐K ,ChowA ,SurkaCF ,TranC ,McDonelP ,Pandya‐JonesA ,BlancoM ,BurghardC ,MoradianA , et al. The Xist lncRNA interacts directly with SHARP to silence transcription through HDAC3. Nature2015, 521:232–236.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 68.
ChuC ,ZhangQC ,da RochaST ,FlynnRA ,BharadwajM ,CalabreseJM ,MagnusonT ,HeardE ,ChangHY . Systematic discovery of Xist RNA binding proteins. Cell2015, 161:404–416.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 69.
BaltzAG ,MunschauerM ,SchwanhäusserB ,VasileA ,MurakawaY ,SchuelerM ,YoungsN ,Penfold‐BrownD ,DrewK ,MilekM , et al. The mRNA‐bound proteome and its global occupancy profile on protein‐coding transcripts. Mol Cell2012, 46:674–690.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 70.
KwonSC ,YiH ,EichelbaumK ,FöhrS ,FischerB ,YouKT ,CastelloA ,KrijgsveldJ ,HentzeMW ,KimVN . The RNA‐binding protein repertoire of embryonic stem cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol2013, 20:1122–1130.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 71.
BeckmannBM ,HorosR ,FischerB ,CastelloA ,EichelbaumK ,AlleaumeA‐M ,SchwarzlT ,CurkT ,FoehrS ,HuberW , et al. The RNA‐binding proteomes from yeast to man harbour conserved enigmRBPs. Nat Commun2015, 6:10127.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 72.
MitchellSF ,JainS ,SheM ,ParkerR . Global analysis of yeast mRNPs. Nat Struct Mol Biol2013, 20:127–133.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 73.
IngoliaNT . Ribosome profiling: new views of translation, from single codons to genome scale. Nat Rev Genet2014, 15:205–213.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 74.
BaileyTL ,JohnsonJ ,GrantCE ,NobleWS . The MEME suite. Nucleic Acids Res2015, 43(W1):W39–49.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 75.
PazI ,KostiI ,AresM ,ClineM ,Mandel‐GutfreundY . RBPmap: a web server for mapping binding sites of RNA‐binding proteins. Nucleic Acids Res2014, 42(Web Server issue):W361–367.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 76.
AgostiniF ,CirilloD ,PontiRD ,TartagliaGG . SeAMotE: a method for high‐throughput motif discovery in nucleic acid sequences. BMC Genomics2014, 15:925.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 77.
KazanH ,RayD ,ChanET ,HughesTR ,MorrisQ . RNAcontext: a new method for learning the sequence and structure binding preferences of RNA‐binding proteins. PLoS Comput Biol2010, 6:e1000832.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 78.
WangL ,HuangC ,YangMQ ,YangJY . BindN+ for accurate prediction of DNA and RNA‐binding residues from protein sequence features. BMC Syst Biol2010, 4:1–9.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 79.
KumarM ,GromihaMM ,RaghavaGPS . Prediction of RNA binding sites in a protein using SVM and PSSM profile. Proteins2008, 71:189–194.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 80.
WaliaRR ,XueLC ,WilkinsK ,El‐ManzalawyY ,DobbsD ,HonavarV . RNABindRPlus: a predictor that combines machine learning and sequence homology‐based methods to improve the reliability of predicted RNA‐binding residues in proteins. PLoS One2014, 9:e97725.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 81.
CirilloD ,AgostiniF ,TartagliaGG . Predictions of protein‐RNA interactions. WIREs Comput Mol Sci2012, 3:161–175.[Google Scholar] - 82.
FinnRD ,ClementsJ ,ArndtW ,MillerBL ,WheelerTJ ,SchreiberF ,BatemanA ,EddySR . HMMER web server: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res2015, 43(W1):W30–38.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 83.
LiviCM ,KlusP ,Delli PontiR ,TartagliaGG . catRAPID signature: identification of ribonucleoproteins and RNA‐binding regions. Bioinformatics2015, 32:773–775.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 84.
TowficF ,CarageaC ,GemperlineDC ,DobbsD ,HonavarV . Struct‐NB: predicting protein‐RNA binding sites using structural features. Int J Data Min Bioinform2010, 4:21–43.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 85.
MaetschkeSR ,YuanZ . Exploiting structural and topological information to improve prediction of RNA‐protein binding sites. BMC Bioinformatics2009, 10:341.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 86.
ZhaoH ,YangY ,ZhouY . Highly accurate and high‐resolution function prediction of RNA binding proteins by fold recognition and binding affinity prediction. RNA Biol2011, 8:988–996.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 87.
Pérez‐CanoL ,Fernández‐RecioJ . Optimal protein‐RNA area, OPRA: a propensity‐based method to identify RNA‐binding sites on proteins. Proteins2010, 78:25–35.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 88.
YangY ,FaraggiE ,ZhaoH ,ZhouY . Improving protein fold recognition and template‐based modeling by employing probabilistic‐based matching between predicted one‐dimensional structural properties of query and corresponding native properties of templates. Bioinformatics2011, 27:2076–2082.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 89.
ZhaoH ,YangY ,JangaSC ,KaoCC ,ZhouY . Prediction and validation of the unexplored RNA‐binding protein atlas of the human proteome. Proteins2014, 82:640–647.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 90.
IvaniI ,DansPD ,NoyA ,PérezA ,FaustinoI ,HospitalA ,WaltherJ ,AndrioP ,GoñiR ,BalaceanuA , et al. Parmbsc1: a refined force field for DNA simulations. Nat Methods2016, 13:55–58.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 91.
CirilloD ,LiviCM ,AgostiniF ,TartagliaGG . Discovery of protein–RNA networks. Mol BioSyst2014, 10:1632–1642.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 92.
SiJ ,CuiJ ,ChengJ ,WuR . Computational prediction of RNA‐binding proteins and binding sites. Int J Mol Sci2015, 16:26303–26317.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 93.
WangL ,BrownSJ . BindN: a web‐based tool for efficient prediction of DNA and RNA binding sites in amino acid sequences. Nucl Acids Res2006, 34(suppl 2):W243–248.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 94.
BaileyTL ,BodenM ,BuskeFA ,FrithM ,GrantCE ,ClementiL ,RenJ ,LiWW ,NobleWS . MEME Suite: tools for motif discovery and searching. Nucl Acids Res2009, 37(suppl 2):W202–208.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 95.
FinnRD ,ClementsJ ,EddySR . HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res2011, 39(Web Server issue):W29–37.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 96.
BellucciM ,AgostiniF ,MasinM ,TartagliaGG . Predicting protein associations with long noncoding RNAs. Nat Methods2011, 8:444–445.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 97.
AgostiniF ,ZanzoniA ,KlusP ,MarcheseD ,CirilloD ,TartagliaGG . catRAPID omics: a web server for large‐scale prediction of protein‐RNA interactions. Bioinformatics2013, 29:2928–2930.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 98.
MuppiralaUK ,HonavarVG ,DobbsD . Predicting RNA‐protein interactions using only sequence information. BMC Bioinformatics2011, 12:489.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 99.
LiuT ,GengX ,ZhengX ,LiR ,WangJ . Accurate prediction of protein structural class using auto covariance transformation of PSI‐BLAST profiles. Amino Acids2012, 42:2243–2249.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 100.
KumarM ,GromihaMM ,RaghavaGPS . SVM based prediction of RNA‐binding proteins using binding residues and evolutionary information. J Mol Recognit2011, 24:303–313.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 101.
ChengC‐W ,SuEC‐Y ,HwangJ‐K ,SungT‐Y ,HsuW‐L . Predicting RNA‐binding sites of proteins using support vector machines and evolutionary information. BMC Bioinformatics2008, 9(Suppl 12):S6.[Google Scholar] - 102.
NagarajanR ,GromihaMM . Prediction of RNA binding residues: an extensive analysis based on structure and function to select the best predictor. PLoS One2014, 9:e91140.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 103.
AgostiniF ,CirilloD ,LiviCM ,PontiRD ,TartagliaGG . ccSOL omics: a webserver for large‐scale prediction of endogenous and heterologous solubility in E. coli. Bioinformatics2014, 30:2975–2977.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 104.
JohnsonR ,NobleW ,TartagliaGG ,BuckleyNJ . Neurodegeneration as an RNA disorder. Prog Neurobiol2012, 99:293–315.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 105.
ZalfaF ,GiorgiM ,PrimeranoB ,MoroA ,Di PentaA ,ReisS ,OostraB ,BagniC . The fragile X syndrome protein FMRP associates with BC1 RNA and regulates the translation of specific mRNAs at synapses. Cell2003, 112:317–327.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 106.
MyrickLK ,HashimotoH ,ChengX ,WarrenST . Human FMRP contains an integral tandem Agenet (Tudor) and KH motif in the amino terminal domain. Hum Mol Genet2015, 24:1733–1740.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 107.
AgostiniF ,CirilloD ,BolognesiB ,TartagliaGG . X‐inactivation: quantitative predictions of protein interactions in the Xist network. Nucleic Acids Res2013, 41:e31.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 108.
CirilloD ,MarcheseD ,AgostiniF ,LiviCM ,Botta‐OrfilaT ,TartagliaGG . Constitutive patterns of gene expression regulated by RNA‐binding proteins. Genome Biol2014, 15:R13.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 109.
CirilloD ,AgostiniF ,KlusP ,MarcheseD ,RodriguezS ,BolognesiB ,TartagliaGG . Neurodegenerative diseases: quantitative predictions of protein‐RNA interactions. RNA2013, 19:129–140.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 110.
WillCL ,LührmannR . Spliceosome structure and function. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol2011, 3:a003707.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 111.
CirilloD ,Botta‐OrfilaT ,TartagliaGG . By the company they keep: interaction networks define the binding ability of transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res2015, 43:e125.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 112.
LevyED ,ErbaEB ,RobinsonCV ,TeichmannSA . Assembly reflects evolution of protein complexes. Nature2008, 453:1262–1265.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 113.
Matia‐GonzálezAM ,LaingEE ,GerberAP . Conserved mRNA‐binding proteomes in eukaryotic organisms. Nat Struct Mol Biol2015, 22:1027–1033.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 114.
NeelamrajuY ,HashemikhabirS ,JangaSC . The human RBPome: from genes and proteins to human disease. J Proteomics2015, 127(Pt A):61–70.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 115.
CastelloA ,HorosR ,StreinC ,FischerB ,EichelbaumK ,SteinmetzLM ,KrijgsveldJ ,HentzeMW . Comprehensive identification of RNA‐binding proteins by RNA interactome capture. Methods Mol Biol2016, 1358:131–139.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 116.
BabuMM ,KriwackiRW ,PappuRV . Structural biology. Versatility from protein disorder. Science2012, 337:1460–1461.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 117.
DunkerAK ,BrownCJ ,LawsonJD ,IakouchevaLM ,ObradovićZ . Intrinsic disorder and protein function. Biochemistry2002, 41:6573–6582.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 118.
BolognesiB ,LorenzoN ,DharR ,CirilloD ,BaldrighiM ,TartagliaG ,LehnerB . A concentration‐dependent liquid phase separation can cause toxicity upon increased protein expression. Cell Rep2016, 16:222–231.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 119.
LiP ,BanjadeS ,ChengH‐C ,KimS ,ChenB ,GuoL ,LlagunoM ,HollingsworthJV ,KingDS ,BananiSF , et al. Phase transitions in the assembly of multivalent signalling proteins. Nature2012, 483:336–340.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 120.
MartinJE ,MatherK ,SwashM ,DoddSM ,DaleGE ,GarofaloO ,LeighPN . Stress protein inclusions in cerebral vessels in dialysis encephalopathy. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol1991, 17:105–111.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 121.
ShahKH ,ZhangB ,RamachandranV ,HermanPK . Processing body and stress granule assembly occur by independent and differentially regulated pathways in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics2013, 193:109–123.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 122.
KlusP ,CirilloD ,Botta OrfilaT ,Gaetano TartagliaG . Neurodegeneration and cancer: where the disorder prevails. Sci Rep2015, 5:15390.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 123.
KlusP ,PontiRD ,LiviCM ,TartagliaGG . Protein aggregation, structural disorder and RNA‐binding ability: a new approach for physico‐chemical and gene ontology classification of multiple datasets. BMC Genomics2015, 16:1071.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 124.
JainS ,WheelerJR ,WaltersRW ,AgrawalA ,BarsicA ,ParkerR . ATPase‐modulated stress granules contain a diverse proteome and substructure. Cell2016, 164:487–498.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 125.
FuL ,NiuB ,ZhuZ ,WuS ,LiW . CD‐HIT: accelerated for clustering the next‐generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics2012, 28:3150–3152.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 126.
BeckerLA ,GitlerAD . It's all starting to come together. Elife2015, 4:e09853.[Google Scholar] - 127.
MitreaDM ,KriwackiRW . Phase separation in biology; functional organization of a higher order. Cell Commun Signal2016, 14:1.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 128.
MasudaK ,MarasaB ,MartindaleJL ,HalushkaMK ,GorospeM . Tissue‐ and age‐dependent expression of RNA‐binding proteins that influence mRNA turnover and translation. Aging (Albany NY)2009, 1:681–698.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 129.
GsponerJ ,BabuMM . Cellular strategies for regulating functional and nonfunctional protein aggregation. Cell Rep2012, 2:1425–1437.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 130.
Bossy‐WetzelE ,SchwarzenbacherR ,LiptonSA. Molecular pathways to neurodegeneration. Published online: 01 July 2004 10: S2–S9. doi:10.1038/nm1067. - 131.
JaissonS ,GilleryP . Impaired proteostasis: role in the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia2014, 57:1517–1527.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 132.
LindbergI ,ShorterJ ,WisemanRL ,ChitiF ,DickeyCA ,McLeanPJ . Chaperones in neurodegeneration. J Neurosci2015, 35:13853–13859.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 133.
OjhaJ ,MasilamoniG ,DunlapD ,UdoffRA ,CashikarAG . Sequestration of toxic oligomers by HspB1 as a cytoprotective mechanism. Mol Cell Biol2011, 31:3146–3157.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 134.
BingerKJ ,EcroydH ,YangS ,CarverJA ,HowlettGJ ,GriffinMDW . Avoiding the oligomeric state: B‐crystallin inhibits fragmentation and induces dissociation of apolipoprotein C‐II amyloid fibrils. FASEB J2013, 27:1214–1222.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 135.
CascellaR ,ContiS ,TatiniF ,EvangelistiE ,ScartabelliT ,CasamentiF ,WilsonMR ,ChitiF ,CecchiC . Extracellular chaperones prevent Aβ42‐induced toxicity in rat brains. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis2013, 1832:1217–1226.[Google Scholar] - 136.
ManniniB ,MulvihillE ,SgromoC ,CascellaR ,KhodarahmiR ,RamazzottiM ,DobsonCM ,CecchiC ,ChitiF . Toxicity of protein oligomers is rationalized by a function combining size and surface hydrophobicity. ACS Chem Biol2014, 9:2309–2317.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 137.
WolozinB . Regulated protein aggregation: stress granules and neurodegeneration. Mol Neurodegener2012, 7:56.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 138.
de GrootNS ,SabateR ,VenturaS . Amyloids in bacterial inclusion bodies. Trends Biochem Sci2009, 34:408–416.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 139.
KingOD ,GitlerAD ,ShorterJ . The tip of the iceberg: RNA‐binding proteins with prion‐like domains in neurodegenerative disease. Brain Res2012, 1462:61–80.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 140.
VanderweydeT ,YoumansK ,Liu‐YesucevitzL ,WolozinB . Role of stress granules and RNA‐binding proteins in neurodegeneration: a mini‐review. Gerontology2013, 59:524–533.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 141.
GuttmanM ,RinnJL . Modular regulatory principles of large non‐coding RNAs. Nature2012, 482:339–346.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 142.
LeeS ,KoppF ,ChangT‐C ,SataluriA ,ChenB ,SivakumarS ,YuH ,XieY ,MendellJT . Noncoding RNA NORAD regulates genomic stability by sequestering PUMILIO proteins. Cell2016, 164:69–80.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 143.
van der LeeR ,BuljanM ,LangB ,WeatherittRJ ,DaughdrillGW ,DunkerAK ,FuxreiterM ,GoughJ ,GsponerJ ,JonesDT , et al. Classification of intrinsically disordered regions and proteins. Chem Rev2014, 114:6589–6631.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 144.
CastelloA ,HentzeMW ,PreissT . Metabolic enzymes enjoying new partnerships as RNA‐binding proteins. Trends Endocrinol Metab2015, 26:746–757.[PubMed][Google Scholar] - 145.
Sanchez de GrootN ,GomesRA ,Villar‐PiqueA ,BabuMM ,CoelhoAV ,VenturaS . Proteome response at the edge of protein aggregation. Open Biol2015, 5:140221–140221.[PubMed][Google Scholar]