Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994030›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2017

Binding site density enables paralog-specific activity of SLM2 and Sam68 proteins in Neurexin2 AS4 splicing control.

Marina Danilenko, Caroline Dalgliesh, Vittoria Pagliarini, Chiara Naro, Ingrid Ehrmann, Mikael Feracci, Mahsa Kheirollahi-Chadegani, Alison Tyson-Capper, Gavin J Clowry, Philippe Fort and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. RNA-binding protein signaling in adult neurogenesis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Marina DanilenkoInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Central Parkway, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK.
Caroline DalglieshInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Central Parkway, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK.
Vittoria PagliariniDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Chiara NaroDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Ingrid EhrmannInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Central Parkway, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK.
Mikael FeracciLeicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology and Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Henry Wellcome Building, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Mahsa Kheirollahi-ChadeganiInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Central Parkway, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK.
Alison Tyson-CapperInstitute for Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle NE2 4HH, UK.
Gavin J ClowryInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle, UK.
Philippe FortUniversité Montpellier, UMR 5237, Centre de Recherche de Biologie cellulaire de Montpellier, CNRS, 34293 Montpellier, France.
Cyril DominguezLeicester Institute of Structural and Chemical Biology and Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Henry Wellcome Building, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Claudio SetteDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
David J ElliottInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Central Parkway, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · ITCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRFondazione Santa Lucia · IT

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D013917/1Medical Research Council G1000526
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SLM2 and Sam68 are splicing regulator paralogs that usually overlap in function, yet only SLM2 and not Sam68 controls the Neurexin2 AS4 exon important for brain function. Herein we find that SLM2 and Sam68 similarly bind to Neurexin2 pre-mRNA, both within the mouse cortex and in vitro. Protein domain-swap experiments identify a region including the STAR domain that differentiates SLM2 and Sam68 activity in splicing target selection, and confirm that this is not established via the variant amino acids involved in RNA contact. However, far fewer SLM2 and Sam68 RNA binding sites flank the Neurexin2 AS4 exon, compared with those flanking the Neurexin1 and Neurexin3 AS4 exons under joint control by both Sam68 and SLM2. Doubling binding site numbers switched paralog sensitivity, by placing the Neurexin2 AS4 exon under joint splicing control by both Sam68 and SLM2. Our data support a model where the density of shared RNA binding sites around a target exon, rather than different paralog-specific protein-RNA binding sites, controls functional target specificity between SLM2 and Sam68 on the Neurexin2 AS4 exon. Similar models might explain differential control by other splicing regulators within families of paralogs with indistinguishable RNA binding sites.

Indexed as

Adaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingAlternative SplicingAnimalsBinding SitesExonsIntronsMiceMice, KnockoutNerve Tissue ProteinsProtein DomainsRNA-Binding ProteinsRNA, MessengerRNA PrecursorsSubstrate SpecificityAdaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingKhdrbs1 protein, mouseKhdrbs3 protein, mouseNerve Tissue Proteinsneurexin IIRNA-Binding ProteinsRNA, MessengerRNA Precursors

Identifiers

PMID27994030
PMCPMC5397175
OpenAlexW2563692469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.