Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Oct 13.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Cell. 2025 Oct 13;85(21):4016–4031.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2025.09.021

Productive mRNA chromatin escape is promoted by PRMT5 activity

Joseph D DeAngelo 1,6, Maxim I Maron 1,6,7, Jacob S Roth 1, Subray Hegde 1, Aliza M Silverstein 1, Varun Gupta 2, Stephanie Stransky 1, Joel Basken 5,8, Joey Azofeifa 5, Charles C Query 4, Simone Sidoli 1, Matthew J Gamble 3,4, David Shechter 1,9,*
PMCID: PMC12744693  NIHMSID: NIHMS2117291  PMID: 41086806

SUMMARY

Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) catalyzes symmetric arginine dimethylation (Rme2s) of RNA-binding proteins and influences RNA splicing and gene expression. However, how PRMT5 couples splicing to productive transcript output remains unclear. We show that a major function of PRMT5 is to promote chromatin escape of mRNAs, designated as genomically retained incompletely processed polyadenylated transcripts (GRIPPs). Using nascent and spike-in normalized fractionated transcriptomics with proteomics, we find that PRMT5 inhibition in mammalian cells causes polyadenylated mRNA and Smith antigen (Sm) protein accumulation on chromatin. These retained transcripts are intron rich and splice slowly. PRMT5 inhibition and isogenic SNRPB mutants demonstrate that Sm tail methylation is essential to prevent RNA detention on chromatin. Biochemical assays reveal that the SMN Tudor domain competes with nucleic acid binding of methylated Sm tails. We conclude that PRMT5 ensures mRNA processing and nuclear export by preventing aberrant chromatin retention, highlighting arginine methylation as a key regulator of RNA-chromatin dynamics.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-2117291-f0008.jpg

In brief

DeAngelo et al. show that PRMT5 methylation of Sm protein tails prevents snRNPs and intron-rich RNAs from being trapped on chromatin. Fractionated transcriptomics and proteomics reveal that PRMT5 activity ensures splicing completion and release of mature transcripts for productive nuclear export.

INTRODUCTION

Protein arginine methyltransferases (PRMTs) catalyze widespread arginine methylation that influences RNA processing, transcription, and signaling.1 These enzymes are grouped as Type I (PRMT1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8; asymmetric arginine dimethylation or Rme2a); Type II (PRMT5, 9; symmetric arginine dimethylation or Rme2s); and Type III (PRMT7; monomethylation or Rme1).2,3 PRMT5, together with its obligate cofactor MEP50, is the main Type II enzyme and is strongly linked to cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, and developmental diseases.4

PRMT5 methylates the Smith antigen (Sm) proteins SNRPB (SmB), SNRPD3 (SmD3), and SNRPD1 (SmD1).5–7 These proteins assemble with four non-methylated Sm proteins into heptameric rings onto the U1, U2, U4, and U5 spliceosomal small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs); this assembly protects and organizes the catalytic snRNAs into snRNPs (small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particles) that are critical for spliceosome function.7–9 snRNP maturation is further facilitated by the SMN Tudor domain, which binds symmetrically dimethylated Sm tails.5 Interestingly, while inhibition or loss of PRMT5 perturbs some splicing, most introns are still removed.10,11

We and others previously showed that PRMT5 regulates intron detention specifically on chromatin.9,12 RNA association with chromatin is increasingly recognized as an important gene expression regulatory mechanism. Polyadenylated mRNAs and noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) can remain chromatin associated to influence processing and export.13–16 Consistently, inhibition of PRMT5 promotes broad transcriptional changes, however the specific molecular mechanisms remain elusive.1,9,17

Notably, unlike other PRMTs, PRMT5 uses substrate adapters to direct methylation. pICln recruits Sm proteins,5,11,18 CoPR5 binds histones,19 and RIOK1 promotes methylation of nucleolin and RPS10.14,15 This specificity suggests that distinct PRMT5 substrate targeting could underlie its unique roles in RNA regulation.

Despite these advances, how PRMT5 couples splicing to productive gene expression has remained unclear. Here, we test how PRMT5 and its adapter proteins regulate mRNA maturation and release from chromatin. Using specific PRMT inhibitors, CRISPRi of PRMT5 and its adapters, spike-in-normalized fractionated RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), nascent transcriptomics, and label-free proteomics on cellular fractions, we uncover an arginine-methylation-dependent mechanism that maintains RNA homeostasis and chromatin dynamics. We show that loss of Sm protein tail methylation causes the accumulation of snRNPs and polyadenylated RNAs on chromatin. Furthermore, Sm tail methylation is recognized by the SMN Tudor domain, which safeguards aberrant Sm-DNA interactions. Together, our work reveals how PRMT5-dependent Sm methylation regulates RNA homeostasis by ensuring that polyadenylated transcripts complete splicing and escape chromatin.

RESULTS

Temporal transcriptomic consequences of PRMT inhibition

PRMTs catalyze the methylation of arginine guanidino nitrogens (Figure 1A).20 To gain understanding of the transcriptional consequences of PRMT inhibition, we performed poly(A)-RNA-seq on A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells treated with a time course of DMSO, 1 μM GSK591 (selective PRMT5 inhibitor), 1 μM MS023 (Type I PRMT inhibitor), or a combination of 1 μM GSK591 and 1 μM MS023 at 2, 4, and 7 days (Tables S1A–S1I).9,21,22 Excessive cell toxicity precluded analysis of 7-day cotreatment data (data not shown).

Figure 1. PRMT5 inhibition leads to widespread transcriptome changes.

Figure 1.

(A) Arginine methyltransferases and their methylation reactions.

(B) PCA of RNA-seq time course in A549 cells treated with DMSO, GSK591 (PRMT5i), MS023 (Type I PRMTi), or both.

(C and D) Volcano plots of histone PTM proteomics after 7 days of either GSK591 or MS023 treatment (horizontal line: padj. = 0.05; vertical line: log2 fold change [FC] = 0.58).

(E) Volcano plot of PRO-seq after 2 days of GSK591 treatment vs. DMSO (horizontal line: padj. = 0.05; vertical line: log2FC = 0.58).

(F and G) Correlations of transcripts significantly changed (padj. < 0.05) in both RNA-seq and PRO-seq after 2 days of GSK591 or MS023.

(H) GO enrichment for transcripts upregulated in RNA-seq and downregulated in PRO-seq (quadrant IV, F). Dot size: gene number; color: p value.

Principal-component analysis (PCA) showed a temporally dependent variance for both Type I and Type II PRMT inhibition (Figure 1B). The opposite variance on principal component 1 (PC1) likely represents the main consequences of Type I and Type II PRMT inhibition. Principal component 2 (PC2) was almost entirely driven by cotreatment with both PRMT inhibitors. Despite transcriptome changes as early as 2 days post-PRMT5 inhibition, growth rate and phenotypic changes associated with PRMT5 inhibition occurred later (Figure S1A).1

To understand the mechanisms driving this transcriptional regulation, we tested how PRMT inhibition influences histone modifications. We performed histone mass spectrometry analysis on cells treated with either GSK591 or MS023 (Figures 1C and 1D). Despite the large transcriptome changes after 7 days of treatment, there were few significant changes in histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) with either inhibitor; we also did not observe any histone arginine methylation. The only significant change observed after GSK591 treatment was a modest increase in H3K27me3 abundance.23

Focusing on the 2-day GSK591 time point RNA-seq, we observed over 1,500 significantly altered transcripts (Figure S1B). Gene Ontology (GO) revealed protein-RNA complexes and assembly to be significantly altered (Figure S1C). To test if nascent transcription was influenced by PRMT inhibition, we used precision nuclear run-on sequencing (PRO-seq) through a matched time course of enzyme inhibition (Figure 1E; Tables S2A–S2K, GSK591 2 days; data not shown, 15 min, 90 min, 3 h, 2 days, 4 days, and 7 days of both GSK591 and MS023 treatment).24 PRO-seq revealed 898 and 509 genes with significantly altered expression following Type I or II PRMT inhibition, respectively (padj. < 0.05). To understand the interplay of the nascent and mature transcriptome, we intersected significantly altered transcripts between PRO-seq and RNA-seq. Interestingly, there was a negative correlation between nascent transcription and bulk RNA after 2 days of Type II PRMT inhibition (R = −0.18, p = 0.00011) (Figure 1F). This contrasts with a similar comparison of Type I PRMT inhibition with MS023, which resulted in a significant positive correlation (R = 0.47, p < 2.2 × 10−16) (Figure 1G). To determine which gene categories are differentially enriched in nascent and RNA-seq, we performed GO analysis on genes upregulated in RNA-seq but downregulated in PRO-seq. This revealed an enrichment in RNA homeostasis, including ncRNA processing, RNA splicing, and rRNA regulation (quadrant IV, Figure 1H). Consistent with a feedback regulatory mechanism to nascent transcription, only quadrant IV showed significant enrichment of RNA processing terms (Figures S1D–S1F). The genes upregulated in PRO-seq and downregulated in RNA-seq (quadrant I) showed enrichment for oxidative stress and protein transport (Figure S1D). We therefore concluded that Type I PRMTs predominantly regulate nascent transcription, while PRMT5 regulates both nascent transcription and post-transcriptional processing.

PRMT5-pICln-SNRP axis for splicing regulation

To test consequences of PRMT5 inhibition, we performed an inhibition time course and immunoblots of acid-extracted chromatin (Figures 2A and S2A).25 The major Rme2s-containing proteins were observed at approximately 25 and 15 kDa, likely corresponding to SNRPB and SNRPD3, respectively. These proteins lost Rme2s and accumulated on chromatin following treatment with 2 days of GSK591 (Figures 2A and 2B). Consistent with a histone-independent mechanism of transcriptional regulation, only a modest increase in H3K27me3 was observed after 7 days of PRMT5 inhibition; H3K27me3 was not increased after 2 days of treatment (Figure 2A). As Sm protein presence in chromatin acid extracts was previously undescribed, we also analyzed their enrichment by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Figure S2B). Upon subsequent immunoblot analysis, we observed SNRPB in the pooled H2A/H2B/H4-containing fractions (Figure S2C).

Figure 2. Sm protein accumulation on chromatin depends on PRMT5-pICln methylation.

Figure 2.

(A) Chromatin immunoblots of SNRPB, SNRPD3, Rme2s, H3K27me3, and H3 after GSK591 time course compared to DMSO and MS023 controls; Direct Blue 71 total membrane stain below.

(B) Quantification of immunoblot intensity of SNRPB and SNPRD3 relative to H3 (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Student’s t test). Data are represented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).

(C) Chromatin immunoblots of Rme2s, SNRPB, SNRPD3, and H3 after PRMT5 inhibition in IMR90 cells.

(D) Chromatin immunoblots after treatment of GSK591 (1 μM, 2 days), doxorubicin (100 nM, 1 day), pladienolide B (5 nM, 5 h), or actinomycin D (5 μg/mL, 3 h) in A549 cells.

(E) Chromatin immunoblots of SNRPB, SNRPD3, and H3 in PRMT5/adapter CRISPRi knockdowns.

(F) PCA analysis of RNA-seq from PRMT5 and adapter knockdowns.

(G) ΔΨ (PSI/percent spliced in) of RIs after PRMT5 and adapter knockdowns.

We next tested if SNRPB and SNRPD3 chromatin accumulation upon PRMT5 inhibition is a general phenomenon. We treated both IMR90-hTERT cells, immortalized fibroblasts from normal human lung tissue, and NSC-34 cells, a mouse motor-neuron-like cell line, with either Type I or Type II PRMT inhibition (Figures 2C and S2D). We observed SNRPB and SNRPD3 accumulation with concomitant loss of Rme2s in both cell lines.

To test other potential causes of SNRP protein accumulation on chromatin, we treated A549 cells with a DNA-damaging agent and splicing or transcription inhibitors followed by immunoblots on fractionated chromatin (Figure 2D). After GSK591 treatment, we observed robust accumulation of all probed SNRP proteins and the U2 snRNP protein SF3B1 (Figure 2D). Sm protein and SF3B1 also accumulated on chromatin after induction of DNA damage response (doxorubicin) and splicing inhibition (pladienolide B) but not after inhibition of transcription elongation (actinomycin D). The DNA damage marker γH2AX only increased after treatment with doxorubicin and actinomycin D but not after 2 days of GSK591. The common consequences of GSK591 and pladienolide B suggest that splicing defects promote stable association of snRNPs with chromatin.

The chromatin accumulation of non-methylated Sm proteins prompted us to consider whether Sm protein methylation, rather than histone arginine methylation, could be a key mechanism of PRMT5 transcriptional regulation. Therefore, to clarify which PRMT5 substrates were responsible for the transcriptional changes and Sm chromatin accumulation, we knocked down PRMT5 and three of its substrate adapters pICln, CoPR5, and RIOK1.4,10,11,19,26–29 Immunoblots and quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) confirmed knockdown (Figures S2E and S2F). Consistent with our previous work, loss of PRMT5 resulted in a loss of its obligate partner MEP50.30,31 Knockdown of the other PRMT5 adapters did not have a major effect on either PRMT5 or MEP50 levels (Figure S2E).

To determine cellular phenotypic consequences of the adapter knockdowns, we performed growth assays and cell cycle analyses (Figures S2G–S2K). Consistent with GSK591 treatment and previous studies, PRMT5 knockdowns exhibit growth inhibition as well a G1 cell cycle arrest (Figure S2K).32,33 We observed similar growth inhibitions in both pICln and RIOK1 knockdowns but not in the CoPR5 knockdowns. While pICln and RIOK1 knockdowns had similar G1 arrest to the PRMT5 knockdown, they also exhibited an increase in G2/M phase and a decrease in S phase, suggesting both PRMT5-mediated and independent phenotypes.

In total lysate, we observed a modest increase in SNRPB protein in PRMT5 knockdown and, consistent with a report of Sm lysosomal degradation upon pICln loss, a SNRPB reduction in the pICln knockdown (Figure S2E).34 We observed a significant decrease in methylated SNRPB and SNRPD3 in both the PRMT5 and pICln knockdowns. Additionally, immunoblot analysis of acid-extracted chromatin resulted in SNRPB and SNRPD3 accumulation on chromatin only upon pICln and PRMT5 knockdown (Figure 2E). Thus, we concluded that SNRP arginine methylation via a PRMT5-pICln axis inhibits SNRP protein accumulation on chromatin.

Next, we tested the consequences of PRMT5 adapter knockdowns on the transcriptome. We performed poly(A) RNA-seq on two individual knockdowns for PRMT5 and each of the three substrate adapters (Tables S1J–S1Q). PCA and a Z score heatmap demonstrated clear distinctions between the knockdown of the different adapter proteins (Figures 2F and S2L).

We examined if any of the adapter knockdowns would replicate the known splicing effects of PRMT5 loss.9,35,36 Consistent with its role in enhancing Sm methylation, pICln was the only adapter to mimic both PRMT5 inhibition and knockdown splicing consequences in retained introns (RIs) and skipped exons (SEs) (Figures 2G and S2M). The RI overlap was significant both by Jaccard Index and Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05), compared to the universe of all expressed introns in A549 cells (Figures S2N and S2O).

PRMT5 regulates Sm subcellular localization

To further understand how PRMT5 regulates transcription, we investigated the downstream proteomic consequence of PRMT5 inhibition. We performed total proteomic mass spectrometry on cells treated with GSK591 for 2 days (Figure 3A; Tables S3A–S3C). We observed that the most upregulated protein was SNRPB; other upregulated proteins were splicing and RNA-processing proteins, including SART1, PRPF4B, and PRPF39. Comparing the proteomic changes with the transcriptome after 2 days of PRMT5 inhibition revealed a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.64, p = 4.1 × 10−9) (Figure 3B). No other Sm proteins are represented in this correlation as none were significantly changed in either dataset.

Figure 3. Subcellular proteomics reveal Sm protein accumulation on chromatin after PRMT5 inhibition.

Figure 3.

(A) Volcano plot of total cell proteome following two days of GSK591 inhibition (highlighted: p value < 0.05, absolute log2FC > 0.58).

(B) Correlation of significantly changed genes (padj. < 0.05) in total RNA-seq and proteomics after 2 days of PRMT5 inhibition.

(C) Schematic of cellular fractionation. Created with BioRender.com.

(D and E) Heatmap and ontology of each fraction and treatment (color = log2 centered intensity).

(F) Dot plot of biological functional ontology by compartment (dot size = gene ratio; color = adjusted p value).

(G) Volcano plot of chromatin proteome (log2FC vs. log10 p value) after GSK591 vs. DMSO control.

(H) Heatmap of chromatin proteome after GSK591 or MS023 treatment (color = log2 centered intensity).

(I) Histograms of SNRPB- and SNRPD3-centered intensity following GSK591 or MS023 treatment. Data are represented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).

As we had observed SNRPB, SNRPD1, and SNRPD3 chromatin accumulation post-PRMT5 inhibition (Figures 2A and 2D), we tested PRMT-dependent changes in the subcellular distribution of the proteome. We developed a stringent cellular fractionation protocol to efficiently separate cytoplasmic, nucleoplasmic, and chromatin proteins (Figure 3C). We treated cells with PRMT inhibitors GSK591 and MS023 over time (15 min, 90 min, 180 min, and 48 h, in biological triplicate), isolated protein from the cytoplasmic, nucleoplasmic, and chromatin fractions and performed proteomic differential abundance analysis (Tables S3D–S3F). To test enrichments and changes between these conditions, we used k-means clustering of the top 340 altered proteins and plotted a heatmap of the centered normalized intensities for the DMSO control and the 48-h GSK591 treatment (Figure 3D; Table S3G). The enriched clusters clearly separated the cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin fractions. Representative GO ontologies for each of the clusters were consistent with ontologies expected for the subcellular fraction in which they were enriched (Figures 3E and 3F).

Consistent with our prior experiments, both SNRPB and SNRPD3 were chromatin enriched following PRMT5 inhibition (Figures 3G–3I). In contrast, Type I PRMT inhibition showed a different environment of chromatin-enriched proteins (Figures S3A and S3B). While there was chromatin enrichment of RNA splicing and nucleosome proteins upon MS023 treatment, Sm proteins were not significantly altered with Type I PRMT1 inhibition. The distinct chromatin proteome mediated by Type I inhibition is further shown by Gower’s distance analysis (Figure S3C).

SNRP chromatin accumulation is transcription dependent

As prior literature suggested that Sm methylation is involved in snRNP assembly via its interaction with SMN,5,6 we asked whether methylation of Sm proteins via PRMT is required for their proper assembly into mature snRNPs. We performed immunofluorescence of SNRPB and the splicing factor SC35/SRRM237 after 4 days of either GSK591 or MS023 treatment. Consistent with our chromatin immunoblots, we observed nuclear accumulation of SNRPB. We also observed intact nuclear speckles of the pre-mRNA splicing factor SC35/SRRM2 (Figures 4A and S4A).38 Notably, SC35/SRRM2 speckles appeared relatively enlarged and enriched following GSK591 treatment. This further supports the conclusion PRMT5 inhibition results in chromatin accumulation of intact, assembled snRNPs.

Figure 4. PRMT5-methylation of Sm tails prevents chromatin entrapment via DNA interactions.

Figure 4.

(A) DAPI, SNRPB, and SC35 immunofluorescence after 4 days of 1 μM GSK591 or MS023 (scale bar, 10 μM). See also Figure S4A.

(B) Co-immunoprecipitation of TMG with immunoblots for Sm proteins and mature snRNP components.

(C) Northern blot for snRNP abundance across cellular compartments after PRMT inhibition.

(D) Immunoblots of nucleoplasm and chromatin after nuclei treatment with RNase A/T1.

(E) Oligo(dT) with crosslinked chromatin pulldown immunoblots with a poly(A) competitor negative pulldown control.

(F) Schematic of HA-SNRPB constructs; flags represent methylarginine sites.

(G) Acid-extracted chromatin immunoblot of inducible SNRPB expression. Related to Figure S4J.

(H) Immunoblot and Coomassie stain of GST-SNRP tail and SMN Tudor domain pulldowns ± Rme2s.

(I) Electrophoretic mobility shift assay of SNRPD1 tail titration, ± Rme2s, and a 30-bp dsDNA.

(J) EMSA of constant SNRPD1 tail ± Rme2s with SMN Tudor domain titration and 30-bp dsDNA.

(K) AlphaFold3 model of methylated arginines on an assembled U5 Sm ring, methylated SNRPD1 tail and DNA, and Rme2s with a SMN Tudor domain.

Data in (A) and in (C)–(F) are represented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).

To test whether Sm arginine methylation affects assembly into mature snRNPs, we immunoprecipitated the RNA trimethylguanosine (TMG) cap, a hallmark of fully assembled snRNPs, and probed associated proteins (Figure 4B).39,40 U1–70K, SNRPG, PRPF8, and SF3B1, mature snRNP components that are not PRMT5 substrates, were co-precipitated even with PRMT5 inhibition.41,42 Although global Sm protein levels increased after PRMT5 inhibition, as also observed in our proteomic data (Figure 3), their proportional recovery in TMG immunoprecipitants was maintained, demonstrating preserved snRNP integrity. These results are consistent with prior work showing that unmethylated Sm proteins can still assemble and be imported into nuclei and further demonstrates that PRMT5 activity is dispensable for snRNP assembly.9,43,44 We conclude that defective snRNP assembly does not account for the widespread transcriptional changes observed upon PRMT5 inhibition.

To directly test if intact snRNPs were chromatin detained, we performed snRNA northern blotting. In GSK591 treated cells, we observed increased U2, U1, U4, U5, and U6 snRNAs in the nucleoplasm and chromatin fractions; this was not seen following MS023 treatment (Figure 4C). Quantification demonstrated that U1 through U6 were all similarly accumulated on chromatin (Figure S4B). These observations were consistent with intact snRNPs accumulating on chromatin following PRMT5-inhibition.

As Cajal bodies are a site of snRNP assembly and recycling, we asked if loss of the Cajal-body-organizing protein coilin, or of the Cajal-body-associated factor WDR79 (also known as TCAB1 or WRAP53), are responsible for Sm accumulation on chromatin.45–48 We observed WDR79 accumulation and a decrease in coilin puncta after 4 days of GSK591 treatment, with no changes observed after MS023 treatment (Figure S4C). After knockdown of either WDR79 or coilin, there was a marked depletion of nuclear coilin puncta (Figures S4D and S4E). After coilin knockdown, we observed no significant difference in SNRPB chromatin accumulation compared to a non-targeting control knockdown (Figure S4F). We concluded that disruption of Cajal bodies does not result in Sm protein chromatin detention.

As Sm proteins are part of RNA-binding complexes, we tested if the increased SNRPB and SNRPD3 chromatin affinity was RNA dependent. To accomplish this, we treated cells with GSK591, isolated their nuclei, and performed combined RNase A/T1 treatment. We then immunoblotted the nucleoplasm and chromatin fractions for Sm proteins as well as the control DNA-bound TATA binding protein (TBP). Upon RNA depletion, we observed a loss of chromatin-associated SNRPB and SNRPD3 while TBP binding was unaffected (Figure 4D). As we previously showed that SNRPB was bound to poly(A)-RNA,9 we used oligo(dT) pulldown to ask whether the poly(A) RNA-bound Sm proteins were on chromatin with or without Rme2s. Despite the complete absence of Rme2s on SNRPB following GSK591 treatment, binding to poly(A) transcripts on chromatin was not disrupted (Figure 4E).

To test whether Sm chromatin accumulation was directly due to arginine methylation,9,47 we engineered an isogenic SNRPB overexpression system in which we mutated the 11 C-terminal tail arginines known to be methylated to either an alanine (11xRtoA) or lysine (11xRtoK). As R107 and R111 are the predominant symmetrically dimethylated SNRPB sites,1 we also specifically mutated these residues to alanine (2xRtoA) (Figure 4F). Each of these constructs expressed at comparable levels following a 4-day doxycycline (DOX) induction (Figures S4G and S4H). In chromatin acid extracts, we observed an increase in the amount of chromatin-bound RtoA and RtoK compared with wild-type SNPRB (Figure S4I). Compared to the 11x mutant, there was no difference from the 2x mutant for SNRPB accumulation on chromatin, suggesting that methylation of R107 and R111 are the key mediators of SNRPB chromatin accumulation (Figure 4G; quantification in Figure S4J). Despite multiple approaches, SNRPD3 and SNRPD1 arginine mutant isogenic experiments were not successfully expressed (data not shown).

SNRP chromatin accumulation is regulated by Sm tail methylation, SMN Tudor domain, and DNA binding

To directly investigate the role of Sm methylation and their interaction with chromatin, we expressed and purified glutathione S-transferase (GST)-tagged tail domains of SNRPB (88–230 amino acids [aa]), SNRPD1 (71–118 aa), and SNRPD3 (74–125 aa). We methylated the recombinant tails with human PRMT5-MEP50 enzyme complex and SAM, followed by Rme2s immunoblotting. All three tails showed a specific PRMT5-dependent Rme2s signal (Figure S4K); however, the SNRPD3 tail was insoluble following PRMT5 treatment, thus limiting further experiments.

As recognition of symmetrical dimethylation of Sm tails by the SMN Tudor domain has been linked to snRNP chaperoning,5,18 we next directly tested whether methylation of these Sm tails affects their interaction with the SMN Tudor domain. We performed GST pulldown assays with or without PRMT5 methylation. This revealed that only the methylated tails interacted with SMN (Figure 4H).

We then evaluated whether Sm tail methylation directly affects their affinity for nucleic acids. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed with titrations of SNRPD1 and SNRPB to 30-base-pair DNA or RNA from HNRNPH1 RIs (Figure S4L). As exhibited by their gel shift, both SNRPD1 and SNRPD3 tails had affinity for DNA, while the SNRPB tail did not shift DNA (Figures 4I and S4M–S4O). Additionally, the SNRPD1 tail, which contains the most arginines, exhibited the strongest affinity for RNA (Figures S4P–S4S). PRMT5 methylation of SNRPD1 or SNRPB did not influence its nucleic acid interaction (Figures 4I and S4M). Notably, there was no apparent DNA or RNA sequence specificity to the SNRPD1 tail interaction (Figures S4N and S4P).

Because SMN specifically recognizes methylated Sm tails, we tested whether its Tudor domain could compete with nucleic acids for tail binding. We titrated SMN into DNA:SNRPD1 and RNA:SNRPD1 tail complexes and observed disruption of the gel shift only when the tail was methylated, consistent with SMN displacing methylated SNRPD1 from DNA and also RNA (Figures 4J, S4T, and S4U). Together, these results suggest that snRNP accumulation on chromatin may result from direct DNA interaction of the Sm protein tails, and that PRMT5 and SMN may cooperate to promote their chromatin release (Figures 4J and 4K).

PRMT5 inhibition results in mRNA chromatin detention

To understand mechanisms of RNA chromatin detention, we performed a time course of PRMT5 inhibition followed by simultaneous RNA and DNA extractions using TRIzol49 and quantified the total amount of RNA relative to DNA. We observed increased total RNA concomitant with the duration of PRMT5 inhibition (Figure 5A). The increase in RNA abundance preceded increased cell volume and decreased growth rate that we observed after PRMT5 inhibition (Figures S1A and S5A). To avoid conflating increased RNA with changes in cell size or growth arrest, subsequent studies were performed following two days of PRMT5 inhibition.50 Next, we determined which cellular compartment was responsible for increased RNA. We isolated RNA from cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin fractions using an optimized cellular fractionation protocol (Figure 5B).9,14,51,52 DNA and protein were simultaneously extracted from the chromatin fraction to both normalize RNA quantities and provide fractionation controls, respectively. Upon PRMT5 inhibition we found a significant increase in the amount of chromatin-bound RNA (p < 0.05) (Figures 5C and 5D). Notably, there was no RNA chromatin accumulation after 7 days of MS023 treatment. Therefore, we concluded that this RNA accumulation was specific to PRMT5 inhibition (Figure S5B). Using chromatin isolated RNA, we performed a reverse transcriptase reaction with oligo(dT) priming to generate cDNA. We then quantified this cDNA and normalized it to total DNA. This revealed a significant PRMT5-dependent enrichment of mature, polyadenylated RNA transcripts on chromatin (Figure 5E).

Figure 5. PRMT5 inhibition increases chromatin-associated polyadenylated mRNA.

Figure 5.

(A) Histograms of total RNA per cell normalized to the amount of DNA (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.01, and ****p < 0.0001, n.s., not significant).

(B) Immunoblot validation of fractionation into cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin.

(C) RNA abundance per cellular compartment normalized to chromatin fraction DNA (*p < 0.01, n.s., not significant).

(D) RNA abundance per cellular compartment after GSK591 vs. DMSO.

(E) Chromatin mRNA normalized to DNA, measured by oligo(dT)-primed cDNA.

(F) Chromatin RNA abundance after PRMT5 or adapter knockdowns, normalized to cellular DNA (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.01, and n.s., not significant).

Finally, we utilized the PRMT5 adapter knockdowns to gain insight into which PRMT5 methylation substrates may be responsible for the observed RNA chromatin accumulation. sgRNAs targeting each adapter protein were transduced into the stable A549 dCas9 cell line and passaged for 7 days post selection. Cells were fractionated and the chromatin RNA/DNA ratios measured (Figure 5F). Only the PRMT5 and pICln knockdowns resulted in increased RNA on chromatin, supporting the conclusion that this phenotype occurs due to loss of arginine methylation on Sm protein tails.

PRMT5 is required for polyadenylated mRNA transcript escape from chromatin

We next sought to identify the accumulating RNA transcripts. We treated cells with 2 days of PRMT5 inhibition, followed by fractionation into cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin and performed poly(A)-enriched RNA-seq (Figures 6A, S6A, and S6B; Tables S4A–S4F). To detect changes in RNA abundance that may be otherwise missed by standard bioinformatic normalization methods, we used a spike in of Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells (5% relative to starting cell number).53–55 As a technical control, we confirmed that the sequencing of the spiked-in, cross-species RNA was consistent between samples (Figure S6C).

Figure 6. PRMT5 activity is required for mRNA export from chromatin.

Figure 6.

(A) Schematic of cellular fractionation and RNA-seq. Created with BioRender.com.

(B and C) Volcano plots of mRNA-sequencing comparing cytoplasm vs. chromatin using S2 spike-in normalization (red: log2FC > 0.58, padj. > 0.05; blue: log2FC < −0.58, padj. > 0.05).

(D–F) Volcano plots of mRNA-sequencing of each cellular compartment between conditions using S2 spike-in normalization (same cutoffs as Figures 6B and 6C).

(G) Dot plot of biological function Gene Ontology for chromatin-enriched transcripts (dot size = gene number; color = adjusted p value).

(H) Correlation of the spike-in normalized TPM counts in cytoplasm vs. chromatin compartments in DMSO (color = point density).

(I) Venn diagram of chromatin-enriched transcripts in DMSO vs. GSK591, showing RNA class distribution.

First, we compared the relative abundance of cytoplasmic to chromatin transcripts with PRMT5 inhibition (Figures 6B and 6C). This revealed an enrichment in chromatin-associated polyadenylated RNAs following PRMT5 inhibition. While some transcripts were predominantly cytoplasmic, others were enriched in the chromatin fraction, suggesting that they are not exported into the cytoplasm. Next, we compared the relative abundance of transcripts between PRMT5-inhibited and control cells. In the cytoplasmic mRNA, we observed few changes (80 transcripts, padj. < 0.05) (Figure 6D). This is consistent with our finding of minimal changes in the total proteome (Figure 3A). In the nucleoplasm, there were 409 significantly altered transcripts, 407 of which were increased in abundance (Figure 6E). Remarkably, in the chromatin fraction we observed nearly 4,000 transcripts that were increased in abundance with few that were downregulated (Figure 6F). Most of the altered polyadenylated transcripts were protein coding, representing 85.2%, 96.3%, and 90.6% of total altered transcripts in cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin fractions, respectively. The second-most abundant class of RNAs were long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) (Figure S6D).

We next asked whether the fractionated mRNA sequencing (mRNA-seq) recapitulated the total transcriptome (Figure S1B). We divided the total PRMT5i transcriptome analysis with PRMT5 inhibition into three categories: all significantly altered genes, upregulated, and downregulated. After 2 days of PRMT5 inhibition, the few differentially expressed cytoplasmic transcripts significantly overlap with the total cell mRNA transcriptome (Fisher’s exact test, Figure S6E). In contrast, for both the nucleoplasm- and chromatin-significantly altered transcripts, we observed that there was significant overlap only with the total and upregulated, but not downregulated, genes from the total transcriptome experiment (Figures S6F and S6G). These tests indicated that the total cell transcriptome mRNA-seq is predominantly measuring nuclear and chromatin RNA accumulation and may not represent productive transcriptional changes.

GO analysis of the chromatin-enriched transcripts (padj. < 0.05 and log2 fold change ≥ 0.58) identified RNA splicing, as well as ncRNA and rRNA processing terms, suggesting that PRMT5 regulates proper maturation and export of RNA processing transcripts (Figure 6G). Further GO analysis by cellular component ontology also highlighted transcripts involved in nuclear speckles and spliceosome complexes (Figure S6H). These chromatin-enriched categories are consistent with the genes that were up- and downregulated in the bulk and nascent RNA-seq, respectively (Figure 1H).

To understand the normal compartmentalization of polyadenylated RNAs, we plotted the log10 spike-in normalized counts (TPM) of the untreated cell cytoplasmic vs. chromatin fractions (Figure 6H) and nucleoplasm vs. chromatin fractions (Figure S6I). Consistent with prior studies, we observed that subsets of RNAs have higher relative counts on chromatin, whereas others are predominantly enriched in the cytoplasm.56 This indicated that at baseline, certain mature transcripts are more likely to associate with chromatin.

To gain a greater understanding of these chromatin-retained transcripts, we compared those enriched in DMSO and PRMT5-inhibited cells. We observed that 1,210 of the 1,324 chromatin-enriched RNAs in the DMSO-treated cells were also retained following PRMT5 inhibition; there were an additional 769 chromatin-enriched RNAs unique to PRMT5-inhibited cells, most of which were protein coding (Figure 6I). We next divided these transcripts into the top and bottom 50% by TPM and calculated the log2 chromatin-to-cytoplasm TPM ratios compared with all expressed transcripts in the chromatin fraction (Figure S6J). To determine whether the GSK591-retained transcripts were already biased toward chromatin retention prior to PRMT5 inhibition, we examined their baseline chromatin-to-cytoplasm ratios. Both using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test and a Wilcoxon rank sum test, we found that the lower-expressing transcripts were significantly more chromatin enriched at baseline (p = 6.04 × 10−25 and 2.18 × 10−27, respectively). This suggests that these transcripts are naturally retained on chromatin. In contrast, transcripts with high expression showed a more moderate difference in PRMT5-dependent chromatin enrichment (p = 5.6 × 10−5). We conclude that PRMT5 inhibition amplifies the chromatin retention of polyadenylated transcripts already predisposed to nuclear sequestration.

Mature transcript retention on chromatin is due to slower splicing and presence of RIs

We next asked whether splicing features predicted transcript retention on chromatin. PRMT5 inhibition enriched for longer transcripts (p < 2.2 × 10−16) (Figure S7A) and transcripts that contained more introns (p < 2.2 × 10−16) (Figure 7A). Odds ratio analysis showed that intronless transcripts were rarely affected, whereas transcripts with one or more introns were more likely to be both regulated by PRMT5 inhibition and detained on chromatin (Figure 7B). In contrast, Type I PRMT inhibition with MS023 did not show this enrichment, indicating a distinct, non-intron-dependent mechanism of regulation.

Figure 7. GRIPP transcripts are intron rich, spliced slowly, and accumulate on chromatin upon PRMT5 inhibition.

Figure 7.

(A) Introns per gene in chromatin-enriched vs. all expressed transcripts in A549 cells (Wilcoxon ranked sum test, ****p < 0.0001).

(B) Fisher’s exact test and odds ratio of chromatin-enriched, PRMT5i-altered, and Type I PRMTi-altered transcripts.</p/>(C) SKaTER-seq splicing rates of chromatin-enriched vs. global transcripts (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, **** p < 0.0001).

(D and E) Volcano plots of intron retention in cytoplasm and chromatin vs. DMSO (red: log2FC > 0.58, padj. > 0.05; blue: log2FC < −0.58, padj. > 0.05).

(F) Violin plots of average intron/exon ratios of genes significantly expressed in each compartment (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).

(G and H) Selected genome tracks of transcript and intron levels in cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and chromatin ± GSK591 treatment.

(I) Log2FC of transcript and total proteomic abundance for HNRNPH1 and PNKP (*p < 0.01).

(J) Model illustrating GRIPPs and their dependence on arginine methylation for productive chromatin escape.

To gain further understanding of the characteristics of the retained poly(A) RNAs, we analyzed data from our previous splicing kinetics and transcript elongation rate by sequencing (SKaTER-seq) study; in this work, we calculated rates of co-transcriptional processing, including RNA splicing, after PRMT5 inhibition.9,57 We observed no change in average global splicing rate upon PRMT5 inhibition (p = 1) (Figure S7B). When we compared global splicing rate to rates of our identified detained mRNAs solved by the SKaTER-seq algorithm, these transcripts are spliced significantly slower compared with the global population (p = 1.44 × 10−15) (Figure 7C). Therefore, chromatin-enriched transcripts are both intron rich and slower to splice.

Next, we delineated how intron abundance varied between cellular compartments following PRMT5 inhibition. We calculated per-intron read counts normalized to the exon counts within the same transcript for all significantly expressed genes (normalized counts > 5) from polyadenylated RNA. We then calculated differential intron abundance using the cross-species spike in for normalization. In the cytoplasm, there were only 107 significantly RIs from 94 unique genes (Figure 7D; Table S4G). These are true, productive RIs as they have the potential to be translated. In the nucleoplasm, we identified 531 differentially observed introns from 440 genes (Figure S7C; Table S4H). In the chromatin fraction there were 48,260 upregulated RIs, corresponding to 10,219 unique genes (padj. < 0.05, log2 fold change > 0.58) (Figure 7E; Table S4I). These chromatin RIs were significantly longer than the non-RIs (Figure S7D). The number of RIs throughout a transcript was higher in chromatin than in cytoplasmic or nucleoplasmic transcripts (Figures S7E–S7G). Furthermore, these introns were uniformly distributed throughout the transcripts (Figure S7H). Upon PRMT5 inhibition, we observed an increased distribution in the intron:exon ratio on chromatin (p = 1.7 × 10−43) (Figure 7F). PRMT5 inhibition resulted in a modest increase in intronic reads/gene in the nucleoplasm (p = 2.7 × 10−4) and had no significant difference in the cytoplasm (p = 0.46). Despite the altered intron abundances (Figure 7E), the cytoplasmic intron:exon ratios remained unchanged (Figure 7F). We conclude that transcripts with RIs are largely confined to the nucleus and are therefore detained.

We next asked whether chromatin-enriched mRNAs contained increased intronic reads. Indeed, 81.5% of retained transcripts had more intron reads. To test whether this affected transcription itself, we compared PRO-seq metagene profiles of chromatin-retained vs. all expressed transcripts and found no major differences in promoter-proximal pausing or gene body signal (Figure S7I).

Genome browser inspection revealed two patterns: transcripts retained on chromatin with corresponding depletion from nucleoplasm and cytoplasm (e.g., PNKP), or transcripts retained on chromatin without depletion from other compartments (e.g., HNRNPH1) (Figures 7G and 7H). These compartmental shifts aligned with proteomic data, as PNKP showed PRMT5i-dependent decreases in cytoplasmic mRNA and protein while HNRNPH1 did not (Figure 7I).

Together, these findings demonstrate that chromatin-retained polyadenylated transcripts are intron rich. We refer to this class of chromatin-enriched transcripts as genomically retained incompletely processed polyadenylated transcripts (GRIPPs). A cartoon model of our observations is shown in Figure 7J.

DISCUSSION

Our study identifies a central post-transcriptional function of PRMT5 in coupling splicing to transcript release from chromatin. We show that loss of PRMT5 activity leads to accumulation of snRNPs and polyadenylated RNAs on chromatin, establishing a direct link between arginine methylation of Sm tails and productive mRNA output. This work highlights an additional role of PRMT5 beyond spliceosome assembly to safeguarding RNA homeostasis by preventing aberrant RNA interactions with chromatin.1,2,17,58 Consistent with this, we found little evidence that PRMT5 inhibition altered histone modifications other than a modest increase in H3K27me3. Notably, histone arginine methylation itself was undetectable. Instead, proteomic and biochemical analyses revealed abundant methylated Sm proteins co-purifying with acid extracts, indicating that prior histone arginine methylation immunoblot signal may reflect Sm contamination.

Adapter knockdowns highlight that the functional consequences of PRMT5 activity are highly substrate specific. Only loss of pICln reproduced Sm hypomethylation, chromatin accumulation, and intron retention. By contrast, knockdown of CoPR5 or RIOK1 had little or distinct effects, indicating that the key mechanistic output of PRMT5 relevant to RNA processing is Sm methylation via pICln. This specificity helps explain the broad phenotypes of PRMT5 inhibition.

Proteomic and cell biological assays further show that Sm proteins assemble into mature snRNPs in the absence of arginine methylation, co-purifying with TMG-capped snRNAs and key spliceosomal proteins. The accumulation of Sm proteins on chromatin therefore reflects altered post-assembly behavior rather than failed snRNP biogenesis. Biochemical evidence supports a model in which unmethylated Sm tails bind DNA, while methylation enables their recognition by the SMN Tudor domain and subsequent displacement from nucleic acids. We propose that PRMT5 methylation therefore prevents aberrant chromatin tethering while promoting snRNP recycling through SMN. This provides a mechanistic basis for how PRMT5 enforces completion of splicing and transcript release.

A major outcome of PRMT5 inhibition is the accumulation of detained, intron-rich transcripts, which we define as GRIPPs. These GRIPP transcripts splice more slowly and contain more introns than non-detained transcripts, explaining why they are preferentially chromatin bound upon PRMT5 inhibition. Their enrichment for splicing-related transcripts suggests a feedback mechanism in which PRMT5 helps maintain the activity of the splicing machinery itself. We propose that GRIPPs may normally act as a nuclear checkpoint, ensuring fidelity by blocking export of incompletely processed RNAs. Their selective retention could also allow cells to rapidly tune gene expression in response to stress or developmental cues without new transcription.

In sum, our findings demonstrate that PRMT5-dependent Sm methylation ensures proper splicing completion and transcript release from chromatin, thereby preserving RNA homeostasis and protecting genome stability. More broadly, this work highlights how PTM of RNA-binding proteins governs RNA and chromatin dynamics and offers a mechanistic framework for understanding transcriptome regulation.

Limitations of the study

While our data strongly supports a role for PRMT5-dependent Sm methylation in preventing RNA retention, we cannot exclude contributions from the hundreds of other PRMT5 substrates, including chromatin-associated and RNA-binding proteins. Although unmethylated Sm proteins assemble into mature snRNPs, they may form altered oligomeric complexes or engage distinct interaction partners. Finally, although we characterize GRIPPs as a distinct transcript class, further work will be needed to define their genomic features, mechanisms of stabilization, and regulation by nuclear RNA decay pathways.

RESOURCE AVAILABILITY

Lead contact

Requests for further information, resources, and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the lead contact, David Shechter (david.shechter@einsteinmed.edu).

Materials availability

All materials will be available upon request.

STAR★METHODS

EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND STUDY PARTICIPENT DETAILS

Cell culture

A549 (human lung adenocarcinoma), HEK293T (human embryonic kidney), IMR90-hTERT (telomerase-immortalized human fetal lung fibroblasts), and NSC-34 (mouse motor neuron-like hybrid cell line) cell lines were used. All cell lines were validated by STR testing prior to use. All cells were maintained at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO2. A549 and HEK293T were cultured in DMEM (Corning) with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone), 100 I.U./mL penicillin, and 100 μg/mL streptomycin. IMR90-hTERT was cultured in EMEM (Corning) supplemented as above. NSC-34 was cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% 200 mM L-glutamine (Gibco). All cells were routinely tested for mycoplasma via PCR.66 Sex of the cell lines was not determined.

METHOD DETAILS

Cell culture drug treatments

Treatment with small molecule inhibitors dissolved in DMSO maintained final concentration of 0.01% DMSO, with 1 μM GSK591 (Cayman),1 μM MS023 (Cayman), 5 nM Pladienolide B (Cayman), 5 μg/mL Actinomycin D (Sigma-Aldrich), or 100 nM Doxorubicin (Cayman). Cells were cultured in conditions listed above for the desired treatment duration. See key resources table for further info on small molecules used in this study. Cell growth rates were measured using the MTS cellular proliferation assay (Promega) and cell cycle using the Viastain PI Cell Cycle Kit (Revvity Health Sciences Inc) per the manufacturers’ instructions.

KEY RESOURCES TABLE

REAGENT or RESOURCE SOURCE IDENTIFIER
Antibodies

SNRPB Proteintech Cat#: 16807-1-AP; RRID: AB_2878319
SNRPD3 Abcam Cat#: ab157118
SNRPD1 Proteintech Cat#: 1352-1-AP; RRID: AB_2193875
SNRPE Proteintech Cat#: 20407-1-AP; RRID: AB_10699882
SNRPF Proteintech Cat#: 14977-1-AP; RRID: AB_2302166
SNRPG Proteintech Cat#: 15084-1-AP; RRID: AB_2191789
Rme2s (SDMA) Mark Bedford, PhD #4688
Rme2a (ADMA) CST Cat#: 13522S; RRID: AB_2665370
Rme1 (MMA) CST Cat#: 8015S; RRID: AB_10891776
H3K27me3 CST Cat#: 9733; RRID: AB_2616029
H3 Abcam Cat#: 1791; RRID: AB_302613
γ-H2A.X Millipore Cat#: 07-164; RRID: AB_11213838
SF3B1 CST Cat#: 14434; RRID: AB_2798479
PRMT5 Millipore Cat#: 07-405; RRID: AB_310589
MEP50 LPBio Cat#: AR-0145-S
pICln Bethyl Cat#: A304-521A; RRID: AB_2620715
RIOK1 Proteintech Cat#: 17222-1-AP; RRID: AB_2284990
GAPDH Abcam Cat#: ab9484; RRID: AB_307274
H3R2me2s Abcam Cat#: ab194684; RRID: AB_2904154
H4R3me1 Upstate Cat#: 8039
H4R3me2s Upstate Cat#: 8040
H2A Millipore Cat# 07-146, RRID:AB_11212920
U1-70k Santa Cruz Cat#: SC390988; RRID: AB_3083771
Anti-Rabbit IgG Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat#: A28180; RRID: AB_2536164
TMG MBL Life Science Cat#: RN019M
PRPF8 ProteinTech Cat#: 11171-1-AP; RRID: AB_2171179
HA CST Cat#: 3724; RRID: AB_1549585
WDR79 ProteinTech Cat#: 14761-1-AP; RRID: AB_1939806
Coilin BD Biosciences Cat#: 612074; RRID: AB_2081554
Tubulin DSHB Iowa Cat#: AB_2315513
SC35 BD Biosciences Cat#: 556363; RRID: AB_396388
Vinculin Sigma-Aldrich Cat#: V9264; RRID: AB_10603627

Bacterial and virus strains

Rosetta2 (DE3) E. coli In-House N/A
DH10Bac E. coli In-House N/A

Chemicals, peptides, and recombinant proteins

DMEM Corning Cat#: 10-017-CV
EMEM Corning Cat#: 10009CV
Fetal Bovine Serum Cytiva Cat#: SH30080.03
PBS Corning Cat#: 21040CV
0.05% Trypsin Gibco Cat#: 25300054
Penicillin-Streptomycin (10,000 U/mL) Gibco Cat#: 15140122
L-Glutamine Gibco Cat#: 25030081
DMSO Acros Organics Cat#: D-4125-PB08
GSK591 Cayman Cat#: 18354
MS023 Cayman Cat#: 34786
Doxorubicin Cayman Cat#: 15007
Pladienolide B Cayman Cat#: 16538
Actinomycin D Sigma-Aldrich Cat#: A1410
Trypsin Promega Cat#: V5111
Blasticidin Cayman Cat#: 14499
Puromycin Cayman Cat#: 13884
BsmBI-V2 NEB Cat#: R0739
T4 DNA Ligase NEB Cat#: M0202
Polybrene Millipore Sigma TR-1003
DAPI Prolong Gold Invitrogen Cat#: P36941
RnaseOUT Invitrogen Cat#: 10777019
SNRPB tail (88-230aa) This study N/A
SNRPD1 tail (71-118aa) This study N/A
SNRPD3 tail (74-125aa) This study N/A
PRMT5-MEP50 This study N/A
SMN Tudor domain This study N/A

Critical commercial assays

RNEasy Mini Kit Qiagen Cat#: 74104
Trizol Invitrogen Cat#: 15596026
Qubit RNA BR Assay Kit Invitrogen Cat#: Q10210
Ambion RNA fragmentation reagent Ambion Cat#: AM8740
NEBNext Ultradirectional II RNA sequencing kit NEB Cat#: E7760S
Gateway BP Clonase II Enzyme Mix Invitrogen Cat#: 11789020
Gateway LR Clonase II Enzyme Mix Invitrogen Cat#: 11791020
Qubit dsDNA BR Assay Kit Invitrogen Cat#: Q32850
Qubit ssDNA BR Assay Kit Invitrogen Cat#: Q10212
M-MLV Reverse Transcriptase Invitrogen Cat#: 28025013
ViaStain PI Cell Cycle Kit Revvity Health Sciences Inc Cat#: CSK0112
CellTiter 96 Aqueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay Promega Cat#: G3580

Deposited data

RNA-sequencing and SKaTER-sequencing data Maron et al.9 GEO: GSE163421
Fractionated RNA-sequencing and CRISPRi knockdown RNA-sequencing This study GEO: GSE275217
Raw mass spectrometry data This study PRIDE: PXD054308
Raw imaging data files This study Mendeley Data: https://doi.org/10.17632/my92sf3gxy.1

Experimental models: Cell lines

A549 ATCC Cat#: CCL-185; RRID: CVCL_0023
HEK293T ATCC Cat# CRL-3216, RRID:CVCL_0063
IMR90-hTERT Matthew Gamble, PhD N/A
NSC-34 ALS Therapy Development Institute RRID:CVCL_D356
Drosophila S2 cell pellets Matthew Gamble, PhD RRID:CVCL_Z232
Sf9 In house RRID:CVCL_0549

Oligonucleotides

See Table S6 This Study N/A

Recombinant DNA

pDONR221 Invitrogen Cat#: 12536017
pCMVR8.74 Addgene Cat#: 22036; RRID: Addgene_22036
VSV.G Addgene Cat#: 14888; RRID: Addgene_14888
pLIX403 Addgene Cat#: 41395; RRID:Addgene_41395
lenti_dCas9-KRAB-MeCP2 Addgene Cat#: 122205; RRID:Addgene_122205
pXPR_050 Addgene Cat#: 96925; RRID:Addgene_96925
pXPR_050_PRMT5-3 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_PRMT5-4 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_CoPR5-1 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_CoPR5-3 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_pICln-2 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_pICln-3 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_RIOK1-1 This Study N/A
pXPR_050_RIOK1-3 This Study N/A
pLX403_HA-SmB_WT This Study N/A
pLX403_HA-SmB_RtK This Study N/A
pLX403_HA-SmB_RtA This Study N/A
pLIX403_SNRPB_RtoAx2 This Study N/A
pRUTH5_GST_SNRPB This Study N/A
pRUTH5_GST_SNRPD1 This Study N/A
pRUTH5_GST_SNRPD3 This Study N/A
pET28-MHL_SMN-tudor Addgene Cat#: 61946; RRID: Addgene_61946
pECFB1 This Study N/A
pECFB1-HsPRMT5 This Study N/A
pECFB1-HsMEP50 This Study N/A

Software and algorithms

EpiProfile 2.0 Yuan et al.59 https://github.com/zfyuan/EpiProfile2.0_Family
nf-core/rnaseq Ewels et al.60 https://nf-co.re/rnaseq/3.14.0/
DESeq2 In-house https://github.com/Shechterlab/DeAngelo_2024
rMATS v4.0.2 Shen et al.61 https://rnaseq-mats.sourceforge.io/
Proteome Discoverer v2.5 ThermoFisher Scientific N/A
GraphPad Prism v10.2.3 GraphPad www.graphpad.com
R v4.4.0 R-Project https://www.R-project.org/
ClusterProfiler Yu et al.62 https://bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/html/clusterProfiler.html
GeneOverlap Shen63 https://github.com/shenlab-sinai/GeneOverlap.
CRISPick Broad Institute https://portals.broadinstitute.org/gppx/crispick/public
DEP2 Zhang et al.64 https://github.com/mildpiggy/DEP2
Fiji Schindelin et al.65 https://fiji.sc/

Poly(A)-RNA sequencing

RNA was extracted using RNEasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) or Trizol (Invitrogen) for the cofactor knockdown and cellular fractionation experiments, respectively, as per the manufacturer’s protocols. RNA quantification and quality control were accomplished with the Qubit RNA BR Assay Kit (Invitrogen) and the Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies). Unstranded (PRMT inhibition time course) and stranded libraries (PRMT5 inhibition subcellular fractionation) were created by Novogene Genetics US. Barcoded libraries were sequenced on an Illumina platform using 150 nt paired-end libraries generating approximately 30 million paired-end reads (9GB total data) per biological replicate. Reads were trimmed and aligned to the human genome (hg38) or to a custom combined human and Drosophila melanogaster genome (hg38-dm6) using the nf-core/rnaseq pipeline.60 Differential abundance analysis for non-spike in studies was performed using DESeq2 with a custom script (https://github.com/Shechterlab/nextflow-rnaseq) and for the spike-in studies with a different script (https://github.com/Shechterlab/DESeq2_with_SpikeInNormalization). Alternative splicing events were determined using Replicate Multivariate Analysis of Transcript Splicing (rMATS, version 4.0.2).61

Precision Run-On (PRO) nascent transcriptome sequencing

PRO-seq was performed as previously described.67 Briefly, approximately 10 million A549 cells were treated in T182 flasks. At the conclusion of the treatment, media was aspirated, and cells were rinsed with 10mL of ice-cold PBS, scraped, and collected into 15mL conical tubes on ice. Cells were collected by centrifugation at 1,000 × g at 4°C for 5 minutes. PBS was aspirated and pellets were resuspended in 10mL ice-cold permeabilization buffer. Cells were incubated in permeabilization buffer for five minutes before being centrifuged at 1,000 × g at four degrees for five minutes. Permeabilization buffer was aspirated and permeabilized cells were resuspended in 100μL freezing buffer and snap frozen before being stored at −80°C. When preparing for the run on step, frozen permeabilized cells were thawed on ice. Run-on master mix was warmed to 37°C and 100μL of 2x run-on master mix was added to 100μL of frozen cells before being placed in a 30°C water bath for five minutes with slight agitation after 2.5 minutes of incubation. After five minutes of run-on, 500uL of Trizol LS was added and samples were vortexed until homogenized to stop the reaction. 130μL of chloroform was added, samples were vortexed for 15 seconds, and tubes were centrifuged at 15,000 × g for five minutes at 4°C. The aqueous phase was transferred to a new Eppendorf tube and RNA was precipitated using 2.5 volumes of 100% ethanol for 10 minutes before being centrifuged at 15,000 × g for 20 minutes at 4°C. The pellet was washed with 75% ethanol, centrifuged again, and ethanol removed completely before resuspending the RNA pellet in 19μL of DEPC-treated water. Sample quality was assessed by nanodrop and Tapestation before proceeding to RNA fragmentation with Ambion RNA fragmentation reagent (Ambion AM8740) for 4 minutes at 72°C before adding stop solution to the reaction. Free NTPs were removed using a p30 column.

Nascent RNA was enriched using streptavidin-coated Dynabeads (Thermo Fisher #65305), washed 2X with 500μL of ice cold highsalt wash buffer using a magnet. Beads were then washed 2X with 500μL binding buffer and 1X with low-salt wash buffer. Buffer was removed and beads were resuspended in 300μL of Trizol to dissociate nascent RNA from the beads. All buffers were made according to Mahat et al.67 60μL of chloroform was added and vortexed. The mixture was centrifuged at 15,000 × g for five minutes at 4°C. The aqueous phase was removed and moved to a separate tube before repeating the nascent RNA enrichment and wash steps. After the second round of purification, nascent RNA was precipitated with 1.25μL glycoblue and 2.5 volumes of 100% ethanol before centrifugation at 15,000 × g for 20 minutes at 4°C. Ethanol was removed, and the RNA pellet was washed with 75% ethanol. RNA was centrifuged again before completely removing the 75% ethanol. Pellets were resuspended in 5μL DEPC treated H2O and taken directly into library preparation using the NEBNext Ultradirectional II RNA sequencing kit (NEB #E7760S) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were sequenced using an Illumina HiSeq.

Acid extraction of chromatin

This protocol was adapted from our previously published protocol.25 Hypotonic Lysis Buffer (HLB) was made by mixing 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 1 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, and 1 mM DTT, and supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. The Nuclear Lysis Buffer (NLB) was prepared with 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 250 mM KCl, 0.1% NP40, and 1 mM DTT, and supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. Cell pellets were resuspended in HLB and incubated for 30 minutes to promote hypotonic swelling and mechanical lysis, followed by centrifugation to pellet intact nuclei. Nuclei were washed with additional HLB. Nuclei were then resuspended in NLB and rotated for 30 min at 4°C. Chromatin was then collected via centrifugation and washed with NLB.

Chromatin was then resuspended in 0.4N H2SO4, incubated for 30 min., then spun at 16,000 × g for 10 min at 4°C to remove nuclear debris. The supernatant, containing histones and acid-soluble proteins, was transferred to a fresh tube and treated with TCA to precipitate histones, which were then pelleted, washed with ice-cold acetone, and air-dried. The histone pellet was dissolved in an appropriate volume of ddH2O, characterized for concentration, and analyzed further using SDS/PAGE gel.

Histone PTM mass spectrometry

Histones were acid-extracted from chromatin using the above protocol. Histone pellets were dissolved in 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate, pH 8.0, and histones were subjected to derivatization using 5 μL of propionic anhydride and 14 μL of ammonium hydroxide (all Sigma Aldrich) to balance the pH at 8.0. The mixture was incubated for 15 min and the procedure was repeated. Histones were then digested with 1 μg of sequencing grade trypsin (Promega) diluted in 50mM ammonium bicarbonate (1:20, enzyme:sample) overnight at room temperature. Derivatization reaction was repeated to derivatize peptide N-termini. The samples were dried in a vacuum centrifuge.

Prior to mass spectrometry analysis, samples were desalted using a 96-well plate filter (Orochem) packed with 1 mg of Oasis HLB C-18 resin (Waters). Briefly, the samples were resuspended in 100 μl of 0.1% TFA and loaded onto the HLB resin, which was previously equilibrated using 100 μl of the same buffer. After washing with 100 μl of 0.1% TFA, the samples were eluted with a buffer containing 70 μl of 60% acetonitrile and 0.1% TFA and then dried in a vacuum centrifuge.

Samples were resuspended in 10 μl of 0.1% TFA and loaded onto a Dionex RSLC Ultimate 300 (Thermo Scientific), coupled online with an Orbitrap Fusion Lumos (Thermo Scientific). Chromatographic separation was performed with a two-column system, consisting of a C-18 trap cartridge (300 μm ID, 5 mm length) and a picofrit analytical column (75 μm ID, 25 cm length) packed in-house with reversed-phase Repro-Sil Pur C18-AQ 3 μm resin. Peptides were separated using a 30 min gradient from 1–30% buffer B (buffer A: 0.1% formic acid, buffer B: 80% acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid) at a flow rate of 300 nl/min. The mass spectrometer was set to acquire spectra in a data-independent acquisition (DIA) mode. Briefly, the full MS scan was set to 300–1100 m/z in the orbitrap with a resolution of 120,000 (at 200 m/z) and an AGC target of 5x10e5. MS/MS was performed in the orbitrap with sequential isolation windows of 50 m/z with an AGC target of 2x10e5 and an HCD collision energy of 30.

Histone peptides raw files were imported into EpiProfile 2.0 software.59 From the extracted ion chromatogram, the area under the curve was obtained and used to estimate the abundance of each peptide. To achieve the relative abundance of post-translational modifications (PTMs), the sum of all different modified forms of a histone peptide was considered as 100% and the area of the particular peptide was divided by the total area for that histone peptide in all of its modified forms. The relative ratio of two isobaric forms was estimated by averaging the ratio for each fragment ion with different mass between the two species. The resulting peptide lists generated by EpiProfile were exported to Microsoft Excel and further processed for a detailed analysis.

Immunoblots

Whole cell lysates were prepared using RIPA buffer (1% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 1mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8 at 4°C, 0.25% Sodium Deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, protease inhibitor, and phosphatase inhibitor). Immunoblots were performed on PVDF (Immobilon, Millipore), detected by ECL chemiluminescence (Lumigen, TMA-6) and imaged with an ImageQuant LAS4000 (GE). Antibody concentrations used are presented in Table S5.

Lentiviral CRISPRi knockdown

A two-plasmid lentiviral approach was used for knockdown of target genes. The lenti_dCas9-KRAB-MeCP2 plasmid was a gift from Andrea Califano (Addgene plasmid # 122205; http://n2t.net/addgene:122205; RRID:Addgene_122205) and pXPR_050 was a gift from John Doench & David Root (Addgene plasmid # 96925; http://n2t.net/addgene:96925; RRID:Addgene_96925).68,69 The dual fusion of KRAB and MeCP2 to dCa9 was chosen due to its superior silencing of both coding and non-coding genes. Custom sgRNA sequences (Table S6) were designed using the Broad CRISPick software (https://portals.broadinstitute.org/gppx/crispick/public) and then cloned into pXPR_050 as previously described.69 Briefly, the pXPR_050 plasmid was linearized using BsmBI and purified by a 1% agarose gel. Linearized plasmid was ligated to annealed CRISPick-designed sgRNA oligos in a 1:10 ratio using T4 ligase, per the manufacturer’s instructions. The ligation reaction was subsequently transformed and cultured overnight in LB broth with appropriate antibiotics. Following plasmid purification, all new plasmids were sequence confirmed.

Lentiviral particles were generated using calcium phosphate transfection. Transfection of 293T cells were accomplished by combining 1 pmol of each of the desired lentiviral plasmid, pCMVR8.74 and VSV.G to a final concentration of 124 mM CaCl2 and 1x HBS (21 mM HEPES pH 7.1, 5.6 mM D-glucose, 4.8 mM KCl, 136 mM NaCl, 746 μM Na2HPO4). pCMVR8.74 was a gift from Didier Trono (Addgene plasmid # 22036; http://n2t.net/addgene:22036; RRID:Addgene_22036) and VSV.G was a gift from Tannishtha Reya (Addgene plasmid # 14888; http://n2t.net/addgene:14888; RRID:Addgene_14888). Calcium phosphate solution was then added to 293T cells and media was changed 6–8 hours later. Following 48h of 293T cell culture in standard conditions, viral supernatant was collected and filtered with 0.45 μm size filters and stored at −80°C. Subsequent transduction of A549 cells was accomplished by combining lentiviral supernatant into polybrene-containing media (4 μg/mL) and centrifuging at 30°C for 2h at 1000 × g. Following spinfection, cells were returned to normal culture conditions and appropriate antibiotic selection was initiated after 24h.

Stable expression of the dCas9-KRAB-MeCP2 construct was transduced in A549 cells followed by Blasticidin (Cayman) selection at 10 μg/mL before subsequent transduction with the sgRNA and selection with Puromycin at 2 μg/mL (Cayman). A list of sgRNAs used in this study are listed in Table S6.

Indirect Immunofluorescence

Cells were seeded on coverslips (Neuvitro) and grown for a minimum of 4 days in the presence of 0.01% DMSO or 1μM of drug treatment. Cells were rinsed with warm PBS (Corning) and fixed in 4% methanol-free formaldehyde (ThermoScientific) for 10 minutes at room temperature, rinsed with PBS, and either stored at 4°C in PBS until use or immediately quenched with 0.1M ultraPure glycine (Invitrogen) and blocked 1 hour in 1% fish skin gelatin in PBS with 0.01% Tween-20. Primary antibodies were prepared in blocking solution and inverted coverslips were incubated on antibodies overnight at 4°C in a humid chamber. Coverslips were rinsed in PBS and incubated with secondary antibody (Thermo: 35552, Invitrogen: A21245 or Invitrogen: A21235) at 1:1000 in blocking buffer containing actin-rhodamine at 1:33 (Invitrogen: R37112) for 1 hour at room temp in a humid chamber protected from light. Coverslips were rinsed in PBS and mounted to glass slides with DAPI prolong gold anti-fade (Thermo: P36930).

Images were acquired with a Plan Apochromatic 60x objective (model BZ-PA60, NA 1.4/0.13 mm) and band-pass filters (Chroma Technology: DAPI: OP-87762/49028-UF1, EGFP: OP-87763/49002-UF1, CY3/TRITC: OP-87764/49004-UF1, CY5: OP-87766/49006-UF1) on a Keyence epi-fluorescence microscope (BZ-X810).

Images for figure visualization were captured as 11-image z-stacks with 0.2μm pitch and presented as a maximal projection. Pseudo-colored images were processed in FIJI (ImageJ2, Version: 2.14.0/1.54f, Build: c89e8500e4) with custom macros to adjust levels equally across all treatments of each experiment.65 Profile line plots were completed in FIJI. All quantifications were completed on single z-stack images with custom macros in FI-JI; macros are shared on https://github.com/Shechterlab/DeAngelo_2024. Antibody concentrations used are presented in Table S5.

Immunoprecipitation

After treatment, cells were harvested with trypsin (Corning), washed twice with 4°C PBS, and resuspended in modified RIPA buffer (0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 1mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8 at 4°C) supplemented with 40 U/mL RNaseOUT (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and protease inhibitor (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 10x cell pellet volume. Samples were incubated on ice for 10 min followed by sonication for 3x5 sec at 20% amplitude with a 1/8-inch probe-tip sonicator. All subsequent steps were completed at 4°C: Insoluble material was removed by 10,000 × g centrifugation for 10 min and lysates were pre-cleared by incubating with Protein G agarose (Millipore-Sigma, 16–201) for 30 minutes with rotation; supernatant was collected from agarose by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 10 minutes. Concentrations of the cleared supernatants were normalized by bicinchoninic acid assay (Pierce) to 750 μg per condition (1.5 μg/μL). Primary antibody targeting Tri-methyl Guanosine (MBL Life Science, RN019M, clone 235–1; 5μg) was added and incubated over-night with rotation. Samples were treated with Protein G agarose and rotated for 2 hours, then washed three times by pelleting at 10,000 × g for 30 seconds and resuspending in fresh lysis buffer. Samples were prepared in 1x Laemmli buffer for western blotting with antibodies as specified.

Northern Blotting

RNA was isolated using TRIzol (Thermo) and coprecipitated with GlycoBlue (Thermo). The RNA pellet was resuspended in sample buffer (6.8 M Urea in TBE with 10% glycerol and 0.25% Bromophenol Blue/Xylene Cyanide), heated at 90°C for 3 minutes, followed by loading onto an 8% Urea Gel (National Diagnostics) that was pre-run for 45 minutes at 45 watts. The gel was run for one hour at 45 watts in 1x TBE (100 mM Tris, 100 mM Boric acid, and 0.2 mM EDTA) followed by transfer to nitrocellulose in 0.5x TBE at 30 mAmps for four hours at 4°C. Following transfer, RNA was crosslinked to the membrane at 120,000 μJ/cm2 (UV Stratalinker 1800). 5’ end labeling of snRNA probes was performed using 32P-ɣ-ATP (PerkinElmer) with T4 PNK reaction (NEB). Unincorporated 32P-ɣ-ATP was removed using a Microspin G-25 column (Cytiva). Post-transfer hybridization was performed at 37°C in a hybridization oven over-night with gentle agitation in hybridization buffer containing 100 mM NaHPO4 pH 7.2, 750 mM NaCl, 1x Denhardt’s Solution (0.02% BSA, 0.02% Ficoll 400, 0.02% Polyvinylpyrrolidone), 1% Herring sperm DNA, and 7% SDS. The next morning, the hybridization solution was carefully discarded according to institutional protocol and the membrane was washed twice with wash buffer (40 mM NaHPO4 pH 7.2, 2% SDS, 1 mM EDTA). The wash buffer was also discarded according to institutional guidelines. The membrane was left to expose on a Phosphoimager screen (Cytiva) and imaged at 633nm using a Typhoon 9400 Variable Mode Imager.

Cloning and expression of PRMT5-MEP50

Full-length human PRMT5 (residues 2–637, Uniprot O14744) and MEP50 (also known as WDR77, residues 2–341, Uniprot Q9BQA1) genes were each cloned into pECFB1 (a pFastbac1 derivative with a LIC cloning site) and each contained an engineered N-terminal 6xHisTEV site. Bacmids were generated in DH10Bac cells and baculovirus produced in Sf9 cells. Production protein expression was performed by co-infection in HiFive cells and 2 days of growth.

Harvested cells were resuspended in hypotonic buffer (10mM HEPES, pH 7.6, 10 mM KCl, 0.5% NP40, 0.5 mM PMSF, and 2 protease inhibitor tablets) and incubated on ice for 1 hr. Swollen cells were sonicated 4 × 30 sec (1 sec on, 1 sec off @ 25% output). Cell debris was removed by centrifugation at 14,000 × g for 30 min. Tris buffer (pH 8) was added to a final concentration of 50 mM to the clarified cell lysate. Glycerol and b-mercaptoethanol were added to the final concentration of 5% and 10 mM, respectively. Guanidine HCl from a 6M stock was added dropwise on a stir plate to a final concentration of 250 mM.

Pre-equilibrated HisPur Nickel-NTA (Thermo) resin was mixed with the lysate and incubated on a rotary shaker for 30 min. The mixture was then centrifuged at 800 × g for 1 min to remove the clear lysate. Ni-NTA beads were packed into a gravity column, washed with 20 column volumes (CVs) of wash buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 8, 5% glycerol, 10 mM b-mercaptoethanol, and 250 mM KCl), followed by 5 CVs of the same buffer containing 30 mM and 45 mM imidazole; proteins were eluted with 2 CVs of the same buffer containing 300 mM imidazole. Elute containing PRMT5-MEP50 was pooled and applied to a Superdex 200 size-exclusion chromatography. Complex-containing fractions were pooled and stored at 1 mg/mL at −80°C. Protein estimations were carried out using Bradford protein assay reagent using BSA as a standard.

Cloning and recombinant expression of SNRP tail domains and SMN Tudor domain

The tail domains of SNRPB (88–230aa), SNRPD1 (71–118aa) and SNRPD3 (74–125aa) were cloned into pRuth5-GST ligation independent expression vector. Recombinant SNRP tails contained an N-terminally fused GST affinity tag and a C-terminal StrepII tag. SMN Tudor domain was expressed from pET28-MHL, a gift from Cheryl Arrowsmith (Addgene plasmid #61946; RRID:Addgene_61946). Recombinant proteins were expressed in Rosetta2 (DE3) E. coli grown in LB medium containing appropriate antibiotics. Cultures were grown to OD600 ~0.7 at 37°C with agitation before induction with 0.5mM IPTG followed by 16h incubation at 20°C with agitation. Cells were harvested by centrifugation and resuspended in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.5 M NaCl, 5 mM β-ME, 5 mM imidazole and 5% glycerol). Lysis was performed using an Emulsiflex C3 homogenizer (Avestin) at 4°C with two passages at 12,000psi. The lysate was centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 45 min and the cleared lysate was loaded onto HisPur Ni-NTA (Thermo) gravity-flow column. The column was washed extensively with 20 column volumes (CVs) of lysis buffer, followed by 5 CVs of the same buffer containing 30 mM and 45 mM imidazole; proteins were eluted with 2CVs of the same buffer containing 300mM imidazole. Eluate containing SNRP and SMN proteins were pooled, concentrated using spin concentrators, and dialyzed against buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, and 10% glycerol. SNRPB was further purified using a Strep-TactinXT (IBA Biosciences) column and bound SNRPB was eluted with buffer containing 50 mM biotin. Pure proteins were concentrated to ~5 mg/mL and stored at −80°C. Protein estimations were carried out using Bradford protein assay reagent using BSA as standard.

Methylation of SNRP tails, Electrophoretic mobility shift assays and SMN pulldown

PRMT5-MEP50 mediated Arg methylation of SNRP proteins was carried out in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.8, containing 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 10% glycerol and 5 mM β-ME for 12–14h at 30°C. Typical reaction mixture contained 100–400 μM SAM, SNRP: PRMT5-MEP50 was incubated in a mass ratio of 50:1 substrate; reactions also contain 2 μg Tm0936 SAH-deaminase to minimize the SAH product inhibition of PRMT5.

For electrophoretic mobility shift assays, 30-basepair dsDNA or 30-mer ssRNA of varying sequences were mixed with SNRP/Argmethylated SNRP proteins (and SMN where applicable), incubated for 10 min at room temperature. The reaction mixtures were then subjected to PAGE on 12% TBE gels (29:1) for 45 min at 150V in cold room. Gels were stained with gel red and imaged on BioRad imager.

For SMN pulldown experiment, 100 μg each of SNRPB, SNRPD1 and Arg-methylated SNRPB and SNRPD1 were mixed with 100 μL glutathione agarose beads (Thermo) in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.8, containing 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 5% glycerol and 5 mM β-ME. Tubes were incubated for 30 min at room temperature under rotary conditions. At the end of incubation, the beads were centrifuged at 800 × g for 1 min and the supernatants were removed. The beads were similarly washed 3X in the same buffer to remove traces of unbound SNRPs.

Approximately 800 μg SMN was added to the beads in the same buffer in a total volume of 400 μL. The tubes were incubated at 4°C for 1h under rotary conditions. The beads were washed 5X with binding buffer containing 250 mM NaCl and the bound proteins were eluted with 100 μL binding buffer containing 10 mM glutathione. Glutathione agarose incubated with SMN alone served as the control.

Chromatin associated poly(A)-RNA protein enrichment and immunoblotting

Poly(A)-RNA isolation was performed with modifications to a previously described protocol.70 A549 cells were grown in the presence of 0.01% DMSO, 1 μM GSK591 (Cayman), or 1 μM MS023 (Cayman) for two days. Cells were washed with 4°C PBS and irradiated on ice with 100 mJ cm-2 in a UV Stratalinker 1800. Cells were centrifuged at 500 × g for 10 minutes at 4 °C. Chromatin was isolated with nuclear lysis buffer (NLB; 10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5 at 4°C, 0.1% NP-40, 400 mM KCl, 1 mM DTT) supplemented with 40 U/mL RNaseOUT (Thermo), protease inhibitor (Thermo), and phosphatase inhibitor (Thermo). The chromatin pellet was resuspended in NLB and sonicated for five seconds at 20% amplitude with a probe-tip sonicator using a 1/8’’ tip. The sonicate was centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 minutes and the soluble material transferred to a low-adhesion RNase-free microcentrifuge tube. An aliquot from each sample was saved to serve as the unenriched control. The samples were split into two separate tubes, one of which received 10 μg of competitor 25-nt poly(A) RNA. Magnetic oligo-(dT) beads (NEB) were equilibrated in NLB and added to the enrichments. The samples were vortexed at room temperature for 10 minutes. The beads were then captured on a magnetic column, and the supernatant transferred to fresh tube for additional rounds of depletion. The beads were washed once with buffer A (10 mM Tris pH 7.5, 600 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.1% Triton X-100), followed by buffer B (10 mM Tris pH 7.5, 600 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA) and lastly buffer C (10 mM Tris pH 7.5, 200 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA). The RNA was eluted by incubating the beads in 10 μL of 10 mM Tris pH 7.5 at 80°C for two minutes, capture of magnetic beads using a magnetic column, and quickly transferring the supernatant to a new tube. Protein from each condition and fraction was then immunoblotted with antibodies as indicated.

Cellular Fractionation for Proteomics

This cellular fractionation was done as previously described.9 Briefly, cells were harvested via trypsinization post treatment and washed with PBS. All subsequent steps were performed at 4°C. Cells were suspended in 300 μL of Hypotonic Lysis Buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8 at 4°C, 0.1% NP-40, 1 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, supplemented with protease inhibitor, phosphatase inhibitor, and 1μM of appropriate PRMT inhibitor) and rotated at for 30 min. Nuclei were spun down at 10,000 × g for 10 min and the cytoplasm was collected. Nuclei were washed with Hypotonic Lysis Buffer. Nuclei were then resuspended in 300 μL of Nuclear Lysis Buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 8 at 4°C, 0.1% NP-40, 400 mM KCl, 1 mM DTT, supplemented with protease inhibitor, phosphatase inhibitor, and 1μM of appropriate PRMT inhibitor) and rotated for 30 min. Chromatin was spun down at 10,000 × g for 10 min and nucleoplasm was collected. The chromatin pellet was washed with additional Nuclear Lysis Buffer. Chromatin was resolubilized with prove-tip sonication at 20% amplitude for 5s. Total proteomic mass spectrometry was then performed on the cellular fractions.

Total and fractionated proteomic mass spectrometry

Cells were homogenized with a probe sonicator in a buffer containing 5% SDS, 5 mM DTT and 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate (pH = 8), and left on the bench for about 1 hour for disulfide bond reduction. Samples were then alkylated with 20 mM iodoacetamide in the dark for 30 minutes. Afterward, phosphoric acid was added to the sample at a final concentration of 1.2%. Samples were diluted in six volumes of binding buffer (90% methanol and 10 mM ammonium bicarbonate, pH 8.0). After gentle mixing, the protein solution was loaded to an S-trap filter (Protifi) and spun at 500 × g for 30 sec. The sample was washed twice with binding buffer. Finally, 1 μg of sequencing grade trypsin (Promega), diluted in 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate, was added into the S-trap filter and samples were digested at 37°C for 18 h. Peptides were eluted in three steps: (i) 40 μl of 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate, (ii) 40 μl of 0.1% TFA and (iii) 40 μl of 60% acetonitrile and 0.1% TFA. The peptide solution was pooled, spun at 1,000 × g for 30 sec and dried in a vacuum centrifuge. Peptides were then desalted as performed for the histone peptides.

Samples were resuspended in 10 μl of 0.1% TFA and loaded onto a Dionex RSLC Ultimate 300 (Thermo Scientific), coupled online with an Orbitrap Fusion Lumos (Thermo Scientific). Chromatographic separation was performed with a two-column system, consisting of a C-18 trap cartridge (300 μm ID, 5 mm length) and a picofrit analytical column (75 μm ID, 25 cm length) packed in-house with reversed-phase Repro-Sil Pur C18-AQ 3 μm resin. Peptides were separated using a 90 min gradient from 4–30% buffer B (buffer A: 0.1% formic acid, buffer B: 80% acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid) at a flow rate of 300 nl/min. The mass spectrometer was set to acquire spectra in a data-dependent acquisition (DDA) mode. Briefly, the full MS scan was set to 300–1200 m/z in the orbitrap with a resolution of 120,000 (at 200 m/z) and an AGC target of 5x105. MS/MS was performed in the ion trap using the top speed mode (2 secs), an AGC target of 1x104 and an HCD collision energy of 35.

Proteome raw files were searched using Proteome Discoverer software (v2.5, Thermo Scientific) using SEQUEST search engine and the SwissProt human database (updated March 2024). The search for total proteome included variable modification of N-terminal acetylation, and fixed modification of carbamidomethyl cysteine. Trypsin was specified as the digestive enzyme with up to 2 missed cleavages allowed. Mass tolerance was set to 10 pm for precursor ions and 0.2 Da for product ions. Peptide and protein false discovery rate was set to 1%. For all proteomic studies, DEP2 (Differential Enrichment analysis of Proteomics data 2)71 was used for data analysis with a maximum of one missing value and either GSimp or k-nearest number data imputation and False Discovery Rate control with Strimmer’s q-value. Heatmaps were generated from the log2 of the centered intensity measurements for the top differentially abundant proteins across all measurements. ClusterProfiler was used for protein ontology analysis with default background gene environments.62

Lentiviral inducible protein overexpression

SNRPB constructs were derived from plasmids created by Maron et al. and cloned into a Gateway Lentiviral system (Invitrogen).9 SmB WT, RtoA, and RtoK ORFs were individually PCR amplified and cloned into pDONR221 (Invitrogen) via a Gateway BP Clonase II Enzyme Mix (Invitrogen) using the manufacture’s protocol. Entry clones were then cloned into the destination vector, pLIX_403, via a Gateway LR Clonase II Enzyme Mix (Invitrogen). pLIX_403 was a gift from David Root (Addgene plasmid # 41395; http://n2t.net/addgene:41395; RRID:Addgene_41395). Lentiviral particles containing these constructs were generated and transduced into A549 cells as described above. Transduced cells were selected with 2μg/mL Puromycin (Cayman) and maintained with 1μg/mL. Maximal protein induction was found after treating cells with Doxycycline at 1 μg/mL after three days (data not shown).

RNase treatment of Nuclei

Cells were pre-treated with 1 μM GSK591 for seven days. Cells were collected with trypsin, as described above. 5x106 cells were lysed in 1 mL hypotonic lysis buffer (10 mM Tris pH 8 at 4°C, 1 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.1% NP-40, protease inhibitor cocktail, am 1 mM DTT) with end over end rotation for 30 min. Nuclei were pelleted at 10,000 × g for 5 min. Nuclei were washed in 400 μL hypotonic lysis buffer and split in half. To one sample, 2 μg RNase A and 250 U RNase T1 were added; both samples were incubated at 37°C for 1 hour with intermittent mixing. Following incubation and at 4°C, nuclei were recovered by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 5 min. Nuclei were lysed with nuclear extraction buffer (see cellular fractionation for proteomics above) and chromatin was pelleted at 10,000 × g for 5 min. Nucleoplasm was collected as the supernatant. Chromatin was resuspended in 150 μL nuclear lysis buffer and solubilized with a tip sonicator. Nucleoplasm and chromatin fractions were then analyzed by immunoblotting.

Subcellular RNA fractionation

This protocol followed previously described procedures with minor alterations.9,14,51,52 Briefly, following appropriate experimental treatments, cells were collected via a brief trypsinization followed by a PBS wash. Cells were then lysed in a hypotonic lysis buffer containing 10 mM Tris, 1 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.1% NP40, 0.5 mM DTT, and 0.5 mM EDTA, as well as 1x protease inhibitor and 40 U/ml RNaseOUT. Cells were rotated at 4°C for 15 minutes to promote lysis. The lysate was overlaid onto a 24% sucrose cushion, a density gradient solution consisting of 10 mM Tris, 15 mM KCl, 1 mM EDTA, 24% Sucrose (w/v), 0.5 mM DTT, 1x protease inhibitor, and 40 U/ml RNaseOUT, and centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min. Nuclei were washed in a PBS/1mM EDTA solution, and recollected by centrifuging at 10,000 × g for 2 min. Nuclei were then resuspended in glycerol buffer, composed of 20 mM Tris, 75 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM EDTA, 50% Glycerol (v/v), 0.85 mM DTT, 40 U/ml RNaseOUT, and 1x protease inhibitor, and subsequently lysed using equal volume of nuclei lysis buffer, which contained 20 mM HEPES, 1 mM DTT, 7.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM EDTA, 300 mM NaCl, 1% NP40, 1M Urea, 1x protease inhibitor, and 40 U/ml RNaseOUT. Following another PBS/EDTA wash, all three fractions were dissolved into TRIzol (Thermo Fisher Scientific), followed by subsequent isolation of RNA, DNA, and Protein as described in the manufacturer’s manual. RNA and DNA were subsequently quantified using the Qubit RNA BR Assay Kit and dsDNA BR Assay Kit, respectively (Invitrogen).

Polyadenylated RNA quantification

Following Trizol purification, equal amounts (ng) of RNA were reverse transcribed using the Moloney Murine Leukemia Virus (MMLV) reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) and oligo-dT primers. Residual RNA was removed via a RNase H digestion. cDNA was then quantified via the ssDNA Qubit Assay Kit (Invitrogen).

Fractionated RNA-sequencing

The fractionation method used for the sequencing experiment is identical to the above subcellular RNA fractionation. Cells were counted in duplicate to obtain 5 million cells per condition and per biological replicate (collected on separate days). A batch of TRIzol was used with a spike in of total D. melanogaster S2 cells such that there are 250k (5% relative starting cell number) S2 cells per 750 μL of TRIzol. TRIzol was then aliquoted at 750 μL/tube and stored at −80°C until needed.

QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analysis

All immunoblots were performed in at least two independent biological replicates. Statistical analysis was performed either using GraphPad Prism (v10.2.3) or R (v4.4.0). Statistical details for each experiment, including the test used, exact value of n, and definition of n, are provided in the figure legends. Unless otherwise indicated, n refers to biological replicates. Data are represented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) unless noted. Comparisons between two groups were performed using two-tailed unpaired Student’s t tests. For multiple group comparisons, one-way ANOVA with appropriate post hoc testing was used. Wilcoxon Rank rank-sum test was applied to compare medians between groups, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to compare distributions. GeneOverlap63 with Fisher’s Exact Test was used to determine odds ratios of retained intron overlaps and transcript overlaps between different RNA-seq data sets. Significance thresholds are defined in the figure legends (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

No additional resources were generated in this study.

Supplementary Material

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2025.09.021.

Highlights.

  • Spike-in normalized RNA-seq reveals intron-rich, chromatin-detained poly(A) RNAs

  • Chromatin-retained RNAs are longer and splice slowly, preventing productive export

  • Loss of arginine methylation results in splicing factor accumulation on chromatin

  • Sm tail methylation and SMN prevent aberrant snRNP DNA binding, enabling mRNA export

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01GM108646 to D.S.; T32GM149364 to J.D.D., J.S.R., and A.M.S.; GM57829 to C.C.Q.; and R01GM134379 to M.J.G.), Irma T. Hirschl and Monique Weill-Caulier Charitable Trusts to D.S., and The ALS Therapy Development Institute to D.S. The Sidoli lab gratefully acknowledges for funding the Hevolution Foundation (AFAR), the Einstein-Mount Sinai Diabetes Center, and the NIH Office of the Director (S10OD030286). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Graphical abstract was created with Biorender.com.

Footnotes

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

J.B. was an employee of Arpeggio Bio, and J.A. is an employee and founder of Arpeggio Bio, which was contracted to undertake the PRO-seq experiments described in this paper.

DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WRITING PROCESS

To improve concision in portions of this manuscript, during the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT. After using this tool, the authors fully reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Data and code availability

REFERENCES

  • 1.Maron MI, Lehman SM, Gayatri S, DeAngelo JD, Hegde S, Lorton BM, Sun Y, Bai DL, Sidoli S, Gupta V, et al. (2021). Independent transcriptomic and proteomic regulation by type I and II protein arginine methyltransferases. iScience 24, 102971. 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lorton BM, and Shechter D (2019). Cellular consequences of arginine methylation. Cell. Mol. Life Sci 76, 2933–2956. 10.1007/s00018-019-03140-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guccione E, and Richard S (2019). The regulation, functions and clinical relevance of arginine methylation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol 20, 642–657. 10.1038/s41580-019-0155-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stopa N, Krebs JE, and Shechter D (2015). The PRMT5 arginine methyltransferase: many roles in development, cancer and beyond. Cell. Mol. Life Sci 72, 2041–2059. 10.1007/s00018-015-1847-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Friesen WJ, Paushkin S, Wyce A, Massenet S, Pesiridis GS, Van Duyne G, Rappsilber J, Mann M, and Dreyfuss G (2001). The methylosome, a 20S complex containing JBP1 and pICln, produces dimethylarginine-modified Sm proteins. Mol. Cell. Biol 21, 8289–8300. 10.1128/MCB.21.24.8289-8300.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Meister G, Eggert C, Bühler D, Brahms H, Kambach C, and Fischer U (2001). Methylation of Sm proteins by a complex containing PRMT5 and the putative U snRNP assembly factor pICln. Curr. Biol 11, 1990–1994. 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00592-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Paknia E, Chari A, Stark H, and Fischer U (2016). The Ribosome Cooperates with the Assembly Chaperone pICln to Initiate Formation of snRNPs. Cell Rep 16, 3103–3112. 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.08.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Urlaub H, Raker VA, Kostka S, and Lührmann R (2001). Sm protein-Sm site RNA interactions within the inner ring of the spliceosomal snRNP core structure. EMBO J. 20, 187–196. 10.1093/emboj/20.1.187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maron MI, Casill AD, Gupta V, Roth JS, Sidoli S, Query CC, Gamble MJ, and Shechter D (2022). Type I and II PRMTs inversely regulate post-transcriptional intron detention through Sm and CHTOP methylation. eLife 11, e72867. 10.7554/eLife.72867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mulvaney KM, Blomquist C, Acharya N, Li R, Ranaghan MJ, O’Keefe M, Rodriguez DJ, Young MJ, Kesar D, Pal D, et al. (2021). Molecular basis for substrate recruitment to the PRMT5 methylosome. Mol. Cell 81, 3481–3495.e7. 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.07.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pesiridis GS, Diamond E, and Van Duyne GD (2009). Role of pICLn in methylation of Sm proteins by PRMT5. J. Biol. Chem 284, 21347–21359. 10.1074/jbc.M109.015578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Boutz PL, Bhutkar A, and Sharp PA (2015). Detained introns are a novel, widespread class of post-transcriptionally spliced introns. Genes Dev 29, 63–80. 10.1101/gad.247361.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Statello L, Guo CJ, Chen LL, and Huarte M (2021). Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol 22, 96–118. 10.1038/s41580-020-00315-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yeom KH, Pan Z, Lin CH, Lim HY, Xiao W, Xing Y, and Black DL (2021). Tracking pre-mRNA maturation across subcellular compartments identifies developmental gene regulation through intron retention and nuclear anchoring. Genome Res 31, 1106–1119. 10.1101/gr.273904.120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tang J, Wang X, Xiao D, Liu S, and Tao Y (2023). The chromatin-associated RNAs in gene regulation and cancer. Mol. Cancer 22, 27. 10.1186/s12943-023-01724-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Li X, and Fu XD (2019). Chromatin-associated RNAs as facilitators of functional genomic interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet 20, 503–519. 10.1038/s41576-019-0135-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen H, Lorton B, Gupta V, and Shechter D (2017). A TGFbeta-PRMT5-MEP50 axis regulates cancer cell invasion through histone H3 and H4 arginine methylation coupled transcriptional activation and repression. Oncogene 36, 373–386. 10.1038/onc.2016.205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Brahms H, Meheus L, de Brabandere V, Fischer U, and Lührmann R (2001). Symmetrical dimethylation of arginine residues in spliceosomal Sm protein B/B’ and the Sm-like protein LSm4, and their interaction with the SMN protein. RNA 7, 1531–1542. 10.1017/s135583820101442x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lacroix M, El Messaoudi S, Rodier G, Le Cam A, Sardet C, and Fabbrizio E (2008). The histone-binding protein COPR5 is required for nuclear functions of the protein arginine methyltransferase PRMT5. EMBO Rep 9, 452–458. 10.1038/embor.2008.45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gary JD, and Clarke S (1998). RNA and protein interactions modulated by protein arginine methylation. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol 61, 65–131. 10.1016/s0079-6603(08)60825-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Duncan KW, Rioux N, Boriack-Sjodin PA, Munchhof MJ, Reiter LA, Majer CR, Jin L, Johnston LD, Chan-Penebre E, Kuplast KG, et al. (2016). Structure and Property Guided Design in the Identification of PRMT5 Tool Compound EPZ015666. ACS Med. Chem. Lett 7, 162–166. 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Eram MS, Shen Y, Szewczyk M, Wu H, Senisterra G, Li F, Butler KV, Kaniskan HÜ, Speed BA, Dela Seña C, et al. (2016). A Potent, Selective, and Cell-Active Inhibitor of Human Type I Protein Arginine Methyltransferases. ACS Chem. Biol 11, 772–781. 10.1021/acschembio.5b00839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liu F, Xu Y, Lu X, Hamard PJ, Karl DL, Man N, Mookhtiar AK, Martinez C, Lossos IS, Sun J, et al. (2020). PRMT5-mediated histone arginine methylation antagonizes transcriptional repression by polycomb complex PRC2. Nucleic Acids Res 48, 2956–2968. 10.1093/nar/gkaa065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kwak H, Fuda NJ, Core LJ, and Lis JT (2013). Precise maps of RNA polymerase reveal how promoters direct initiation and pausing. Science 339, 950–953. 10.1126/science.1229386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shechter D, Dormann HL, Allis CD, and Hake SB (2007). Extraction, purification and analysis of histones. Nat. Protoc 2, 1445–1457. 10.1038/nprot.2007.202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guderian G, Peter C, Wiesner J, Sickmann A, Schulze-Osthoff K, Fischer U, and Grimmler M (2011). RioK1, a new interactor of protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5), competes with pICln for binding and modulates PRMT5 complex composition and substrate specificity. J. Biol. Chem 286, 1976–1986. 10.1074/jbc.M110.148486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McKinney DC, McMillan BJ, Ranaghan MJ, Moroco JA, Brousseau M, Mullin-Bernstein Z, O’Keefe M, McCarren P, Mesleh MF, Mulvaney KM, et al. (2021). Discovery of a First-in-Class Inhibitor of the PRMT5-Substrate Adaptor Interaction. J. Med. Chem 64, 11148–11168. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c00507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Krzyzanowski A, Gasper R, Adihou H, Hart t., and Waldmann H (2021). Biochemical Investigation of the Interaction of pICln, RioK1 and COPR5 with the PRMT5-MEP50 Complex. ChemBioChem 22, 1908–1914. 10.1002/cbic.202100079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yeo NC, Chavez A, Lance-Byrne A, Chan Y, Menn D, Milanova D, Kuo C-C, Guo X, Sharma S, Tung A, et al. (2018). An enhanced CRISPR repressor for targeted mammalian gene regulation. Nat. Methods 15, 611–616. 10.1038/s41592-018-0048-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ho MC, Wilczek C, Bonanno JB, Xing L, Seznec J, Matsui T, Carter LG, Onikubo T, Kumar PR, Chan MK, et al. (2013). Structure of the arginine methyltransferase PRMT5-MEP50 reveals a mechanism for substrate specificity. PLoS One 8, e57008. 10.1371/journal.pone.0057008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wilczek C, Chitta R, Woo E, Shabanowitz J, Chait BT, Hunt DF, and Shechter D (2011). Protein arginine methyltransferase Prmt5-Mep50 methylates histones H2A and H4 and the histone chaperone nucleoplasmin in Xenopus laevis eggs. J. Biol. Chem 286, 42221–42231. 10.1074/jbc.M111.303677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lin CC, Chang TC, Wang Y, Guo L, Gao Y, Bikorimana E, Lemoff A, Fang YV, Zhang H, Zhang Y, et al. (2024). PRMT5 is an actionable therapeutic target in CDK4/6 inhibitor-resistant ER+/RB-deficient breast cancer. Nat. Commun 15, 2287. 10.1038/s41467-024-46495-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Scoumanne A, Zhang J, and Chen X (2009). PRMT5 is required for cell-cycle progression and p53 tumor suppressor function. Nucleic Acids Res 37, 4965–4976. 10.1093/nar/gkp516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Prusty AB, Meduri R, Prusty BK, Vanselow J, Schlosser A, and Fischer U (2017). Impaired spliceosomal UsnRNP assembly leads to Sm mRNA down-regulation and Sm protein degradation. J. Cell Biol 216, 2391–2407. 10.1083/jcb.201611108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fong JY, Pignata L, Goy PA, Kawabata KC, Lee SCW, Koh CM, Musiani D, Massignani E, Kotini AG, Penson A, et al. (2019). Therapeutic Targeting of RNA Splicing Catalysis through Inhibition of Protein Arginine Methylation. Cancer Cell 36, 194–209.e9. 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sachamitr P, Ho JC, Ciamponi FE, Ba-Alawi W, Coutinho FJ, Guilhamon P, Kushida MM, Cavalli FMG, Lee L, Rastegar N, et al. (2021). PRMT5 inhibition disrupts splicing and stemness in glioblastoma. Nat. Commun 12, 979. 10.1038/s41467-021-21204-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ilik İA, Malszycki M, Lübke AK, Schade C, Meierhofer D, and Aktaş T (2020). SON and SRRM2 are essential for nuclear speckle formation. eLife 9, e60579. 10.7554/eLife.60579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Long JC, and Caceres JF (2009). The SR protein family of splicing factors: master regulators of gene expression. Biochem. J. 417, 15–27. 10.1042/BJ20081501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Matera AG, Terns RM, and Terns MP (2007). Non-coding RNAs: lessons from the small nuclear and small nucleolar RNAs. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol 8, 209–220. 10.1038/nrm2124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Andersen J, and Zieve GW (1991). Assembly and intracellular transport of snRNP particles. BioEssays 13, 57–64. 10.1002/bies.950130203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pomeranz Krummel DA, Oubridge C, Leung AKW, Li J, and Nagai K (2009). Crystal structure of human spliceosomal U1 snRNP at 5.5 A resolution. Nature 458, 475–480. 10.1038/nature07851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Will CL, and Lührmann R (2011). Spliceosome structure and function. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol 3, a003707. 10.1101/cshperspect.a003707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gonsalvez GB, Praveen K, Hicks AJ, Tian L, and Matera AG (2008). Sm protein methylation is dispensable for snRNP assembly in Drosophila melanogaster. RNA 14, 878–887. 10.1261/rna.940708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Neuenkirchen N, Englbrecht C, Ohmer J, Ziegenhals T, Chari A, and Fischer U (2015). Reconstitution of the human U snRNP assembly machinery reveals stepwise Sm protein organization. EMBO J. 34, 1925–1941. 10.15252/embj.201490350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Boisvert FM, Cote J, Boulanger MC, Cleroux P, Bachand F, Autexier C, and Richard S (2002). Symmetrical dimethylarginine methylation is required for the localization of SMN in Cajal bodies and pre-mRNA splicing. J. Cell Biol 159, 957–969. 10.1083/jcb.200207028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Staněk D (2023). Coilin and Cajal bodies. Nucleus 14, 2256036. 10.1080/19491034.2023.2256036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Roithová A, Kliměsová K, Pánek J, Will CL, Lührmann R, Stanek D, and Girard C (2018). The Sm-core mediates the retention of partially-assembled spliceosomal snRNPs in Cajal bodies until their full maturation. Nucleic Acids Res 46, 3774–3790. 10.1093/nar/gky070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tycowski KT, Shu MD, Kukoyi A, and Steitz JA (2009). A conserved WD40 protein binds the Cajal body localization signal of scaRNP particles. Mol. Cell 34, 47–57. 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.02.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rio DC, Ares M Jr., Hannon GJ, and Nilsen TW (2010). Purification of RNA using TRIzol (TRI reagent). Cold Spring Harb. Protoc 2010, pdb. prot5439. 10.1101/pdb.prot5439. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 50.Khurana A, Chadha Y, and Schmoller KM (2023). Too big not to fail: Different paths lead to senescence of enlarged cells. Mol. Cell 83, 3946–3947. 10.1016/j.molcel.2023.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pandya-Jones A, and Black DL (2009). Co-transcriptional splicing of constitutive and alternative exons. RNA 15, 1896–1908. 10.1261/rna.1714509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Yeom KH, and Damianov A (2017). Methods for Extraction of RNA, Proteins, or Protein Complexes from Subcellular Compartments of Eukaryotic Cells. Methods Mol. Biol 1648, 155–167. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7204-3_12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jiang L, Schlesinger F, Davis CA, Zhang Y, Li R, Salit M, Gingeras TR, and Oliver B (2011). Synthetic spike-in standards for RNA-seq experiments. Genome Res 21, 1543–1551. 10.1101/gr.121095.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Schertzer MD, Murvin MM, and Calabrese JM (2020). Using RNA Sequencing and Spike-in RNAs to Measure Intracellular Abundance of lncRNAs and mRNAs. Bio Protoc 10, e3772. 10.21769/bioprotoc.3772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Taruttis F, Feist M, Schwarzfischer P, Gronwald W, Kube D, Spang R, and Engelmann JC (2017). External calibration with Drosophila whole-cell spike-ins delivers absolute mRNA fold changes from human RNA-Seq and qPCR data. BioTechniques 62, 53–61. 10.2144/000114514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Werner MS, Sullivan MA, Shah RN, Nadadur RD, Grzybowski AT, Galat V, Moskowitz IP, and Ruthenburg AJ (2017). Chromatin-enriched lncRNAs can act as cell-type specific activators of proximal gene transcription. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol 24, 596–603. 10.1038/nsmb.3424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Casill AD, Haimowitz AJ, Kosmyna B, Query CC, Ye K, and Gamble MJ (2021). Spatial organization of transcript elongation and splicing kinetics. Preprint at bioRxiv. 10.1101/2021.01.28.428713. [DOI]
  • 58.Litzler LC, Zahn A, Meli AP, Hébert S, Patenaude AM, Methot SP, Sprumont A, Bois T, Kitamura D, Costantino S, et al. (2019). PRMT5 is essential for B cell development and germinal center dynamics. Nat. Commun 10, 22. 10.1038/s41467-018-07884-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yuan ZF, Sidoli S, Marchione DM, Simithy J, Janssen KA, Szurgot MR, and Garcia BA (2018). EpiProfile 2.0: A Computational Platform for Processing Epi-Proteomics Mass Spectrometry Data. J. Proteome Res 17, 2533–2541. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ewels PA, Peltzer A, Fillinger S, Patel H, Alneberg J, Wilm A, Garcia MU, Di Tommaso P, and Nahnsen S (2020). The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat. Biotechnol 38, 276–278. 10.1038/s41587-020-0439-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Shen S, Park JW, Lu ZX, Lin L, Henry MD, Wu YN, Zhou Q, and Xing Y (2014). rMATS: robust and flexible detection of differential alternative splicing from replicate RNA-Seq data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, E5593–E5601. 10.1073/pnas.1419161111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, and He QY (2012). clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. Omics 16, 284–287. 10.1089/omi.2011.0118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Shen L (2020). GeneOverlap: Test and visualize gene overlaps. GitHub https://github.com/shenlab-sinai/GeneOverlap.
  • 64.Feng Z, Fang P, Zheng H, and Zhang X (2023). DEP2: an upgraded comprehensive analysis toolkit for quantitative proteomics data. Bioinformatics 39, btad526. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, et al. (2012). Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682. 10.1038/nmeth.2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Dussurget O, and Roulland-Dussoix D (1994). Rapid, sensitive PCR-based detection of mycoplasmas in simulated samples of animal sera. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 60, 953–959. 10.1128/aem.60.3.953-959.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mahat DB, Kwak H, Booth GT, Jonkers IH, Danko CG, Patel RK, Waters CT, Munson K, Core LJ, and Lis JT (2016). Base-pair-resolution genome-wide mapping of active RNA polymerases using precision nuclear run-on (PRO-seq). Nat. Protoc 11, 1455–1476. 10.1038/nprot.2016.086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tan X, Worley J, Turunen M, Wong K, Fernández EC, Paull E, Jones S, Wang J, Noh H, Salvatori B, et al. (2022). Interrogation of genome-wide, experimentally dissected gene regulatory networks reveals mechanisms underlying dynamic cellular state control. Preprint at bioRxiv. 10.1101/2021.06.28.449297. [DOI]
  • 69.Sanson KR, Hanna RE, Hegde M, Donovan KF, Strand C, Sullender ME, Vaimberg EW, Goodale A, Root DE, Piccioni F, et al. (2018). Optimized libraries for CRISPR-Cas9 genetic screens with multiple modalities. Nat. Commun 9, 5416. 10.1038/s41467-018-07901-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Iadevaia V, Matia-González AM, and Gerber AP (2018). An Oligonucleotide-based Tandem RNA Isolation Procedure to Recover Eukaryotic mRNA-Protein Complexes. J. Vis. Exp 58223. 10.3791/58223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Zhang X, Smits AH, van Tilburg GB, Ovaa H, Huber W, and Vermeulen M (2018). Proteome-wide identification of ubiquitin interactions using UbIA-MS. Nat. Protoc 13, 530–550. 10.1038/nprot.2017.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Data Availability Statement

RESOURCES