Abstract
Recently, with the development of RNA sequencing technologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) for RNA, numerous variations of alternatively processed RNAs made by alternative splicing, RNA editing, alternative maturation of microRNA (miRNA), RNA methylation, and alternative polyadenylation have been uncovered. Furthermore, abnormally processed RNAs can cause a variety of diseases, including obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer. Especially in cancer development, aberrant RNAs caused by deregulated RNA modifiers or regulators are related to progression. Accumulating evidence has reported that aberrant RNAs promote carcinogenesis in many cancers, including liver cancer, leukemia, melanoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and other cancers, in which abnormal RNA processing occurs in normal cells. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the precise roles and mechanisms of disease-related RNA processing in various cancers for the development of therapeutic interventions. In this review, the underlying mechanisms of variations in the RNA life cycle and the biological impacts of RNA variations on carcinogenesis will be discussed, and therapeutic strategies for the treatment of tumor malignancies will be provided. We also discuss emerging roles of RNA regulators in hepatocellular carcinogenesis.
Subject terms: Cancer genomics, Oncogenesis
Cancer: Mixed messages fuel tumor progression
A single gene can generate a variety of RNA products, and changes in this final RNA output can directly contribute to cancer onset and progression. The initial transcription of each DNA sequence yields a raw RNA strand that subsequently undergoes a variety of modification processes that shape its function. Hee Doo Yang and Suk Woo Nam, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, have reviewed the potential impact of these mechanisms on malignancy. Some cancers, for example, express RNA sequences that have been inappropriately edited by an enzymatic process called splicing, yielding abnormal RNAs that drive metastasis. Other tumors contain RNAs with atypical chemical modifications, or in which individual nucleotides have been enzymatically converted into other nucleotides. A deeper understanding of these RNA alterations and their impacts could lead to more effective and targeted cancer treatments.
Introduction
In cancer progression and development, genetic alteration and genomic dysregulation are essential events, but these changes are insufficient for cancer progression. Most cancer cells establish a resistant state via the epigenetic regulation of genes and/or through aberrant alterations regulating physiological conditions in various environments that provide a survival advantage in response to the selective elimination performed by the host1.
The advent of high-throughput transcriptome NGS has provided a wealth of information on RNA variation on a genome-wide scale. It has been uncovered by NGS that most human genes have resultant RNA variants, which give a single gene the potential to produce functionally multiple and distinct precursor RNAs (pre-RNAs)2. These pre-RNAs made by RNA variations are translated into variant proteins with functional regions omitted because of splicing3, or they regulate noncanonical targets4. Especially, more altered RNA products can be made in cancer than in normal tissues, and they affect cancer progression.
In this review, RNA variations are categorized into alternative splicing, RNA editing, microRNAs variation, RNA methylation and alternative polyadenylation, all of which yield alternative transcripts. These transcripts affect the functions of protein products or RNA by changing the target molecules, regulating stability, and removing miRNA-mediated translation inhibition or mediating mRNA–protein interactions and protein localization. We also describe the mechanistic functions of RNA variations and focus on cancer progression, especially hepatocellular carcinogenesis. In addition, we discuss ongoing efforts toward targeting-modified RNA and regulating altered mechanisms of RNA variations in cancer therapy.
Cellular processing to elicit RNA variations
Alternative splicing
Many more transcripts are produced in the human transcriptome than the number of protein-coding genes. According to the last update of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium, each protein-coding gene has seven different transcript variants in general5. These transcript variants are made from alternative splicing of pre-mRNA. Since alternative splicing is a process by which multiple exons are differentially removed from the pre-mRNA transcript, a combination of various exons can be produced, resulting in the production of multiple final mRNA species. Examples of alternative RNA splicing mechanisms include cassette exon inclusion/exclusion, intron retention, mutually exclusive exons, alternative 5′ splice sites, and alternative 3′ splice sites (Fig. 1a)6.
Fig. 1. Schematic summary of the diverse processing mechanisms that induce RNA variants.
a Categorization of alternative splicing (AS) mechanisms. Spicing sites throughout an exon or within introns may disrupt splicing or generate novel aberrant splice sites in the mRNA of a gene. b Adenosine and cytidine deaminases are critical RNA editors that play important roles in physiological events. c 5′ isomiRs are usually generated by imprecise Drosha and/or Dicer processing, but 3′ isomiRs are mainly produced by postmaturation sequence modifications (trimming and tailing), making 3′ isomiR-trimmed and 3′ isomiR-tailed transcripts, respectively. d m6A methyltransferases generate methylated adenosines in RNA and determine the destiny of RNAs. e Long 3ʹ untranslated regions (UTRs) contain more regulatory sites that affect the stability and translation rate of the isoforms than the short 3ʹ UTRs made by alternative polyadenylation (APA).
In general, gene expression changes of splicing factors may result in alternative splicing. For example, serine/arginine-rich splicing factor 1 (SRSF1, also known as alternative splicing factor 1 (ASF1), pre-mRNA-splicing factor SF2 (SF2) or ASF1/SF2) is frequently overexpressed in various solid cancers with amplification of chromosome 17q23, and it induces alternative splicing7. Additionally, mutation of splicing factors may induce alternative splicing. According to Alsafadi and colleagues, mutation of splicing factor 3B subunit 1A (SF3B1) occurs frequently and results in deregulated splicing at a subset of junctions, mostly by the use of alternative 3′ splice sites8.
At least three major mechanisms regulating alternative splicing have been reported. First, alternative RNA splicing is regulated by cis-elements6. These cis-elements, such as enhancers of exon/intron splicing, are recognized by serine and arginine proteins (SR proteins) that function as trans-acting elements of RNA splicing to promote splice site recognition and exon formation2. In contrast, silencers of exon/intron splicing usually relate to trans-acting factors such as heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins (hnRNPs), which suppress splice site recognition and improve exon inclusion9.
In addition, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near splice sites can result in RNA splicing alterations. Human genome mutation databases have reported that among disease-causing SNPs, 15% of SNPs are found at splice sites, and over 20% of SNPs are located at splicing enhancers or splicing silencers of exons/introns10, suggesting that alternative splicing is a critical step in cancer progression. Another RNA splicing process is connected with transcription initiation and elongation rates11. Promoter activities and RNA polymerase II elongation rates influence the recruitment of splicing factors to splice sites in a time-dependent way and therefore regulate the final RNA products11. Strongly activated promoters enhance transcription initiation and result in increased recognition of pre-mRNA by the spliceosome. Additionally, the increase in transcription elongation speed after transcription initiation raises the likelihood for the spliceosome to fail at weak splice sites on pre-mRNAs, which would be dependent on the elongation rate.
The third alternative splicing mechanism is related to histone modification. Histone modification near RNA splice sites can affect RNA alternative splicing through recruitment of splicing-regulating proteins and RNA splicing factors. The adaptor protein MORF-related gene 15 (MRG15) interacts with epigenetically modified histone H3 Lys36 trimethylation (H3K36Me3), and hnRNPI (also known as PTB) is recruited to regulate the inclusion of alternatively spliced exons12. Additionally, the interaction between H3K36Me3 and the adaptor protein Psip1/Ledgf recruits the splicing factor ASF/SF2, and alternative splicing is promoted13. Alternative splicing is regulated not only by the expression/function of RNA splicing factors but also by genomic mutations/SNPs, transcription and elongation rates, and epigenetic modifications. All of these complicated mechanisms contribute to the production of alternatively spliced RNA.
RNA editing
The unwinding of double stranded RNA (dsRNA) for adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing was first found in oocytes of Xenopus laevis14. Since then, the study of adenosine deaminases acting on RNA (ADARs) has increased. In mammals, A-to-I conversion is the most common type of RNA editing (Fig. 1b). There are three ADAR genes (ADAR1-3) constituting four isoforms, ADAR1p150, ADAR1p110, ADAR2, and ADAR3. ADAR proteins have three dsRNA binding sites, and homodimerization of the C-terminal regions of ADARs is needed for A-to-I activity15. Major RNA editing sites are in noncoding regions, but some sites occur in coding regions and cause amino acid changes16. In humans, A-to-I editing in protein-coding genes takes place in introns, resulting in alternative splicing and untranslated regions (UTRs)17. Among the UTRs, the A-to-I editing frequency seems to occur more frequently in 3′ UTR sites than in 5′ UTRs18. Additionally, Alu repeats, a repetitive short interspersed element (SINE), are the most frequently edited sites. The human genome has a total of 919,035 Alu elements, and RNA editing sites are used in 305,337 Alu elements19. In addition, miRNAs are processed by ADARs (ADAR1 and ADAR2) that regulate miRNA biogenesis by A-to-I editing during miRNA maturation20.
The activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID, also known as AICDA)/apolipoprotein B editing complex (APOBEC) family contains evolutionarily conserved cytidine deaminases that have an intrinsic deamination activity for not only C-to-U RNA editing but also for dC (deoxycytidine)-to-dU (deoxyuridine) DNA editing (Fig. 1b). In humans, 11 protein species of the AID/APOBEC family of deaminases are expressed, including AID (AICDA), APOBEC1, APOBEC2, APOBEC3A, APOBEC3B, APOBEC3C, APOBEC3D, APOBEC3F, APOBEC3G, APOBEC3H, and APOBEC421. APOBEC1 site-specifically edits the APOB gene and makes premature stop codons, including a short protein isoform of ApoB22. Recent reports of transcriptome sequencing showed additional RNA editing sites, mostly in the 3′ UTRs23. APOBEC3A, another site-specific C-to-U editing enzyme, showed editing functions after specific stimulation in monocytes and macrophages24. In contrast to those edited by ADARs, most targets edited by APOBEC3A are very site-specific and often contain coding regions, resulting in missense/nonsense alterations25. Whether other APOBECs, including APOBEC2 APOBEC3C, APOBEC3D, APOBEC3F, APOBEC3G, APOBEC3H, and APOBEC4, also edit cellular RNAs in specific physiological circumstances is unknown25. While some APOBEC3 proteins deaminate viral genetic substances or cancer genomes, the cytidine deaminase functions of these enzymes under normal physiologic conditions have not been demonstrated26.
miRNA heterogeneity
With advances in NGS for RNA, it has been suggested that a single miRNA locus can make different miRNA isoforms (isomiRs) that differ in length and/or sequence composition. IsomiRs can be categorized into 5′ isomiRs and 3′ isomiRs, depending on the region of heterogeneity (Fig. 1c). Studies have shown that isomiRs are loaded onto RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) by binding to Ago1 and Ago2 and function like canonical miRNAs4.
Since sequence modifications at the 5′ end of miRNAs after maturation are rare, most 5′ isomiRs are made from imprecise cleavage by either Drosha or Dicer in the processing of miRNA biogenesis. Alternative cleavage by Drosha and/or Dicer frequently arising in miRNA biogenesis has been revealed from NGS for RNA, but it is generally unknown how these variations occur. Some studies have shown that deviations from the expected cleavage site between the basal junction and the apical junction of a pri-miRNA can result in alternative cleavage by Drosha27. Furthermore, structural defects affect imprecise Drosha cleavage in the lower stem, altering the overall helical structure of the pri-miRNA, as well as disrupting the interaction between Drosha and the sequence motif of the lower stem28. RNA-binding proteins such as hnRNPA1 control Drosha cleavage by changing the secondary structure of the pri-miRNA, which might be one of the reasons why such proteins regulate alternative cleavage by Drosha29. Likewise, the cleavage site of Dicer affects the relative position of the pri-miRNA, pre-miRNA loops, structural uncertainty30 and Dicer co-factors such as trans-activation responsive RNA-binding protein (TRBP)31.
Although alternative selection of cleavage sites by Drosha and Dicer during miRNA biogenesis contributes to the production of 3′ isomiRs, most 3′ isomiRs result from postmaturation modifications that occur almost exclusively at the 3′ end of miRNAs, unlike 5′ isomiRs32. These modifications basically include trimming (removal of nucleotides mediated by exonucleases) and tailing (addition of nucleotides mediated by terminal nucleotidyl transferases). Therefore, isomiRs include nontemplated nucleotides; for these reasons, it is difficult to track the origin of isomiRs33.
RNA methylation
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is one of the common RNA modifications in mammals. m6A RNA methylation plays key roles in the regulation of posttranscriptional gene expression, including effects on mRNAs, miRNAs and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). In addition, m6A methylation regulates various aspects of RNA metabolism, including RNA structure, maturation, stability, splicing, export, translation and decay34, and it is catalyzed by an RNA methyltransferase complex (Fig. 1d). Methyltransferase-like 3 (METTL3) and methyltransferase-like 14 (METTL14) are colocalized in nuclear spots and form a stable complex at a stoichiometric ratio of 1:135. METTL3 functions as a catalytic enzyme that binds to S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), while METTL14 plays a structural role in recognizing substrates36. Sometimes, the METTL3-METTL14 heterodimer requires adaptor proteins such as Wilms tumor 1-associated protein (WTAP)35. Furthermore, WTAP recruits many proteins and lncRNAs, indicating that WTAP functions as a gatherer of other factors to the methyltransferase complex37. Additionally, other adaptor proteins, such as KIAA142938, RNA-binding motif protein 15 (RBM15) and RBM15B39, have been reported to interact with the METTL3 complex, and downregulation of these adaptor proteins decreases the cellular m6A level. Additionally, METTL16 has been recently discovered as an m6A methyltransferase, which mainly methylates adenosine in 3ʹ UTRs, and its knockdown induced a decrease in m6A of up to 20%40. In contrast, fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) and AlkB homolog 5 (ALKBH5) are the only identified m6A demethylases. Their activity depends on Fe(ii) and α-ketoglutarate, as they use ferrous iron as a co-factor and α-ketoglutarate as a cosubstrate to oxidize the N-methyl group of the m6A site, and as expected, depletion or overexpression of these compounds altered the m6A status41.
Similar to DNA methylation, the biological functions of N-methylation in the m6A site are regulated by m6A “readers”42. The readers interact with RNAs by two different mechanisms: direct reading or indirect reading. Direct reading means selective binding to the m6A site of RNAs by m6A reader proteins; in contrast, indirect binding implies that the secondary structure of RNAs is changed by m6A modification, which contributes to the accessibility of the sequence by RNA-binding proteins (referred to as the “m6A switch”)43. YT521-B homology (YTB) family proteins, including YTHDF1-344 and YTHDC145, can directly bind to m6A-modified RNAs. Additionally, among the nuclear RNA-binding proteins related to pre-RNA processing, hnRNPA2B1 and hnRNPC are responsible for reading the m6A site in a direct and indirect way, respectively. hnRNPA2B1 can directly bind to m6A-modified RNA and regulate miRNA processing46. In addition, the presence of m6A modification in RNAs provides hnRNPC with greater access to their U-tract motifs47.
Alternative polyadenylation
For RNAs, 3′ end processing is also critical, similar to other RNA maturation mechanisms. After pre-RNAs are made by RNA polymerase II, the RNA must be processed through 3′ end cleavage and polyadenylation, referred to as simply polyadenylation. One pre-RNA can have multiple polyadenylation sites and generate multiple transcripts that only differ in 3′ terminal sequences, known as alternative polyadenylation (APA) (Fig. 1e). At least 70% of mammalian mRNAs have alternatively polyadenylated isoforms48.
Polyadenylation is regulated by cis-elements near the polyadenylation site (PAS). In mammals, upstream elements of the PAS include the sequence A[A/U]UAAA, U-rich elements and UGUA elements, and downstream elements consist of U-rich and GU-rich (typically in the form of GUGU) elements48. As with other elements, CA sequences, UAUA elements, and G-rich sequences are found near PASs49. As mentioned above, alternatively polyadenylated variants are commonly generated, particularly from upstream APA sites50. For example, the AAGAAA sequence in upstream APA sites is frequently observed50. Additionally, other APA elements, such as upstream UGUA sequences and downstream GU-rich sequences, are found less frequently50. These sites have weaker polyadenylation potential and may regulate cell proliferation and differentiation in development or disease processes.
Most APA sites are detected in the 3′ UTR and give rise to mRNA isoforms with different 3′ UTR lengths. 3′ UTR APA influences posttranscriptional regulation in diverse ways. For example, more than half of miRNAs target mRNAs by interacting with UTRs. By shortening the 3′ UTR of mRNAs, miRNA-mediated translation inhibition is broken, resulting in increased translation51. In addition, mRNAs can interact with RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) through the 3′ UTR region. In view of this fact, Berkovits and Mayr reported that altered 3′ UTR regions could function as scaffolds interacting with nascent proteins that affect cellular translocation52. Although most APA takes place in the 3′ UTR, the sequence upstream of the last exons, usually within introns, is also used to an APA site. Sites of APA upstream of the last exon [termed intronic polyadenylation (IpA) sites when polyadenylated within introns] can alter the translation regions of RNA, similar to making protein variants via alternative splicing. Additionally, proteins without apparent functions can be generated by APA in promoter-proximal introns53.
RNA variations function as cancer drivers
Alteration of RNA splicing in cancer
Over the past decade, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Program have increased the amount of cancer genome and transcriptome data for cancer tissues and normal tissues, respectively (Fig. 2 and Table 1). From these public databases, Kahles and colleagues demonstrated that alternative splicing events in cancer tissues occurred an average of 20% more often than those in normal tissues54. These phenomena may be linked to single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) within the genes that break the sequences necessary for canonical splicing. Tumor suppressors, but not oncogenes, are alternatively spliced due to SNV-induced mRNA sequence frameshifts resulting in intron retention (IR)54.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of RNA variants and RNA variation-associated factors in cancer.
The malfunctionated proteins can be made by alternative splicing, which regulates oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. Also, mRNA or pri-miRNA is edited through indicated RNA processings.
Table 1.
Studies of RNA variations in cancers.
| RNA variation types | Cancer types | Refs |
|---|---|---|
| Alternative Splicing | Glioma | 56 |
| Melanoma | 57 | |
| Prostate cancer | 58 | |
| Lymphoma | 59 | |
| Leukemia | 60 | |
| Myelodysplastic syndrome | 62 | |
| Liver cancer | 96 | |
| RNA editing | Ovarian cancer | 63 |
| Cervical cancer | 64 | |
| Myeloma | 65 | |
| Leukemia | 66 | |
| Breast cancer | 68 | |
| Gastric cancer | 69 | |
| Colorectal cancer | 70 | |
| Esophageal cancer | 71 | |
| Melanoma | 74 | |
| Glioma | 75,76 | |
| Lung cancer | 77 | |
| Liver cancer | 97 | |
| MicroRNA variation | Glioma | 80 |
| Breast cancer | 82 | |
| Lung cancer | 83 | |
| RNA methylation | Cervical cancer | 46 |
| Kidney cancer | 84 | |
| Melanoma | 85 | |
| Lung cancer | 86 | |
| Breast cancer | 87 | |
| leukemia | 88 | |
| Glioma | 89,90 | |
| Liver cancer | 98,99 | |
| Alternative polyadenylation | Leukemia | 53 |
| Sarcoma | 91 | |
| Lung cancer | 92 | |
| Breast cancer | 92 | |
| Colon cancer | 92 | |
| Myeloma | 93 | |
| Liver cancer | 100 |
Comprehensive analysis of alternative splicing across 32 TCGA cancer types from 8705 patients also showed novel splicing sites caused by mutations54. Interestingly, these alternative splicing events occurring in cancer cells elicit disturbances in the expression of certain genes, such as the immune-checkpoint blockade molecules programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and T cell-associated genes. The alternatively spliced PD-L1 gene leads to the production of a truncated and alternatively polyadenylated mRNA and secretion rather than membrane localization and can also negatively regulate T cell function55. It was also reported in glioma tissues that some antiangiogenic factors, for example, vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA), can be changed into pro-angiogenic isoforms in carcinogenesis56. In melanoma cells, overexpression of alternatively spliced Bcl-2-like protein 1 (BCL2L1, BCLXL) variants confers apoptotic resistance57. Furthermore, CD44, which promotes metastasis, has more than 20 alternatively spliced variants and these are common in various cancers58. In addition, it has been reported that more than 50% of nucleotide changes can induce splicing changes59,60. For instance, according to Supek and colleagues, silent mutations in cancer can affect RNA splicing in oncogenes61. As expected, RNAs with long introns are inclined to frequently cause splicing errors and result in the expression of protein-coding isoforms62.
RNA editing in cancer progression
Transcriptome analysis of different types of cancers revealed various forms and levels of RNA editing in cancer cells (Fig. 2 and Table 1). For instance, A-to-I editing patterns are decreased in brain cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, myeloma and leukemia63–66. However, a recent investigation has shown elevated editing levels in noncoding regions, such as intergenic, intronic and 3′ UTR regions, in thyroid, head and neck, breast and lung cancers compared to the levels in corresponding normal tissues, and these increases indicated poor patient survival67. These reports indicated potential roles of RNA editing in cancer progression and clinical outcomes.
Editing of the protein-coding region has an effect on protein functions. For example, gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor alpha 3 subunit (GABRA3) activates the AKT pathway to promote breast cancer cell migration, invasion and metastasis. However, A-to-I-edited GABRA3 has reduced cell surface expression and suppressed the activation of AKT required for cell migration and invasion in breast cancer metastasis68. In addition, RNA editing enzymes, such as ADARs, can play reciprocally oncogenic and tumor suppressive roles through their catalytic deaminase domains. In gastric cancer, ADAR2-induced editing of the podocalyxin-like (PODXL) gene confers a loss-of- function phenotype that neutralizes the tumorigenic ability of unedited PODXL69. Other RNA editing events in coding regions of the Ras homolog family member Q (RHOQ) gene in colorectal cancer70 and the solute carrier family 22 member 3 (SLC22A3) gene in esophageal cancer71 have been reported to contribute to cancer development.
While the RNA editing sites in coding regions directly alter protein sequences and functions, RNA editing in the 3′ UTR may regulate the binding of miRNAs. The negative correlation between 3′ UTR editing and miR-200 b/c results from repression of mouse double minute 2 homolog (MDM2) by miR-200b/c. Thus, editing in the 3′ UTR of the miRNA binding site of MDM2 may avoid translational repression by miR-200b/c, causing MDM2 overexpression72. Given the widespread presence of A-to-I RNA editing sites and microRNA binding sites in the 3′ UTR, RNA editing-regulated miRNA binding might be a common mechanism to control gene expression and may also play a role in physiological and pathophysiological conditions.
Premature forms of miRNAs, being dsRNA molecules, can undergo A-to-I editing at different stages of biogenesis, affecting their maturation and expression. Editing of miRNAs, particularly in the seed region, can significantly alter their target gene, and many miRNAs are aberrantly edited and change their targets in various cancers73. In melanoma, reduced editing of miR-455-5p promotes the growth and metastasis of cancer cells by causing it to target the tumor suppressor cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding protein 1 (CPEB1)74. In glioblastoma, modulation of miR-221/22275 and miR-376a editing showed antitumor effects by targeting the oncogene RAP2A (a member of the Ras family)76. Aberrant overexpression of ADAR1 in lung cancer is associated with poor prognosis in patients, as it enhances the editing frequencies of target transcripts such as Nei-like protein 1 (NEIL1) and miR-38177. Wang and colleagues systematically characterized the miRNA editing profiles of 8595 samples across 20 cancer types from miRNA sequencing data from TCGA and identified 19 A-to-I RNA editing hot spots78. Among these, they demonstrated that edited miR-200b can promote cell invasion and migration through its impaired ability to inhibit ZEB1/ZEB2 and concomitant ability to repress leukemia inhibitory factor receptor (LIFR), a well-characterized metastasis suppressor78.
miRNA heterogeneity in cancer
Multiple lines of evidence suggest that isomiRs possess unique biological roles. Recent reports indicate that naturally existing isoforms have distinct activities in a wide range of biological processes, including regulation of cytokine expression, facilitation of virus proliferation, promotion of apoptosis and repression of tumor progression. Since 5′ isomiRs usually have a different start position from the defined seed region, 5′ isomiRs may affect target interactions by shifting the seed sequences. This change can allow 5′ isomiRs to regulate noncanonical target genes79. A major concern regarding the biological function of 5′ isomiRs is that their expression levels are usually lower than those of their canonical form. Nevertheless, some 5′ isomiRs are expressed enough to function in specific tissues or diseased cells (Fig. 2 and Table 1). For example, in low-grade glioma tissues, a 5′ isomiR of miR-9 is even more expressed than miRNAs with well-known functions, such as let-7, miR-30 or miR-2180. Interestingly, miR-9 is produced by three paralog primary miRNAs (pri-miR-9-1, pri-miR-2 and pri-miR-9-3), but the 5′ isomiR of miR-9 is generated only from pri-miR-9-1. The unique structure of pri-miR-9-1 causes altered Drosha cleavage at other positions80. Thus, 5′ isomiR creation made by Drosha allows members of pri-miRNA families to achieve functional specialization. Now, this neofunctionalization is of special interest, given that more than 40% of miRNAs are members of a family, and approximately 14% are miRNA paralogs with similar mature sequences81. Likewise, recent studies report that 3′ isomiRs function as regulators of miRNA stability beyond intermediates of miRNA degradation. Additionally, the ratio of the 3′ isomiR to the canonical miRNA can be employed to distinguish different grades of cancer82. Additionally, it has been reported that many 3′ isomiRs have distinct activities from their canonical miRNAs83. However, because 3′ isomiRs, unlike 5′ isomiRs, share their seed region with canonical miRNAs, they may not affect target genes.
RNA methylation in cancer
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the most abundant internal modification in mRNA. Similar to DNA and histone modification, RNA methylation patterns play an important biological function in the regulation of different cellular processes, such as metabolism, embryonic development, and stem cell self-renewal. There have also been links between alterations in m6A levels and abnormal cellular differentiation states present in cancer. m6A modifications have been shown to play a role in leukemia, brain cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer. m6A modification has been suggested to contribute to cancer progression through alternative pre-mRNA splicing, RNA stability, miRNA processing and lncRNA splicing (Fig. 2 and Table 1)47,84,85. Recently, METTL3, an RNA methyltransferase, was demonstrated to promote translation in the cytoplasm in association with ribosomes in lung cancer86. METTL3 promotes the growth, survival, and invasion of human lung cancer cells by enhancing mRNA translation through an interaction with the translation initiation machinery. On the other hand, the exposure of breast cancer cells to hypoxic conditions, which is a critical feature of the tumor microenvironment, induces m6A demethylation by ALKBH5 and stabilization of NANOG mRNA, thereby promoting the breast cancer stem cell phenotype87. Aberrant m6A modification can affect acute myeloid leukemia (AML). For example, FTO, an m6A eraser, was highly expressed in AMLs with mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) rearrangements, PML (promyelocytic leukemia)-RARA (retinoic acid receptor alpha) translocations, and/or FLT3 (FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3)-ITD (internal tandem duplication) or NPM1 (nucleophosmin 1) mutations88. FTO knockdown also inhibits AML growth, indicating that FTO functions by modulating m6A modification. In glioblastoma, highly expressed ALKBH5, also functioning as an m6A eraser, was associated with a poor prognosis in glioblastoma patients89. Knockdown of ALKBH5 reduced the growth of glioblastoma, which could be recovered by catalytically wild-type ALKBH5 but not H204A-mutated ALKBH589. Differentiated glioblastoma stem cell (GSC) cell lines had an increased m6A level, while primary GSC cell lines showed a lower m6A level90. Inhibition of METTL3 or METTL14 promoted the growth and self-renewal of GSCs, but overexpression of wild-type METTL3 rather than functionally inactive METTL3 inhibited the growth and self-renewal of GSCs, demonstrating that METTL3 can regulate self-renewal of GSCs through its methyltransferase catalytic function90. Overall, m6A modifications and their regulatory proteins play a role in various types of cancers, and therefore, targeting m6A modifications may serve as an effective treatment strategy.
Alternative polyadenylation in cancer
Alternative polyadenylation (APA) is a molecular process that generates diversity at the 3′ end of transcripts from RNA polymerase II. Recent studies have particularly highlighted the importance of APA dysregulation in cancer (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Deregulation of APA has attracted increasing interest in cancer research because APA generates mRNA 3′ UTR isoforms with potentially different stabilities, subcellular localizations, translation efficiencies, and functions. APA isoforms generated from the same gene may only differ in the length of their 3′ UTRs. Thus, APA may increase the abundance of proto-oncogenes by shortening the 3′ UTR, which effectively eliminates the negative regulatory binding sites. There are several well-known examples of oncogenes with increased levels because of elimination of miRNA recognition sites through APA. For example, in some leukemia patients, upregulation of cyclin D1 is due to truncation of its 3′ UTR, which produces loss of miRNA recognition sites53. Similarly, cyclin D2 is also increased by the loss of the miRNA binding site in its 3′ UTR91. Notably, recent results also suggest that shortening of the 3′ UTR of an mRNA may allow release of miRNAs to suppress the expression of other mRNAs in trans, acting as competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) in lung cancer, breast cancer and colon cancer92.
In addition to regulating mRNA expression through APA, 3′ UTRs can also mediate mRNA–protein interactions and protein localization. For instance, APA of short or long isoforms of CD47 mRNA affects the interaction with different protein complexes and thereby guides CD47 localization to either the plasma membrane (long isoform) or the endoplasmic reticulum (short isoform) in breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian carcinoma, leukemia, sarcoma, glioblastoma and neuroblastoma52. Comprehensive analysis of APA sites and poly A tail lengths in 358 matched tumor-normal samples from seven TCGA datasets suggested that tumor-specific APA events produce the majority of short 3′ UTRs and the subsequent increased gene expression of oncogenes by enabling avoidance of miRNA-mediated gene regulation93. Altogether, APA appears to be highly tumor-specific and tissue-specific depending on the cancer type91,94,95.
The pathologic roles of RNA variations in liver cancer
RNA splicing is tightly regulated and closely interacts with genetic and epigenetic machinery. Tumor cells often take advantage of aberrant RNA splicing to develop, grow and progress into cancers. Splicing factor 3B subunit 4 (SF3B4) encodes a core protein in the mammalian SF3b complex, which is part of the U2‐type spliceosome that helps tether the U2 snRNP to the branch site. SF3B4 was overexpressed in a large cohort of HCC patients, and this aberrant overexpression was significantly associated with poor prognosis in HCC patients96. Aberrant expression of SF3B4 was demonstrated to modulate the expression of cell cycle and EMT proteins through spliceosome effects on the tumor suppressor kruppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
ADAR-mediated RNA editing is essential for survival in mammals; however, its dysregulation causes aberrant editing of its targets that may lead to cancer. ADAR1 is commonly overexpressed, for instance, in breast, lung, liver and esophageal cancer as well as in chronic myelogenous leukemia, where it promotes cancer progression. In hepatocellular carcinogenesis, antizyme inhibitor 1 (AZIN1) is edited to AZIN1-S367G, a more stable form of AZIN1 with a stronger affinity for antizyme than canonical AZIN1. Antizyme regulates cell growth by binding and degrading growth-promoting proteins such as ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) and cyclin D1 (CCND1), which are essential determinants of the G1/S cell cycle checkpoint. Compared to wild-type AZIN1, edited AZIN1-S367G has stronger antizyme binding and inhibits antizyme-mediated degradation of ODC and cyclin D1, thereby facilitating entry into the cell cycle and increasing the malignancy of liver cancer cells97.
m6A is the most abundant and important internal modification of RNA in viruses and eukaryotes. Accumulating evidence suggests that aberrant regulation of m6A turnover is associated with multiple types of cancer, including acute myeloid leukemia, breast cancer, glioblastoma, lung cancer, and liver cancer. The liver is a vital metabolic and digestive organ in pathophysiological processes. Recent studies have suggested that m6A RNA modification highly regulates hepatic function and the development of liver diseases. m6A modification is reduced in HCC tissues compared to normal hepatic tissues98. In HCC, METTL14 expression was decreased, and a negative correlation was observed between METTL14 expression and survival in HCC patients. In addition, immunoprecipitation assays showed that METTL14 coprecipitated with DGCR8, recognizing m6A-modified miRNA. miR-126 was decreased and unprocessed pri-miR-126 accumulated in METTL14-depleted cells. It worth noting that METTL14-depleted cells exhibited an enhanced growth rate and metastatic potential, indicating that METTL14 suppressed the malignant properties of HCCs by increasing m6A-dependent miR-126 expression98. However, METTL3 is significantly upregulated in HCC, and its overexpression is associated with poor prognosis in patients with HCC. Through m6A sequencing, suppressor of cytokine signaling 2 (SOCS2) was identified to be a target of METTL3-mediated m6A modification. As expected, when the expression of METTL3 was inhibited, SOCS2 mRNA m6A modification was abolished, and its mRNA level was also increased. In addition, m6A-mediated SOCS2 mRNA stability is regulated by YTHDF2, the m6A reader protein, the binding of which shortens the half-life of modified SOCS2 mRNA99. These reports suggest the role of m6A-mediated RNA modification in hepatocellular carcinogenesis.
The 3′ UTR alterations induced by APA are regulated by a variety of members of the cleavage and polyadenylation machinery. Nudix hydrolase 21 (NUDT21, also known as CFIm25 or CPSF5), an essential factor for RNA 3′ cleavage and polyadenylation, is involved in APA in HCC100. Low expression of NUDT21 is associated with poor prognosis in terms of overall and disease-free survival in patients with HCC. NUDT21 inhibited HCC proliferation, metastasis and tumorigenesis, at least in part, by suppressing proteasome subunit beta type-2 (PSMB2) and CXXC-type zinc finger protein 5 (CXXC5), acting as a tumor suppressor in hepatocellular carcinogenesis.
Overall, various RNA regulating factors may have critical roles in hepatocellular carcinogenesis (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of RNA variants and RNA variation-associated factors in liver cancer.
SF3B4 overexpression triggers aberrant splicing of KLF4 to produce non-functional transcripts. Adenosine-to-inosine editing of AZIN1 transcripts, specifically regulated by ADAR1, leads to a serine to glycine substitution at residue, which causes a conformational alteration.. m6A stimulates miRNA processing by recruiting the Drosha cofactor DGCR8 in the case of the miR-126a, by direct interaction with METTL14. METTL3 epigenetically silences SOCS2 expression through an m6A-YTHDF2-dependent degradation. Downregulation of NUDT21 increases usage of the proximal polyadenylation site in the PSMB2 and CXXC5 3′ UTRs, resulting in marked increase in the expression of PSMB2 and CXXC5 in hepatocellular carcinogenesis.
Conclusion
Although major developments in our understanding of cancer genomics and molecular biology have been made, the contribution of RNA variations and RNA variation-associated factors to cancer pathogenesis has not been fully elucidated. In this review, we summarized the role of RNA variations and their regulatory factors in diverse aspects of cancer development and progression. Indeed, with advanced technology, as increasingly advanced RNA variants are identified and intracellular functions become known, the pathogenic roles of these RNA variants in cancer development will become more detailed. The identification of functionally important pathologic RNA variants opens up the possibility of therapeutic interventions targeting RNA variants or RNA variation-associated factors in cancers. Thus, regulation of RNA variations could be an effective therapeutic approach for cancer therapy, and a number of approaches have been taken to develop compounds that can experimentally, and sometimes clinically, affect splicing control, resulting in potential novel therapeutics101. Therefore, in cancers, changes in the levels of both RNA variants and RNA variation-associated factors are likely to be potential molecular markers for cancer diagnosis and may provide new targets for research and contribute to the development of clinical molecular targeted therapies.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea (2017R1A2B3002989).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Flavahan, W. A., Gaskell, E. & Bernstein, B. E. Epigenetic plasticity and the hallmarks of cancer. Science357, eaal2380 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Obeng EA, Stewart C, Abdel-Wahab O. Altered RNA processing in cancer pathogenesis and therapy. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:1493–1510. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Jung H, et al. Intron retention is a widespread mechanism of tumor-suppressor inactivation. Nat. Genet. 2015;47:1242–1248. doi: 10.1038/ng.3414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ameres SL, Zamore PD. Diversifying microRNA sequence and function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013;14:475–488. doi: 10.1038/nrm3611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Consortium EP. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 2012;489:57–74. doi: 10.1038/nature11247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lee Y, Rio DC. Mechanisms and regulation of alternative Pre-mRNA splicing. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2015;84:291–323. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-034316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Anczukow O, et al. The splicing factor SRSF1 regulates apoptosis and proliferation to promote mammary epithelial cell transformation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2012;19:220–228. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Alsafadi S, et al. Cancer-associated SF3B1 mutations affect alternative splicing by promoting alternative branchpoint usage. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:10615. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wang ET, et al. Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature. 2008;456:470–476. doi: 10.1038/nature07509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lim KH, Ferraris L, Filloux ME, Raphael BJ, Fairbrother WG. Using positional distribution to identify splicing elements and predict pre-mRNA processing defects in human genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:11093–11098. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101135108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kornblihtt AR. Promoter usage and alternative splicing. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2005;17:262–268. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2005.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Luco RF, et al. Regulation of alternative splicing by histone modifications. Science. 2010;327:996–1000. doi: 10.1126/science.1184208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Pradeepa MM, Sutherland HG, Ule J, Grimes GR, Bickmore WA. Psip1/Ledgf p52 binds methylated histone H3K36 and splicing factors and contributes to the regulation of alternative splicing. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bass BL, Weintraub H. A developmentally regulated activity that unwinds RNA duplexes. Cell. 1987;48:607–613. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(87)90239-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Melcher T, et al. A mammalian RNA editing enzyme. Nature. 1996;379:460–464. doi: 10.1038/379460a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Christofi T, Zaravinos A. RNA editing in the forefront of epitranscriptomics and human health. J. Transl. Med. 2019;17:319. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-2071-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Park E, Williams B, Wold BJ, Mortazavi A. RNA editing in the human ENCODE RNA-seq data. Genome Res. 2012;22:1626–1633. doi: 10.1101/gr.134957.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Peng Z, et al. Comprehensive analysis of RNA-Seq data reveals extensive RNA editing in a human transcriptome. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012;30:253–260. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bazak L, et al. A-to-I RNA editing occurs at over a hundred million genomic sites, located in a majority of human genes. Genome Res. 2014;24:365–376. doi: 10.1101/gr.164749.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Yang W, et al. Modulation of microRNA processing and expression through RNA editing by ADAR deaminases. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2006;13:13–21. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Salter JD, Bennett RP, Smith HC. The APOBEC Protein Family: United by Structure, Divergent in Function. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2016;41:578–594. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2016.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Teng B, Burant CF, Davidson NO. Molecular cloning of an apolipoprotein B messenger RNA editing protein. Science. 1993;260:1816–1819. doi: 10.1126/science.8511591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rosenberg BR, Hamilton CE, Mwangi MM, Dewell S, Papavasiliou FN. Transcriptome-wide sequencing reveals numerous APOBEC1 mRNA-editing targets in transcript 3’ UTRs. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2011;18:230–236. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sharma S, Patnaik SK, Kemer Z, Baysal BE. Transient overexpression of exogenous APOBEC3A causes C-to-U RNA editing of thousands of genes. RNA Biol. 2017;14:603–610. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2016.1184387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Baysal BE, Sharma S, Hashemikhabir S, Janga SC. RNA editing in pathogenesis of cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77:3733–3739. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Swanton C, McGranahan N, Starrett GJ, Harris RS. APOBEC enzymes: mutagenic fuel for cancer evolution and heterogeneity. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:704–712. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kim B, Jeong K, Kim VN. Genome-wide mapping of DROSHA cleavage sites on primary MicroRNAs and noncanonical substrates. Mol. Cell. 2017;66:258–269 e255. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kwon SC, et al. Molecular basis for the single-nucleotide precision of primary microRNA processing. Mol. Cell. 2019;73:505–518 e505. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Michlewski G, Caceres JF. Post-transcriptional control of miRNA biogenesis. RNA. 2019;25:1–16. doi: 10.1261/rna.068692.118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gu S, et al. The loop position of shRNAs and pre-miRNAs is critical for the accuracy of dicer processing in vivo. Cell. 2012;151:900–911. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhu L, Kandasamy SK, Fukunaga R. Dicer partner protein tunes the length of miRNAs using base-mismatch in the pre-miRNA stem. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:3726–3741. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gebert LFR, MacRae IJ. Regulation of microRNA function in animals. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019;20:21–37. doi: 10.1038/s41580-018-0045-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bofill-De Ros X, et al. QuagmiR: a cloud-based application for isomiR big data analytics. Bioinformatics. 2019;35:1576–1578. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zhao BS, Roundtree IA, He C. Post-transcriptional gene regulation by mRNA modifications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017;18:31–42. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2016.132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Liu J, et al. A METTL3-METTL14 complex mediates mammalian nuclear RNA N6-adenosine methylation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2014;10:93–95. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Wang P, Doxtader KA, Nam Y. Structural basis for cooperative function of Mettl3 and Mettl14 methyltransferases. Mol. Cell. 2016;63:306–317. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.05.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Horiuchi K, et al. Identification of Wilms’ tumor 1-associating protein complex and its role in alternative splicing and the cell cycle. J. Biol. Chem. 2013;288:33292–33302. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.500397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Schwartz S, et al. Perturbation of m6A writers reveals two distinct classes of mRNA methylation at internal and 5’ sites. Cell Rep. 2014;8:284–296. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Patil DP, et al. m(6)A RNA methylation promotes XIST-mediated transcriptional repression. Nature. 2016;537:369–373. doi: 10.1038/nature19342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Pendleton KE, et al. The U6 snRNA m(6)A methyltransferase METTL16 regulates SAM synthetase intron retention. Cell. 2017;169:824–835 e814. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zheng G, et al. ALKBH5 is a mammalian RNA demethylase that impacts RNA metabolism and mouse fertility. Mol. Cell. 2013;49:18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Fu Y, Dominissini D, Rechavi G, He C. Gene expression regulation mediated through reversible m(6)A RNA methylation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2014;15:293–306. doi: 10.1038/nrg3724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Dai D, Wang H, Zhu L, Jin H, Wang X. N6-methyladenosine links RNA metabolism to cancer progression. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9:124. doi: 10.1038/s41419-017-0129-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dominissini D, et al. Topology of the human and mouse m6A RNA methylomes revealed by m6A-seq. Nature. 2012;485:201–206. doi: 10.1038/nature11112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Zhou KI, et al. Regulation of co-transcriptional pre-mRNA splicing by m(6)A through the low-complexity protein hnRNPG. Mol. Cell. 2019;76:70–81 e79. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Alarcon CR, et al. HNRNPA2B1 Is a mediator of m(6)A-dependent nuclear RNA processing events. Cell. 2015;162:1299–1308. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Liu N, et al. N(6)-methyladenosine-dependent RNA structural switches regulate RNA-protein interactions. Nature. 2015;518:560–564. doi: 10.1038/nature14234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Tian B, Manley JL. Alternative polyadenylation of mRNA precursors. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2017;18:18–30. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2016.116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hu J, Lutz CS, Wilusz J, Tian B. Bioinformatic identification of candidate cis-regulatory elements involved in human mRNA polyadenylation. RNA. 2005;11:1485–1493. doi: 10.1261/rna.2107305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Tian B, Hu J, Zhang H, Lutz CS. A large-scale analysis of mRNA polyadenylation of human and mouse genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:201–212. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Sandberg R, Neilson JR, Sarma A, Sharp PA, Burge CB. Proliferating cells express mRNAs with shortened 3’ untranslated regions and fewer microRNA target sites. Science. 2008;320:1643–1647. doi: 10.1126/science.1155390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Berkovits BD, Mayr C. Alternative 3’ UTRs act as scaffolds to regulate membrane protein localization. Nature. 2015;522:363–367. doi: 10.1038/nature14321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Lee SH, et al. Widespread intronic polyadenylation inactivates tumour suppressor genes in leukaemia. Nature. 2018;561:127–131. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0465-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Kahles A, et al. Comprehensive Analysis of Alternative Splicing Across Tumors from 8,705 Patients. Cancer Cell. 2018;34:211–224 e216. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hassounah NB, et al. Identification and characterization of an alternative cancer-derived PD-L1 splice variant. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2019;68:407–420. doi: 10.1007/s00262-018-2284-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Shen CC, et al. Two novel heparin-binding vascular endothelial growth factor splices, L-VEGF144 and L-VEGF138, are expressed in human glioblastoma cells. Curr. Neurovasc. Res. 2016;13:207–218. doi: 10.2174/1567202613666160525115446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Hossini AM, Geilen CC, Fecker LF, Daniel PT, Eberle J. A novel Bcl-x splice product, Bcl-xAK, triggers apoptosis in human melanoma cells without BH3 domain. Oncogene. 2006;25:2160–2169. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Zeng Y, et al. Stress-response protein RBM3 attenuates the stem-like properties of prostate cancer cells by interfering with CD44 variant splicing. Cancer Res. 2013;73:4123–4133. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Pickrell JK, Pai AA, Gilad Y, Pritchard JK. Noisy splicing drives mRNA isoform diversity in human cells. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1001236. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Yoshida K, et al. Frequent pathway mutations of splicing machinery in myelodysplasia. Nature. 2011;478:64–69. doi: 10.1038/nature10496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Supek F, Minana B, Valcarcel J, Gabaldon T, Lehner B. Synonymous mutations frequently act as driver mutations in human cancers. Cell. 2014;156:1324–1335. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Malcovati L, et al. SF3B1 mutation identifies a distinct subset of myelodysplastic syndrome with ring sideroblasts. Blood. 2015;126:233–241. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-03-633537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Peng X, et al. A-to-I RNA editing contributes to proteomic diversity in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:817–828 e817. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Chen Y, Wang H, Lin W, Shuai P. ADAR1 overexpression is associated with cervical cancer progression and angiogenesis. Diagn. Pathol. 2017;12:12. doi: 10.1186/s13000-017-0600-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Teoh PJ, et al. Aberrant hyperediting of the myeloma transcriptome by ADAR1 confers oncogenicity and is a marker of poor prognosis. Blood. 2018;132:1304–1317. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-02-832576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Zipeto MA, et al. ADAR1 activation drives leukemia stem cell self-renewal by impairing Let-7 biogenesis. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;19:177–191. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Han L, et al. The genomic landscape and clinical relevance of A-to-I RNA editing in human cancers. Cancer Cell. 2015;28:515–528. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.08.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Gumireddy K, et al. The mRNA-edited form of GABRA3 suppresses GABRA3-mediated Akt activation and breast cancer metastasis. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:10715. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Chan TH, et al. ADAR-mediated RNA editing predicts progression and prognosis of gastric cancer. Gastroenterology. 2016;151:637–650 e610. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Han SW, et al. RNA editing in RHOQ promotes invasion potential in colorectal cancer. J. Exp. Med. 2014;211:613–621. doi: 10.1084/jem.20132209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Fu L, et al. RNA editing of SLC22A3 drives early tumor invasion and metastasis in familial esophageal cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:E4631–E4640. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1703178114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Zhang L, Yang CS, Varelas X, Monti S. Altered RNA editing in 3’ UTR perturbs microRNA-mediated regulation of oncogenes and tumor-suppressors. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:23226. doi: 10.1038/srep23226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Kawahara Y, et al. Redirection of silencing targets by adenosine-to-inosine editing of miRNAs. Science. 2007;315:1137–1140. doi: 10.1126/science.1138050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Shoshan E, et al. Reduced adenosine-to-inosine miR-455-5p editing promotes melanoma growth and metastasis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2015;17:311–321. doi: 10.1038/ncb3110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Tomaselli S, et al. Modulation of microRNA editing, expression and processing by ADAR2 deaminase in glioblastoma. Genome Biol. 2015;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0575-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Choudhury Y, et al. Attenuated adenosine-to-inosine editing of microRNA-376a* promotes invasiveness of glioblastoma cells. J. Clin. Invest. 2012;122:4059–4076. doi: 10.1172/JCI62925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Anadon C, et al. Gene amplification-associated overexpression of the RNA editing enzyme ADAR1 enhances human lung tumorigenesis. Oncogene. 2016;35:4422. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Wang Y, et al. Systematic characterization of A-to-I RNA editing hotspots in microRNAs across human cancers. Genome Res. 2017;27:1112–1125. doi: 10.1101/gr.219741.116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Tan GC, et al. 5’ isomiR variation is of functional and evolutionary importance. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:9424–9435. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Bofill-De Ros X, et al. Structural differences between Pri-miRNA paralogs promote alternative drosha cleavage and expand target repertoires. Cell Rep. 2019;26:447–459 e444. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Bofill-De Ros, X., Yang, A. & Gu, S. IsomiRs: Expanding the miRNA repression toolbox beyond the seed. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gene Regul. Mech.1863, 194373, (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 82.Telonis AG, Loher P, Jing Y, Londin E, Rigoutsos I. Beyond the one-locus-one-miRNA paradigm: microRNA isoforms enable deeper insights into breast cancer heterogeneity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:9158–9175. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Jones MR, et al. Zcchc11-dependent uridylation of microRNA directs cytokine expression. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009;11:1157–1163. doi: 10.1038/ncb1931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Green NH, et al. MTHFD2 links RNA methylation to metabolic reprogramming in renal cell carcinoma. Oncogene. 2019;38:6211–6225. doi: 10.1038/s41388-019-0869-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Yang S, et al. m(6)A mRNA demethylase FTO regulates melanoma tumorigenicity and response to anti-PD-1 blockade. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:2782. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10669-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Lin S, Choe J, Du P, Triboulet R, Gregory RI. The m(6)A methyltransferase METTL3 promotes translation in human cancer cells. Mol. Cell. 2016;62:335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.03.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Zhang C, et al. Hypoxia induces the breast cancer stem cell phenotype by HIF-dependent and ALKBH5-mediated m(6)A-demethylation of NANOG mRNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:E2047–E2056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602883113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Li Z, et al. FTO plays an oncogenic role in acute myeloid leukemia as a N(6)-methyladenosine RNA demethylase. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.11.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Zhang S, et al. m(6)A demethylase ALKBH5 maintains tumorigenicity of glioblastoma stem-like cells by sustaining FOXM1 expression and cell proliferation program. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:591–606 e596. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.02.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Cui Q, et al. m(6)A RNA methylation regulates the self-renewal and tumorigenesis of glioblastoma stem cells. Cell Rep. 2017;18:2622–2634. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.02.059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Mayr C, Bartel DP. Widespread shortening of 3’UTRs by alternative cleavage and polyadenylation activates oncogenes in cancer cells. Cell. 2009;138:673–684. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.06.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Park HJ, et al. 3’ UTR shortening represses tumor-suppressor genes in trans by disrupting ceRNA crosstalk. Nat. Genet. 2018;50:783–789. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0118-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Xia Z, et al. Dynamic analyses of alternative polyadenylation from RNA-seq reveal a 3’-UTR landscape across seven tumour types. Nat. Commun. 2014;5:5274. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Singh I, et al. Widespread intronic polyadenylation diversifies immune cell transcriptomes. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:1716. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04112-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Mroczek S, et al. The non-canonical poly(A) polymerase FAM46C acts as an onco-suppressor in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 2017;8:619. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00578-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Shen Q, et al. Barrier to autointegration factor 1, procollagen-lysine, 2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 3, and splicing factor 3b subunit 4 as early-stage cancer decision markers and drivers of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018;67:1360–1377. doi: 10.1002/hep.29606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Chen L, et al. Recoding RNA editing of AZIN1 predisposes to hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat. Med. 2013;19:209–216. doi: 10.1038/nm.3043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Ma JZ, et al. METTL14 suppresses the metastatic potential of hepatocellular carcinoma by modulating N(6) -methyladenosine-dependent primary MicroRNA processing. Hepatology. 2017;65:529–543. doi: 10.1002/hep.28885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Chen M, et al. RNA N6-methyladenosine methyltransferase-like 3 promotes liver cancer progression through YTHDF2-dependent posttranscriptional silencing of SOCS2. Hepatology. 2018;67:2254–2270. doi: 10.1002/hep.29683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Tan S, et al. NUDT21 negatively regulates PSMB2 and CXXC5 by alternative polyadenylation and contributes to hepatocellular carcinoma suppression. Oncogene. 2018;37:4887–4900. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0280-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Bates DO, Morris JC, Oltean S, Donaldson LF. Pharmacology of modulators of alternative splicing. Pharm. Rev. 2017;69:63–79. doi: 10.1124/pr.115.011239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]



