Ben-Asher, N. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2025

RNA binding by ADARs prevents RNA interference from attacking self-produced dsRNA

The ability of an organism to identify self and foreign RNA is central to eliciting an immune response in times of need while avoiding autoimmunity. As viral pathogens typically employ double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), host identification, modulation, and response to dsRNA is key. However, dsRNA is also abundant in host transcriptomes, raising the question of how these molecules can be differentiated. Two host pathways that regulate dsRNA are A-to-I RNA editing by adenosine deaminases (ADARs), and RNA interference (RNAi). Both mechanisms are important for normal organism development and function by regulating gene expression. Herein, we studied the structure and amount of siRNAs at editing sites and the ability of ADARs to prevent exogenous RNAi using the model organism, Caenorhabditis elegans. We found that the number of siRNAs targeting edited genes is significantly upregulated in ADAR mutant animals. We also found that despite an almost complete depletion of primary siRNAs generated from editing sites in wildtype animals, secondary siRNAs are generated from edited transcripts, suggesting ADARs antagonize only the first step of RNAi processing. We show that ADARs interfere with the efficacy of exogenous RNAi in vivo, probably to prevent trans-silencing, and have indications that ADR-2 binding to the dsRNA is needed for the efficient prevention of RNAi. This work sheds light on how the RNA editing process protects self-produced dsRNAs from aberrant recognition by the immune processes in the cell and from by-product degradation. Graphical abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=152 SRC="FIGDIR/small/672520v2_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (72K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@b34f2corg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@130c88org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@9be2eborg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@4ebeec_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

cell biology↗

bioRxiv2018

Disruption in A-to-I editing levels affects C. elegans development more than a complete lack of editing

A-to-I RNA editing is widespread in eukaryotic transcriptomes and plays an essential role in the creation of proteomic and phenotypic diversity. Loss of ADARs, the proteins responsible for A-to-I editing, results in lethality in mammals. In C. elegans, knocking out both ADARs, ADR-1 and ADR-2, results in aberrant behavior and abnormal development. Studies have shown that ADR-2 can actively deaminate dsRNA while ADR-1 cannot. However, as most studies of C. elegans ADARs were performed on worms mutated in both ADAR genes, the effects observed cannot be attributed to a single ADAR or to the interactions between ADAR genes. Therefore, we set to study the effects of each C. elegans ADAR on RNA editing, gene expression, protein levels and the contribution of each of ADAR to the phenotypes observed in worms mutated in both genes, in order to elucidate their distinct functions. We found significant differences in the phenotypes observed in worms mutated in a single ADAR gene. Worms harboring adr-1 mutations have a significant reduction in their lifespan, while worms harboring adr-2 mutations have extended lifespan. We also observed severe abnormalities in vulva formation in adr-1 mutants, and we suggest that these phenotypes are a result of an RNA editing independent function of ADR-1. Mutations in each ADAR resulted in expressional changes in hundreds of genes, and a significant downregulation of edited genes. However, very few changes in the protein levels were observed. In addition, we found that ADR-1 binds many edited genes and primarily promotes editing at the L4 stage of development. While editing still occurs in the absence of ADR-1, most of the editing occurs in genes that are edited in wildtype worms, suggesting that ADR-1 does not prevent editing by binding to and protecting the RNA but rather enhances or promotes editing. Our results suggest that ADR-1 plays a significant role in the RNA editing process and by altering editing levels it causes the severe phenotypes that we observed. In contrast, a complete lack of RNA editing is less harmful to the worms. Furthermore, our results indicate that the effect of RNA editing on the protein content in the cell is minor and probably the main purpose of these modifications is to antagonize or enhance other gene regulatory mechanisms that act on RNA.

genomics↗