A new system for analyzing LINE retrotransposition in the chicken DT40 cell line widely used for reverse genetics

SINE Retrotransposition: Evaluation of Alu Activity and Recovery of De Novo Inserts

Mobile element activity is of great interest due to its impact on genomes. However, the types of mobile elements that inhabit any given genome are remarkably varied. Among the different varieties of mobile elements, the Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) populate many genomes, including many mammalian species. Although SINEs are parasites of Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs), SINEs have been highly successful in both the primate and rodent genomes. When comparing copy numbers in mammals, SINEs have been vastly more successful than other nonautonomous elements, such as the retropseudogenes and SVA. Interestingly, in the human genome the copy number of Alu (a primate SINE) outnumbers LINE-1 (L1) copies 2 to 1. Estimates suggest that the retrotransposition rate for Alu is tenfold higher than LINE-1 with about 1 insert in every twenty births. Furthermore, Alu-induced mutagenesis is responsible for the majority of the documented instances of human retroelement insertion-induced disease. However, little is known on what contributes to these observed differences between SINEs and LINEs. The development of an assay to monitor SINE retrotransposition in culture has become an important tool for the elucidation of some of these differences. In this chapter, we present details of the SINE retrotransposition assay and the recovery of de novo inserts. We also focus on the nuances that are unique to the SINE assay.

Integrated mechanism for the generation of the 5' junctions of LINE inserts

To elucidate the molecular mechanism of the integration of long interspersed elements (LINEs), we characterized the 5′ ends of more than 200 LINE de novo retrotransposition events into chicken DT40 or human HeLa cells. Human L1 inserts produced 15-bp target-site duplications (TSDs) and zebrafish ZfL2-1 inserts produced 5-bp TSDs in DT40 cells, suggesting that TSD length depends on the LINE species. Further analysis of 5′ junctions revealed that the 5′-end-joining pathways of LINEs can be divided into two fundamental types—annealing or direct. We also found that the generation of 5′ inversions depends on host and LINE species. These results led us to propose a new model for 5′-end joining, the type of which is determined by the extent of exposure of 3′ overhangs generated after the second-strand cleavage and by the involvement of host factors.

Control of chicken CR1 retrotransposons is independent of Dicer-mediated RNA interference pathway

BACKGROUND

Dicer is an RNase III-ribonuclease that initiates the formation of small interfering RNAs as a defence against genomic parasites such as retrotransposons. Despite intensive characterization in mammalian species, the biological functions of Dicer in controlling retrotransposable elements of the non-mammalian vertebrate are poorly understood. In this report, we examine the role of chicken Dicer in controlling the activity of chicken CR1 retrotransposable elements in a chicken-human hybrid DT40 cell line employing a conditional loss-of-Dicer function.

RESULTS

Retrotransposition is detrimental to host genome stability and thus eukaryotic cells have developed mechanisms to limit the expansion of retrotransposons by Dicer-mediated RNAi silencing pathways. However, the mechanisms that control the activity and copy numbers of transposable elements in chicken remain unclear. Here, we describe how the loss of Dicer in chicken cells does not reactivate endogenous chicken CR1 retrotransposons with impaired RNAi machinery, suggesting that the control of chicken CR1 is independent of Dicer-induced RNAi silencing. In contrast, upon introduction of a functionally active human L1 retrotransposable element that contains an active 5' UTR promoter, the Dicer-deficient chicken cells show a strong increase in the accumulation of human L1 transcripts and retrotransposition activity, highlighting a major difference between chicken CR1 and other mammalian L1 retrotransposons.

CONCLUSION

Our data provide evidence that chicken CR1 retrotransposons, unlike their mammalian L1 counterparts, do not undergo retrotransposition because most CR1 retrotransposons are truncated or mutated at their 5'UTR promoters and thus are not subjected to Dicer-mediated RNAi-silencing control.

Genetic evidence that the non-homologous end-joining repair pathway is involved in LINE retrotransposition

Long interspersed elements (LINEs) are transposable elements that proliferate within eukaryotic genomes, having a large impact on eukaryotic genome evolution. LINEs mobilize via a process called retrotransposition. Although the role of the LINE-encoded protein(s) in retrotransposition has been extensively investigated, the participation of host-encoded factors in retrotransposition remains unclear. To address this issue, we examined retrotransposition frequencies of two structurally different LINEs—zebrafish ZfL2-2 and human L1—in knockout chicken DT40 cell lines deficient in genes involved in the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair of DNA and in human HeLa cells treated with a drug that inhibits NHEJ. Deficiencies of NHEJ proteins decreased retrotransposition frequencies of both LINEs in these cells, suggesting that NHEJ is involved in LINE retrotransposition. More precise characterization of ZfL2-2 insertions in DT40 cells permitted us to consider the possibility of dual roles for NHEJ in LINE retrotransposition, namely to ensure efficient integration of LINEs and to restrict their full-length formation.

Long interspersed elements (LINEs) are transposable elements that mobilize and amplify their own copies within eukaryotic genomes. Although LINEs had been considered as “junk” DNA, recent studies have suggested that the LINE-induced alterations of host chromosomes are a major driving force for eukaryotic genome evolution. LINEs mobilize via a mechanism called retrotransposition, in which transcribed LINE RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA that is then integrated into the host chromosome. Although the role of LINE-encoded proteins in retrotransposition has been revealed, the participation of host-encoded proteins has not been well investigated. Here, using knockout chicken DT40 cell lines, we present genetic evidence that the host-encoded proteins involved in repair of DNA double-strand breaks participate in LINE retrotransposition. More precise characterization of LINE insertions in DT40 cells suggested dual roles for these host DNA repair proteins in LINE retrotransposition; one function is required for efficient integration of LINEs and the other restricts their full-length formation.