CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7RNA Research and SplicingRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsNuclear Structure and Function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A unique mechanism of snRNP core assembly

Open access
Wang, Yingzhi, Chen, Xiaoshuang, Kong, Xi, Chen, Yunfeng, Xiang, Zixi, Xiang, Yue, Hu, Yan, Hou, Yan, Zhou, Shijie, Shen, Congcong, Mu, Li, Su, Dan, Zhang, Rundong·2025·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-58461-7PMC PMC11965559

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT The assembly of spliceosomal snRNP cores involves seven Sm proteins (D1/D2/F/E/G/D3/B) forming a ring around each snRNA and typically requires several essential assembly chaperones, particularly the SMN-Gemins complex implicated in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Strikingly, in budding yeast, snRNP core assembly only involves Brr1, a nonessential homolog of Gemin2. To unravel this enigma, we systematically investigated snRNP core assembly in budding yeast using biochemical and genetic approaches. We discovered two distinct pathways in budding yeast: chaperone-mediated and direct. The chaperone-mediated pathway involves two proteins, Brr1 and a novel protein, Lot5, but is inefficient. Lot5 binds D1/D2/F/E/G to form a heterohexameric ring (6S). Brr1 binds D1/D2/F/E/G and 6S but cannot displace Lot5 to facilitate assembly. Disruption of both BRR1 and LOT5 genes caused mild growth retardation, but LOT5 overexpression substantially impeded growth. The direct pathway uniquely involves F/E/G as a trimer and a stable D1/D2/F/E/G intermediate complex, explaining the non-essentiality of assembly chaperones. These findings unveil a unique assembly mechanism of snRNP cores, illuminate the evolution of assembly chaperones, and suggest avenues for studying SMA pathophysiology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-025-58461-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Alignment of Lot5 with pICln homologs and identification of proteins interacting with Lot5 and Brr1. a Sequence alignment of Lot5 (Yeast_Sc) with pICln homologs from various species. Secondary structures (β0-β7 strands, 310 and α helices) are annotated based on the crystal structure of fruit fly pICln (PDB: 4F7U). Conserved residues are highlighted in blue, with the intensity of the color reflecting the level of conservation. b Structural alignment between the AlphaFold structure model of Lot5 (residues 1–227) (β0-β7 strands are colored in blue, α helix in purple, other α helices in pink, and loops in orange) and the structure of fruit fly pICln (in grey); c, d Identification of proteins interacting with the N-terminally TAP-tagged Lot5 or Brr1 by a pull-down assay followed by Western blot analysis probed with a FLAG-antibody (c) and silver staining (d), as well as mass spectrometry analysis (Supplementary Table 1). EGFP served as a control. For each set, a representative result from two independent experiments is shown.
Fig. 1 Alignment of Lot5 with pICln homologs and identification of proteins interacting with Lot5 and Brr1. a Sequence alignment of Lot5 (Yeast_Sc) with pICln homologs from various species. Secondary structures (β0-β7 strands, 310 and α helices) are annotated based on the crystal structure of fruit fly pICln (PDB: 4F7U). Conserved residues are highlighted in blue, with the intensity of the color reflecting the level of conservation. b Structural alignment between the AlphaFold structure model of Lot5 (residues 1–227) (β0-β7 strands are colored in blue, α helix in purple, other α helices in pink, and loops in orange) and the structure of fruit fly pICln (in grey); c, d Identification of proteins interacting with the N-terminally TAP-tagged Lot5 or Brr1 by a pull-down assay followed by Western blot analysis probed with a FLAG-antibody (c) and silver staining (d), as well as mass spectrometry analysis (Supplementary Table 1). EGFP served as a control. For each set, a representative result from two independent experiments is shown.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Oligomerization states of 3 Sm subcomplexes from S. cerevisiae and their interactions. Interactions among Sm subcomplexes were tested by a pull-down assay. In each reaction, only one Sm subcomplex, D1/D2 (a) or F/E/G (b), was tagged with His-TEV (HT-), while the other subcomplex(es) had the HT-tag removed. The indicated Sm subcomplexes were incubated and then pulled down using Ni-beads. M markers. The oligomerization states of D3/B (c), D1/D2 (d), and F/E/G (e) and the interaction between D1/D2 and F/E/G (f) were tested using GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (indicated by red bars) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). For each set, a representative result from two independent experiments is shown. g Summary of the oligomerization states and interactions of the three Sm subcomplexes.
Fig. 2 Oligomerization states of 3 Sm subcomplexes from S. cerevisiae and their interactions. Interactions among Sm subcomplexes were tested by a pull-down assay. In each reaction, only one Sm subcomplex, D1/D2 (a) or F/E/G (b), was tagged with His-TEV (HT-), while the other subcomplex(es) had the HT-tag removed. The indicated Sm subcomplexes were incubated and then pulled down using Ni-beads. M markers. The oligomerization states of D3/B (c), D1/D2 (d), and F/E/G (e) and the interaction between D1/D2 and F/E/G (f) were tested using GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (indicated by red bars) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). For each set, a representative result from two independent experiments is shown. g Summary of the oligomerization states and interactions of the three Sm subcomplexes.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Lot5 acts as a pICln homolog in interacting with the Sm subcomplexes and snRNA. The binding assay was performed using full-length Lot5 from S. cerevisiae (a) or a C-terminally truncated form of Lot5 (b), with each of the three Sm subcomplexes individually and together. The interaction was assessed through a pull-down assay using Ni-beads. M markers. c–f Complexation assays. Lot5 alone (c) or equimolar amounts of Lot5 mixed with D1/D2 (d), D3/B (e), or 5Sm (f), was subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (indicated by red bars) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). The blue arrowheads indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (D1/D2, D3/B, and 5Sm) for comparison. g Lot5 blocks snRNA binding to the Sm subcore and core. Reconstituted 5Sm or 6S, either alone or together with D3/B, was pre-incubated with Umini-snRNA or Umini-ΔSm-snRNA (as a control) and subjected to electrophoresis mobility shift assay (EMSA). h The protein components binding to Umini-snRNA, of the shifted bands in (g), were analyzed using SDS-PAGE/CBB staining. For each set, one representative of at least two independent experiments is shown. i A cartoon model of the interactions of Lot5 with the Sm proteins and snRNA.
Fig. 3 Lot5 acts as a pICln homolog in interacting with the Sm subcomplexes and snRNA. The binding assay was performed using full-length Lot5 from S. cerevisiae (a) or a C-terminally truncated form of Lot5 (b), with each of the three Sm subcomplexes individually and together. The interaction was assessed through a pull-down assay using Ni-beads. M markers. c–f Complexation assays. Lot5 alone (c) or equimolar amounts of Lot5 mixed with D1/D2 (d), D3/B (e), or 5Sm (f), was subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (indicated by red bars) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). The blue arrowheads indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (D1/D2, D3/B, and 5Sm) for comparison. g Lot5 blocks snRNA binding to the Sm subcore and core. Reconstituted 5Sm or 6S, either alone or together with D3/B, was pre-incubated with Umini-snRNA or Umini-ΔSm-snRNA (as a control) and subjected to electrophoresis mobility shift assay (EMSA). h The protein components binding to Umini-snRNA, of the shifted bands in (g), were analyzed using SDS-PAGE/CBB staining. For each set, one representative of at least two independent experiments is shown. i A cartoon model of the interactions of Lot5 with the Sm proteins and snRNA.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Brr1 acts like Gemin2/SMNGe2BD in interacting with the Sm subcomplexes and snRNA. a The binding assay was performed using S. cerevisiae Brr1 with each of the three Sm subcomplexes individually and together. The interaction was assessed through a pull-down assay using Ni-beads. b–d Complexation assays. Brr1 alone (b), or equimolar amounts of Brr1 mixed with F/E/G (c) or 5Sm (d), were subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (red bar) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). Blue arrowheads indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (F/E/G and 5Sm) for comparison. e The role of Brr1 in assembly of the Sm subcore and core was assessed using EMSA. Reconstituted 5Sm or Brr1/5Sm, either alone or together with D3/B, was pre-incubated with Umini, Umini-3′ss, Umini-3′Δ, or Umini-ΔSm snRNA and subjected to EMSA. f–i Ni-beads pull-down assays were performed to test the dissociation of Brr1 from Sm core assembly. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. The forward reaction was initiated with either HT-Brr1/5Sm (f) or 5Sm (HT-D2) as a positive control (g) and incubated with D3/B and Umini-snRNA. The reverse reaction started with pre-assembled Sm core (HT-B) (h) or HT-B/D3 plus Umini-snRNA (i) and incubated with Brr1. The samples were then analyzed using SDS-PAGE /CBB staining and GelRed staining. For each set, one representative of at least two independent experiments is shown.
Fig. 4 Brr1 acts like Gemin2/SMNGe2BD in interacting with the Sm subcomplexes and snRNA. a The binding assay was performed using S. cerevisiae Brr1 with each of the three Sm subcomplexes individually and together. The interaction was assessed through a pull-down assay using Ni-beads. b–d Complexation assays. Brr1 alone (b), or equimolar amounts of Brr1 mixed with F/E/G (c) or 5Sm (d), were subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (red bar) were analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). Blue arrowheads indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (F/E/G and 5Sm) for comparison. e The role of Brr1 in assembly of the Sm subcore and core was assessed using EMSA. Reconstituted 5Sm or Brr1/5Sm, either alone or together with D3/B, was pre-incubated with Umini, Umini-3′ss, Umini-3′Δ, or Umini-ΔSm snRNA and subjected to EMSA. f–i Ni-beads pull-down assays were performed to test the dissociation of Brr1 from Sm core assembly. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. The forward reaction was initiated with either HT-Brr1/5Sm (f) or 5Sm (HT-D2) as a positive control (g) and incubated with D3/B and Umini-snRNA. The reverse reaction started with pre-assembled Sm core (HT-B) (h) or HT-B/D3 plus Umini-snRNA (i) and incubated with Brr1. The samples were then analyzed using SDS-PAGE /CBB staining and GelRed staining. For each set, one representative of at least two independent experiments is shown.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Characterization of the Brr1 structure. a Secondary structural elements of human Gemin2 and S. cerevisiae Brr1. Known domain compositions are indicated. b Superimposition of the AlphaFold and RosettaFold models of Brr1(80-341). c The summary of the truncated constructs of Brr1CD and expression test results. See details in Supplementary Fig. 7. d The superimposition of the AlphaFold structure model of Brr1(80-341) (colored in rainbow: the N-terminus in blue, the C-terminus in red) with the structure of human Gemin2-CD (in light gray, PDB: 5XJL). The superimposition reveals that the long loop between α7 and α8 in Brr1 (in orange), which contains αE, occupies the position where SMNGe2BD (in dark gray) binds to Gemin2. Moreover, the EHD of Brr1 is far away from SmD1/D2. e The binding assay was conducted to test the interaction of Brr1Δ(122-197) with each of the three Sm subcomplexes, individually and together. The interaction was assessed using a pull-down assay with Ni-beads. One representative of two independent experiments is shown. M markers.
Fig. 5 Characterization of the Brr1 structure. a Secondary structural elements of human Gemin2 and S. cerevisiae Brr1. Known domain compositions are indicated. b Superimposition of the AlphaFold and RosettaFold models of Brr1(80-341). c The summary of the truncated constructs of Brr1CD and expression test results. See details in Supplementary Fig. 7. d The superimposition of the AlphaFold structure model of Brr1(80-341) (colored in rainbow: the N-terminus in blue, the C-terminus in red) with the structure of human Gemin2-CD (in light gray, PDB: 5XJL). The superimposition reveals that the long loop between α7 and α8 in Brr1 (in orange), which contains αE, occupies the position where SMNGe2BD (in dark gray) binds to Gemin2. Moreover, the EHD of Brr1 is far away from SmD1/D2. e The binding assay was conducted to test the interaction of Brr1Δ(122-197) with each of the three Sm subcomplexes, individually and together. The interaction was assessed using a pull-down assay with Ni-beads. One representative of two independent experiments is shown. M markers.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Formation of the Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 complex which inhibits snRNA binding. a, b Complexation assays. Preformed 6S mixed with Brr1 (a) or preformed Brr1/5Sm mixed with Lot5ΔC (b) in equimolar amounts, were subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (red bar) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). The black and red arrowheads in (a) indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (6S and Brr1) for comparison. The black and blue arrowheads in (b) indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (Brr1/5Sm and Lot5ΔC) for comparison. The asterisk indicates N-terminal degraded Brr1 in (b–d). c No direct interaction between Lot5ΔC and Brr1 tested by Ni-bead pull-down assay. P precipitate. Disassembly assays of 6S/Brr1 (d) or 6S (e) incubated with yeast extract. Pre-assembled 6S/Brr1 or 6S was bound to Ni-beads first, and then incubated with yeast extract (or with washing buffer or washing buffer containing 8 M urea as controls). After incubation, the mixtures were separated and washed, and the bound fractions were subjected to SDS-PAGE/CBB staining. Yeast extract input represents 0.5% of total proteins in the reaction. f Binding test of different complexes with snRNA using EMSA. Pre-reconstituted 5Sm, 6S, Brr1/5Sm, or 6S/Brr1 or equimolar amounts of 6S/Brr1 mixed with D3/B were pre-incubated with Umini-snRNA or Umini-ΔSm-snRNA (as a control) and subjected to EMSA. M markers. For each, one representative result of at least two independent experiments is shown. g A cartoon model of the formation of the Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 complex and its inhibition of snRNA binding.
Fig. 6 Formation of the Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 complex which inhibits snRNA binding. a, b Complexation assays. Preformed 6S mixed with Brr1 (a) or preformed Brr1/5Sm mixed with Lot5ΔC (b) in equimolar amounts, were subjected to GFC (left panels). The eluted fractions (red bar) were then analyzed by SDS-PAGE/CBB staining (right panels). The black and red arrowheads in (a) indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (6S and Brr1) for comparison. The black and blue arrowheads in (b) indicate the GFC peaks of the input components (Brr1/5Sm and Lot5ΔC) for comparison. The asterisk indicates N-terminal degraded Brr1 in (b–d). c No direct interaction between Lot5ΔC and Brr1 tested by Ni-bead pull-down assay. P precipitate. Disassembly assays of 6S/Brr1 (d) or 6S (e) incubated with yeast extract. Pre-assembled 6S/Brr1 or 6S was bound to Ni-beads first, and then incubated with yeast extract (or with washing buffer or washing buffer containing 8 M urea as controls). After incubation, the mixtures were separated and washed, and the bound fractions were subjected to SDS-PAGE/CBB staining. Yeast extract input represents 0.5% of total proteins in the reaction. f Binding test of different complexes with snRNA using EMSA. Pre-reconstituted 5Sm, 6S, Brr1/5Sm, or 6S/Brr1 or equimolar amounts of 6S/Brr1 mixed with D3/B were pre-incubated with Umini-snRNA or Umini-ΔSm-snRNA (as a control) and subjected to EMSA. M markers. For each, one representative result of at least two independent experiments is shown. g A cartoon model of the formation of the Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 complex and its inhibition of snRNA binding.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Disruption of genes LOT5 and BRR1 in S. cerevisiae causes mild growth retardation. a Schematic view of Cas9-assisted disruption of genes LOT5 or/and BRR1 in S. cerevisiae. More detailed steps and verifications are in Supplementary Fig. 10. b Growth phenotypes on YPD plates of different strains (lot5Δ, brr1Δ, and lot5Δ/brr1Δ) at different temperatures. The tested strains were initially grown in liquid YPD at 30 °C to reach an OD595nm of about 0.6. The cell concentrates were then normalized, and serial dilutions of the cells were spotted on YPD plates and cultured at various temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). The growth of the strains was observed and recorded. c Growth time curves in liquid YPD culture at 16 or 37 °C. At each time point, samples were collected from three separate cultures for OD595nm measurement. The mean and standard deviation (SD) are shown at each time point. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. d Deletion rescue assay. The brr1Δ strain transformed with pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1, or pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1Δ(122-197) (to test if it functions as full-length Brr1 in vivo) or pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control), or the wildtype strain transformed with pRS426-PPGK1 (as a positive control) was spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded.
Fig. 7 Disruption of genes LOT5 and BRR1 in S. cerevisiae causes mild growth retardation. a Schematic view of Cas9-assisted disruption of genes LOT5 or/and BRR1 in S. cerevisiae. More detailed steps and verifications are in Supplementary Fig. 10. b Growth phenotypes on YPD plates of different strains (lot5Δ, brr1Δ, and lot5Δ/brr1Δ) at different temperatures. The tested strains were initially grown in liquid YPD at 30 °C to reach an OD595nm of about 0.6. The cell concentrates were then normalized, and serial dilutions of the cells were spotted on YPD plates and cultured at various temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). The growth of the strains was observed and recorded. c Growth time curves in liquid YPD culture at 16 or 37 °C. At each time point, samples were collected from three separate cultures for OD595nm measurement. The mean and standard deviation (SD) are shown at each time point. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. d Deletion rescue assay. The brr1Δ strain transformed with pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1, or pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1Δ(122-197) (to test if it functions as full-length Brr1 in vivo) or pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control), or the wildtype strain transformed with pRS426-PPGK1 (as a positive control) was spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Overexpression of gene LOT5 in S. cerevisiae inhibits cell growth. a Overexpression of BRR1 has no significant phenotype on cell growth. The wildtype and lot5Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded. b Constitutive overexpression of LOT5 in the wildtype and brr1Δ strains inhibits cell growth. The wildtype and brr1Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PPGK1-LOT5 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded. c Control experiments for (b). The four strains from (b) were plated on 5-FOA-containing SD medium to select strains that expelled pRS426 plasmids. Surviving strains were then serially diluted and spotted on YPD plates at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C), and their growth was observed and recorded. d, e Induced overexpression of LOT5 in the wildtype and brr1Δ strains inhibits cell growth. The wildtype and brr1Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PGAL1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PGAL1-LOT5 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil, with either galactose (d) or glucose (e), and cultured at varying temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded.
Fig. 8 Overexpression of gene LOT5 in S. cerevisiae inhibits cell growth. a Overexpression of BRR1 has no significant phenotype on cell growth. The wildtype and lot5Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PPGK1-BRR1 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded. b Constitutive overexpression of LOT5 in the wildtype and brr1Δ strains inhibits cell growth. The wildtype and brr1Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PPGK1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PPGK1-LOT5 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil and cultured at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded. c Control experiments for (b). The four strains from (b) were plated on 5-FOA-containing SD medium to select strains that expelled pRS426 plasmids. Surviving strains were then serially diluted and spotted on YPD plates at different temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C), and their growth was observed and recorded. d, e Induced overexpression of LOT5 in the wildtype and brr1Δ strains inhibits cell growth. The wildtype and brr1Δ strains transformed with either pRS426-PGAL1 (as a negative control) or pRS426-PGAL1-LOT5 were spotted in serial dilutions on SD medium plates without uracil, with either galactose (d) or glucose (e), and cultured at varying temperatures (16, 22, 30, and 37 °C). Strain growth was observed and recorded.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Models of Sm core assembly mechanism in S. cerevisiae and evolution of assembly chaperones. a The mechanistic model of Sm core assembly in S. cerevisiae. There are two pathways for Sm core assembly: (1) the direct assembly pathway, which is dominant; and (2) the chaperone-mediated assembly pathway, which is immature and less efficient compared to the characterized pICln-SMN complex-mediated pathway in S. pombe and vertebrates. In the direct pathway, F/E/G exists in a trimeric state (A) so that D1/D2 and F/E/G can spontaneously form a stable 5Sm complex (B). These steps are distinct from those observed in other characterized eukaryotes. This leads to the spontaneous assembly of the Sm subcore (C) and eventually the Sm core (D). In the chaperone-mediated pathway, only the intermediate Brr1/5Sm can progress through the Sm core assembly (H-I), while the intermediate complexes formed with Lot5—either 6S (E, F, G) or Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 (J, K)—represent dead-end complexes that are unable to assemble the Sm core. The complexes indicated within square brackets are unstable or transient, and the thickness of the arrow lines represents the preferred direction. The red lines represent reactions unique to S. cerevisiae compared to the known mechanisms observed in other eukaryotes. b The evolution model of Sm core assembly chaperones. The assembly pathways in Arabidopsis and the common ancestor of eukaryotes are anticipated. The exact components of the assembly chaperones in invertebrates are still not completely known.
Fig. 9 Models of Sm core assembly mechanism in S. cerevisiae and evolution of assembly chaperones. a The mechanistic model of Sm core assembly in S. cerevisiae. There are two pathways for Sm core assembly: (1) the direct assembly pathway, which is dominant; and (2) the chaperone-mediated assembly pathway, which is immature and less efficient compared to the characterized pICln-SMN complex-mediated pathway in S. pombe and vertebrates. In the direct pathway, F/E/G exists in a trimeric state (A) so that D1/D2 and F/E/G can spontaneously form a stable 5Sm complex (B). These steps are distinct from those observed in other characterized eukaryotes. This leads to the spontaneous assembly of the Sm subcore (C) and eventually the Sm core (D). In the chaperone-mediated pathway, only the intermediate Brr1/5Sm can progress through the Sm core assembly (H-I), while the intermediate complexes formed with Lot5—either 6S (E, F, G) or Lot5/5Sm/Brr1 (J, K)—represent dead-end complexes that are unable to assemble the Sm core. The complexes indicated within square brackets are unstable or transient, and the thickness of the arrow lines represents the preferred direction. The red lines represent reactions unique to S. cerevisiae compared to the known mechanisms observed in other eukaryotes. b The evolution model of Sm core assembly chaperones. The assembly pathways in Arabidopsis and the common ancestor of eukaryotes are anticipated. The exact components of the assembly chaperones in invertebrates are still not completely known.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Will, C. L. & Luhrmann, R. Spliceosome structure and function. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3, a003707 (2011).
  2. Kambach, C. et al. Crystal structures of two Sm protein complexes and their implications for the assembly of the spliceosomal snRNPs. Cell 96, 375–387 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Li, D. K., Tisdale, S., Lotti, F. & Pellizzoni, L. SMN control of RNP assembly: from post-transcriptional gene regulation to motor neuron disease. Semin Cell Dev. Biol. 32, 22–29 (2014). · DOI
  4. Chari, A. et al. An assembly chaperone collaborates with the SMN complex to generate spliceosomal SnRNPs. Cell 135, 497–509 (2008). · DOI
  5. Raker, V. A., Plessel, G. & Luhrmann, R. The snRNP core assembly pathway: identification of stable core protein heteromeric complexes and an snRNP subcore particle in vitro. EMBO J. 15, 2256–2269 (1996). · DOI
  6. Paushkin, S., Charroux, B., Abel, L., Perkinson, R. A., Pellizzoni, L. & Dreyfuss, G. The survival motor neuron protein of Schizosacharomyces pombe. Conservation of survival motor neuron interaction domains in divergent organisms. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 23841–23846 (2000). · DOI
  7. Owen, N., Doe, C. L., Mellor, J. & Davies, K. E. Characterization of the Schizosaccharomyces pombe orthologue of the human survival motor neuron (SMN) protein. Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 675–684 (2000). · DOI
  8. Hannus, S., Buhler, D., Romano, M., Seraphin, B. & Fischer, U. The Schizosaccharomyces pombe protein Yab8p and a novel factor, Yip1p, share structural and functional similarity with the spinal muscular atrophy-associated proteins SMN and SIP1. Hum. Mol. Genet. 9, 663–674 (2000). · DOI
  9. Veepaschit, J., Viswanathan, A., Bordonne, R., Grimm, C. & Fischer, U. Identification and structural analysis of the Schizosaccharomyces pombe SMN complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 7207–7223 (2021). · DOI
  10. Barbarossa, A., Antoine, E., Neel, H., Gostan, T., Soret, J. & Bordonne, R. Characterization and in vivo functional analysis of the Schizosaccharomyces pombe ICLN gene. Mol. Cell Biol. 34, 595–605 (2014). · DOI
  11. Hu, Y. et al. Mechanism of assembly of snRNP cores assisted by ICln and the SMN complex in fission yeast. iScience 26, 107604 (2023).
  12. Pu, W. T., Wickman, K. & Clapham, D. E. ICln is essential for cellular and early embryonic viability. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 12363–12366 (2000). · DOI
  13. Schrank, B. et al. Inactivation of the survival motor neuron gene, a candidate gene for human spinal muscular atrophy, leads to massive cell death in early mouse embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 9920–9925 (1997). · DOI
  14. Jablonka, S. et al. Gene targeting of Gemin2 in mice reveals a correlation between defects in the biogenesis of U snRNPs and motoneuron cell death. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 10126–10131 (2002). · DOI
  15. Miguel-Aliaga, I., Culetto, E., Walker, D. S., Baylis, H. A., Sattelle, D. B. & Davies, K. E. The Caenorhabditis elegans orthologue of the human gene responsible for spinal muscular atrophy is a maternal product critical for germline maturation and embryonic viability. Hum. Mol. Genet. 8, 2133–2143 (1999). · DOI
  16. Chan, Y. B. et al. Neuromuscular defects in a Drosophila survival motor neuron gene mutant. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12, 1367–1376 (2003). · DOI
  17. Cauchi, R. J., Davies, K. E. & Liu, J. L. A motor function for the DEAD-box RNA helicase, Gemin3, in Drosophila. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000265 (2008). · DOI
  18. Borg, R. & Cauchi, R. J. The Gemin associates of survival motor neuron are required for motor function in Drosophila. PLoS ONE 8, e83878 (2013). · DOI
  19. Lanfranco, M. et al. Novel interactors of the Drosophila Survival Motor Neuron (SMN) Complex suggest its full conservation. FEBS Lett. 591, 3600–3614 (2017). · DOI
  20. Lefebvre, S. et al. Identification and characterization of a spinal muscular atrophy-determining gene. Cell 80, 155–165 (1995). · DOI
  21. Burghes, A. H. & Beattie, C. E. Spinal muscular atrophy: why do low levels of survival motor neuron protein make motor neurons sick? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 597–609 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Grimm, C. et al. Structural basis of assembly chaperone-mediated snRNP formation. Mol. Cell 49, 692–703 (2013). · DOI
  23. Gonsalvez, G. B., Praveen, K., Hicks, A. J., Tian, L. & Matera, A. G. Sm protein methylation is dispensable for snRNP assembly in Drosophila melanogaster. RNA 14, 878–887 (2008). · DOI
  24. Zhang, R. et al. Structure of a key intermediate of the SMN complex reveals Gemin2’s crucial function in snRNP assembly. Cell 146, 384–395 (2011). · DOI
  25. Otter, S., Grimmler, M., Neuenkirchen, N., Chari, A., Sickmann, A. & Fischer, U. A comprehensive interaction map of the human survival of motor neuron (SMN) complex. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 5825–5833 (2007). · DOI
  26. Carissimi, C., Saieva, L., Gabanella, F. & Pellizzoni, L. Gemin8 is required for the architecture and function of the survival motor neuron complex. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 37009–37016 (2006). · DOI
  27. Carissimi, C. et al. Gemin8 is a novel component of the survival motor neuron complex and functions in small nuclear ribonucleoprotein assembly. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 8126–8134 (2006). · DOI
  28. Charroux, B., Pellizzoni, L., Perkinson, R. A., Shevchenko, A., Mann, M. & Dreyfuss, G. Gemin3: a novel DEAD box protein that interacts with SMN, the spinal muscular atrophy gene product, and is a component of gems. J. Cell Biol. 147, 1181–1194 (1999). · DOI
  29. Charroux, B. et al. Gemin4. A novel component of the SMN complex that is found in both gems and nucleoli. J. Cell Biol. 148, 1177–1186 (2000). · DOI
  30. Yong, J., Kasim, M., Bachorik, J. L., Wan, L. & Dreyfuss, G. Gemin5 delivers snRNA precursors to the SMN complex for snRNP biogenesis. Mol. Cell 38, 551–562 (2010). · DOI
  31. Martinez-Salas, E., Embarc-Buh, A. & Francisco-Velilla, R. Emerging roles of Gemin5: from snRNPs assembly to translation control. Int J. Mol. Sci. 21, 3868 (2020). · DOI
  32. Mateos, J. L. et al. PICLN modulates alternative splicing and light/temperature responses in plants. Plant Physiol. 191, 1036–1051 (2023). · DOI
  33. Schlaen, R. G. et al. The spliceosome assembly factor GEMIN2 attenuates the effects of temperature on alternative splicing and circadian rhythms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 9382–9387 (2015). · DOI
  34. Schwer, B., Roth, A. J. & Shuman, S. Will the circle be unbroken: specific mutations in the yeast Sm protein ring expose a requirement for assembly factor Brr1, a homolog of Gemin2. RNA 23, 420–430 (2017). · DOI
  35. Noble, S. M. & Guthrie, C. Transcriptional pulse-chase analysis reveals a role for a novel snRNP-associated protein in the manufacture of spliceosomal snRNPs. EMBO J. 15, 4368–4379 (1996). · DOI
  36. Goffeau, A. et al. Life with 6000 genes. Science 274, 563–547 (1996). · DOI
  37. Giaever, G. et al. Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Nature 418, 387–391 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  38. Becker, D., Hirsch, A. G., Bender, L., Lingner, T., Salinas, G. & Krebber, H. Nuclear pre-snRNA export is an essential quality assurance mechanism for functional spliceosomes. Cell Rep. 27, 3199–3214 e3193 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Yi, H. et al. Negative cooperativity between Gemin2 and RNA provides insights into RNA selection and the SMN complex’s release in snRNP assembly. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, 895–911 (2020). · DOI
  40. Golembe, T. J., Yong, J. & Dreyfuss, G. Specific sequence features, recognized by the SMN complex, identify snRNAs and determine their fate as snRNPs. Mol. Cell Biol. 25, 10989–11004 (2005). · DOI
  41. Zhang, L., Ohta, A., Horiuchi, H., Takagi, M. & Imai, R. Multiple mechanisms regulate expression of low temperature responsive (LOT) genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 283, 531–535 (2001). · DOI
  42. Kroiss, M., Schultz, J., Wiesner, J., Chari, A., Sickmann, A. & Fischer, U. Evolution of an RNP assembly system: a minimal SMN complex facilitates formation of UsnRNPs in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10045–10050 (2008). · DOI
  43. Sopko, R. et al. Mapping pathways and phenotypes by systematic gene overexpression. Mol. Cell 21, 319–330 (2006). · DOI
  44. Borg, R. M., Fenech Salerno, B., Vassallo, N., Bordonne, R. & Cauchi, R. J. Disruption of snRNP biogenesis factors Tgs1 and pICln induces phenotypes that mirror aspects of SMN-Gemins complex perturbation in Drosophila, providing new insights into spinal muscular atrophy. Neurobiol. Dis. 94, 245–258 (2016). · DOI
  45. Xu, Q. et al. Bacterial pleckstrin homology domains: a prokaryotic origin for the PH domain. J. Mol. Biol. 396, 31–46 (2010). · DOI
  46. Furst, J. et al. ICln159 folds into a pleckstrin homology domain-like structure. Interaction with kinases and the splicing factor LSm4. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 31276–31282 (2005). · DOI
  47. Andrade, M. A., Petosa, C., O’Donoghue, S. I., Muller, C. W. & Bork, P. Comparison of ARM and HEAT protein repeats. J. Mol. Biol. 309, 1–18 (2001). · DOI
  48. Beattie, C. E. & Kolb, S. J. Spinal muscular atrophy: selective motor neuron loss and global defect in the assembly of ribonucleoproteins. Brain Res. 1693, 92–97 (2018). · DOI
  49. Ryan, O. W. et al. Selection of chromosomal DNA libraries using a multiplex CRISPR system. Elife 3, e03703 (2014). · DOI
  50. Gietz, R. D. & Woods, R. A. Transformation of yeast by lithium acetate/single-stranded carrier DNA/polyethylene glycol method. Methods Enzymol. 350, 87–96 (2002). · DOI
  51. Zhang, R., Kim, T. K., Qiao, Z. H., Cai, J., Pierce, W. M. Jr. & Song, Z. H. Biochemical and mass spectrometric characterization of the human CB2 cannabinoid receptor expressed in Pichia pastoris-importance of correct processing of the N-terminus. Protein Expr. Purif. 55, 225–235 (2007). · DOI
  52. Varadi, M. et al. AlphaFold protein structure database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D439–D444 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  53. Waterhouse, A. M., Procter, J. B., Martin, D. M., Clamp, M. & Barton, G. J. Jalview Version 2-a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics 25, 1189–1191 (2009). · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Chen, X., Kong, X., Chen, Y., Xiang, Z., Xiang, Y., Hu, Y., Hou, Y., Zhou, S., Shen, C., Mu, L., Su, D., & Zhang, R.
Affiliations
Sichuan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Rundong
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-04-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
3166-3166
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-025-58461-7
PMC
PMC11965559
OpenAlex
W4409148881
Cited by
7
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (2017YFA0504300, 2017YFA0505900)
  • Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province (2020YJ0209)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
Keywords
Sm proteins, SMN complex, spinal muscular atrophy, spliceosome, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, assembly intermediates
MeSH terms
Protein Binding, RNA, Small Nuclear, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Spliceosomes, Molecular Chaperones, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, snRNP Core Proteins, SMN Complex Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review