PreprintCited by 109RNA Research and SplicingRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Transcription rate strongly affects splicing fidelity and cotranscriptionality in budding yeast

Open access
Aslanzadeh, Vahid, Huang, Yuanhua, Sanguinetti, Guido, Beggs, Jean D.·2018·Genome Research

Abstract

The functional consequences of alternative splicing on altering the transcription rate have been the subject of intensive study in mammalian cells but less is known about effects of splicing on changing the transcription rate in yeast. We present several lines of evidence showing that slow RNA polymerase II elongation increases both cotranscriptional splicing and splicing efficiency and that faster elongation reduces cotranscriptional splicing and splicing efficiency in budding yeast, suggesting that splicing is more efficient when cotranscriptional. Moreover, we demonstrate that altering the RNA polymerase II elongation rate in either direction compromises splicing fidelity, and we reveal that splicing fidelity depends largely on intron length together with secondary structure and splice site score. These effects are notably stronger for the highly expressed ribosomal protein coding transcripts. We propose that transcription by RNA polymerase II is tuned to optimize the efficiency and accuracy of ribosomal protein gene expression, while allowing flexibility in splice site choice with the nonribosomal protein transcripts.

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 · 10.1101/gr.225615.117

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Slow and fast RNA Pol II mutants often have the same effect on alternative exon inclusion or skipping, which is not predicted by the window of opportunity model.

    “However, slow and fast RNA Pol II mutants often have the same effect on alternative exon inclusion or skipping (Fong et al, 2014; Aslanzadeh et al, 2018), which is not predicted by the “window of opportunity” model.”

    From RNA polymerase II speed: a key player in controlling and adapting transcriptome composition (2021) · cites this paper as Aslanzadeh et al, 2018

    In Results (“Altering RNAPII elongation rate affects splicing fidelity”; page unavailable), the paper reports that both fast and slow mutants increase use of an alternative upstream 3′ splice site in RPL26B, supporting the point that their effects need not be opposite. But its exon-skipping result concerns the fast mutant alone, not the same effect of both mutants on alternative exon inclusion or skipping. The Discussion describes the window-of-opportunity model but does not explicitly apply that comparison to exon inclusion or skipping. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The anti-correlation between transcription speed and splicing efficiency has been confirmed in budding yeast by RNA sequencing-based methods.

    “This anti‐correlation between transcription speed and splicing efficiency has been confirmed in budding yeast by RNA sequencing‐based methods (Aslanzadeh et al, 2018).”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 109

Authors
Aslanzadeh, V., Huang, Y., Sanguinetti, G., & Beggs, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2017-12-18
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
203-213
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2780135364
Cited by
109
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SDL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome (104648, 092076)
  • European Research Council (306999)
  • Darwin Trust of Edinburgh
  • University of Edinburgh
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 › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
co-transcriptional splicing, splicing fidelity, transcription rate, alternative splicing, intron length, RNA secondary structure, ribosomal protein genes, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, spliceosome
MeSH terms
Saccharomycetales, Exons, Introns, RNA Polymerase II, RNA Splicing, Transcription, Genetic, Alternative Splicing, RNA Splice Sites, Transcription Elongation, Genetic

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