FUS and EIF4A3 regulate circHomer1 biogenesis.
We have previously shown that EIF4A3 can bind to circHomer1 and positively regulate its expression, identifying EIF4A3 as an upstream regulator of circHomer1 synthesis35. In addition, we recently showed that the imprinted lncRNA H19, which has been previously shown to bind to EIF4A3 and obstruct its recruitment to downstream RNA targets, is a negative regulator of neuronal circHomer1 biogenesis and displays opposing developmental expression within the brain40. In order to identify additional factors that could modulate circHomer1 biogenesis, we searched the literature for RBPs enriched in the brain that could bind to EIF4A3 and have either been shown to or been predicted to bind to circHomer1. We found that the activity-dependent RBP FUS, which has been previously linked to synaptic function, can directly bind to EIF4A3 protein41,42 and also has predicted binding sites for circHomer1. To manipulate FUS expression, we used two different shRNAs against human FUS in differentiated human SHSY-5y cells and extracted RNA for circHomer1 and FUS mRNA measurements via qRT-PCR after 2days of shRNA treatment (Fig. 1A). Our results suggest that both shRNAs were able to significantly knock down FUS mRNA expression, which resulted in a significant downregulation of circHomer1 levels (Fig. 1A). This effect seemed to be specific since no changes were observed in circCDR1as expression following FUS knockdown (Fig. 1A). Also, there were no changes in EIF4A3 mRNA expression, while a modest increase in HOMER1B mRNA levels was observed following FUS knockdown (Fig. 1A). In order to determine whether FUS can directly bind to circHomer1 we performed RIP with an anti-FUS antibody and measured circHomer1 expression (Fig. 1B). Our data suggested that FUS does not bind directly to mature circHomer1 (Fig. 1B). However, previous work has suggested that FUS can bind into the intronic complementary sequences necessary for circRNA backsplicing, thus promoting circRNA biogenesis89–90. To determine if FUS could be bound to such sequences within pre-Homer1b, we designed exon/intron primers that can amplify pre-Homer1b. Our results suggest a trend for significant enrichment for pre-Homer1b, as well as for HuD mRNA, an RBP previously known to bind directly to both FUS and circHomer1 (Fig. 1B). This suggests the possibility that FUS not only binds to the intronic regions within pre-Homer1b mRNA necessary for circHomer1 backsplicing but also binds to EIF4A3, which is close to the backspliced junction of circHomer1. The binding site for FUS is located on intron 5 that is necessary for the back-splicing of circHomer1 (Fig. 1C). In addition, EIF4A3 is bound 20–24 nucleotides upstream of exon 5 (Fig. 1C), suggesting the possible binding sites to be in close proximity to synergistically facilitate circHomer1 biogenesis.
Neuronal activity and CREB/CBP promote circHomer1, Eif4a3, and Fus mRNA expression in mouse cortical neurons.
A previous study in mouse hippocampal neurons that were treated with bicuculline for 12 h, suggested that circHomer1 could be activity-dependent11. To further test the activity-dependent nature of circHomer1, we decided to treat mouse primary cortical neurons with bicuculline (Bic) and 4-Amynopyridine (4-AP) for either 4, 12, or 24 hours. RNA was then extracted to measure circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels (Fig. 1D). Our results show that circHomer1 levels were significantly upregulated 12 hours following Bic/4-AP (Fig. 1E), consistent with previous findings with in mouse hippocampal neurons with Bic only11. However, no changes in circHomer1 expression were observed after 4 hours of Bic/4-AP, whereas a non-significant modest increase was seen 24 hours after treatment (Fig. 1E). Interestingly, Fus and Eif4a3 mRNA levels increased significantly at just 4 hours after Bic/4-AP but were down to normal levels after 12 hours (Fig. 1E). This suggests that the activity-dependent transcription of Fus and Eif4a3 mRNAs happens before the actual changes in circHomer1 biogenesis (Fig. 1E). In a previous publication, we have shown that EIF4A3 inhibition decreases circHomer1 levels in neurons at basal conditions35. To gain more insight into the mechanistic pathways of circHomer1 biogenesis, we sought to investigate whether EIF4A3 inhibition abrogates activity dependent circHomer1 regulation. Thus, we treated neurons with Bic + 4AP to induce neuronal activity, in the presence (or absence) of an EIF4A3 inhibitor (Fig. 1F). We replicated the findings of circHomer1 upregulation upon synaptic activation in the absence of the inhibitor, but most importantly, we found that co-treatment with EIF4A3 inhibitor prevented the change of circHomer1 levels in response to neuronal activity (Fig. 1F). These results were specific for circHomer1 since no such pattern was seen for circTulp4 (Fig. 1F), another brain enriched circRNA, allowing us to conclude that EIF4A3 inhibition abrogates circHomer1 biogenesis both in basal and neuronal activity-dependent conditions.
Given the fact that circHomer1 is induced upon synaptic activity we wanted to examine which transcription regulators might be responsible for these changes. We primarily focused on cAMP-response element binding protein (CREB) element, since it has been reported to control neuronal gene expression and implicated in the pathophysiology of SCZ and BD. However, with the exception of alternative promoter CREB elements necessary for Homer1a transcription, no CREB-regulatory elements are present in the Homer1 promoter responsible for the transcription of the long Homer1 transcripts Homer1b and Homer1c43. Thus, the activity-dependent nature of circHomer1 expression is unlikely to be a result of a direct transcriptional effect on pre-Homer1b synthesis. On the other hand, in silico prediction of CREB-binding sites suggests the presence of CREB-binding elements within the promoter of both FUS and EIF4A343. We hypothesized that neuronal activity could induce a CREB-dependent transcriptional activation of both Fus and Eif4a3 mRNAs. Upon translation of these mRNAs into proteins, we then hypothesized that Fun and Eif4a3 can synergistically promote circHomer1 biogenesis within the nucleus (Fig. 2A). We used a CREB inhibitor to determine the effects of CREB in circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression (Fig. 2B-C). A low dose (< IC50) and a dose equal to the IC50 were used to determine if there is a dose-dependent effect (Fig. 2B-C). Our data show that both doses of CREB inhibitor resulted in significant reductions in circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression; with the more robust changes being observed within the high dose (Fig. 2B-C). To further validate these findings, we used a CREB-binding protein (CBP) chemical inhibitor and found a significant downregulation in circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression (Fig. 2D). Of note, we also assessed the expression of known CREB-regulated neuronal genes and showed that both c-Fos and Bdnf mRNA levels were significantly downregulated after CREB inhibition (Supplementary Fig. 1A) as expected. Similarly, the activity-dependent short Homer1a isoform, which has a CREB-binding site in its unique promoter, was also significantly downregulated after CREB inhibition, with no changes being observed in Homer1b mRNA levels (Supplementary Fig. 1B). Moreover, both c-fos and Bdnf mRNA were also upregulated after just 4 hours of Bic/4-AP treatment, similar to what was observed for Eif4a3 and Fus mRNAs (Supplementary Fig. 1C). This data suggests that circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 are activity-dependent genes regulated by the CREB/CBP pathway, and that the activity-dependent transcriptional control of Fus and Eif4a3 mRNA expression precedes the observed activity-dependent changes in circHomer1 expression in cortical neurons.
The PKA/MEK/ERK pathways promote circHomer1, Eif4a3, and Fus mRNA expression in mouse cortical neurons.
Based on these findings we wanted to further dissect the intracellular molecular pathways that could regulate circHomer1 expression in cortical neurons. We focused on the intracellular kinases that have been proposed to act upstream of CREB44, and we treated mouse primary cortical neurons with either ERK, MEK1/2, PKA, or PKC inhibitors for 24 hours (Fig. 3A); circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression was subsequently measured with qRT-PCR (Fig. 3A). We found that ERK inhibition resulted in a robust downregulation of circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels (Fig. 3B). Moreover, both MEK1/2 and PKA inhibition led to significant downregulation of circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression, but treatment with a PKC-specific inhibitor had no effect on circHomer1 levels and its upstream regulators (Fig. 3C-E). This data allows us to suggest that the PKA and MEK/ERK pathways, both of which are capable of activating CREB-mediated transcription44,45, are positive regulators of circHomer1 expression within cortical neurons and that Fus and Eif4a3 transcriptional activation always displays similar patterns to those circHomer1 levels.
NMDA and mGluR5 receptors are upstream regulators of circHomer1 expression in vitro and in vivo.
Given the robust effects of ERK/CREB on circHomer1 expression in cortical neurons, we decided to investigate the upstream neuronal receptors that activate ERK and CREB and could potentially result in an activation of circHomer1 biogenesis. In doing so, we treated mouse cortical neurons with the mGluR5 agonist CHPG for 2, 12, and 24 hours (Fig. 3F). Our results show that circHomer1 was significantly upregulated after 24 hours of mGluR5 activation, with no changes observed following 2 or 12 hours of treatment (Fig. 3F). Interestingly, changes in Fus and Eif4a3 mRNA expression were observed at 12 hours after CHPG treatment (Fig. 3F), suggesting that transcriptional activation of these two positive regulators of circHomer1 biogenesis precedes the increase of circHomer1 levels. As a positive control, we also measured the expression of the activity-dependent genes c-Fos and Homer1a, both of which were found to be significantly upregulated as early as 2 hours after CHPG treatment (Supplementary Fig. 1D). We then treated mouse cortical neurons with MK801, a non-competitive NMDA antagonist, and measured circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression via qRT-PCR after 2, 12 and 24 hours (Fig. 3G). A significant downregulation in circHomer1 expression was found after 24 hours (Fig. 3G) suggesting that NMDA receptor activation could promote circHomer1 production within neurons. Interestingly, after 12 hours of treatment, we observed no changes of circHomer1 levels, but a robust decrease in the mRNA levels of Eif4a3 and Fus (Fig. 3G). A modest reduction in Eif4a3 mRNA was still observed after 24 hours (Fig. 3G). This supports our proposed biogenesis model that requires the transcriptional activation of these two positive regulators for subsequent circHomer1 induction. BDNF/TrkB signaling can also modulate ERK/CREB activation and is a potential upstream factor of circHomer1 biogenesis. Thus, we treated cortical neurons with ANA-12, a TrkB-specific antagonist (Fig. 3H). Our results suggest that TrkB receptor activation is not an upstream regulator of circHomer1 expression in cortical neurons.
Given our findings in mouse cortical neuronal cultures, we decided to determine whether in vivo activation mGluR5 activation and NMDA blockade can also affect circHomer1 expression in the mouse brain. To that end, we treated adult male WT mice with the NMDAR antagonist MK801, the mGluR5 positive allosteric modulator CDPPB, or their combination, i.p. for 7 days, after which circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression was measured in relevant brain regions using RT-qPCR.
Our results suggest that NMDA antagonism and mGluR5 activation can differentially affect circHomer1 expression in vivo (Fig. 3I-K and Supplementary Fig. 2A); with MK801 treatment showing the strongest effects in the NAc and CDPPB treatment affecting circHomer1 levels only in the OFC (Fig. 3I-J and Supplementary Fig. 2A-B). Interestingly, co-treatment with CDPPB (which normalizes increases in locomotor behavior induced by MK-801; Supplementary Fig. 2F) also normalized circHomer1 levels in both brain regions (Fig. 3K and Supplementary Fig. 2C). As seen in vitro, changes in Fus and Eif4a3 mRNA expression mirrored those of circHomer1 for all treatments and in both brain regions. This further supports our hypothesis that transcriptional changes in these two RBPs are capable of promoting circHomer1 biogenesis and are important for modulating circHomer1 expression within the brain. Furthermore, measurements of the activity-dependent short Homer1a mRNA isoform in the same mice suggested that Homer1a mRNA was also significantly upregulated by CDBBP treatment in both the OFC and the NAc (Supplementary Fig. 2D-E). Taken together, these data suggest that NMDA blockade can reduce circHomer1 levels within the mouse brain, while concomitant mGluR5 activation can rescue circHomer1 expression.
In vivo antagonism of D2 and 5HT2A receptors differentially affects circHomer1 expression in multiple brain regions.
In addition to NMDA and mGluR5 receptors, 5HT2A and D2 neuronal receptors are of relevance to psychiatric disease due to the fact they are targets of antipsychotics46. Mechanistically, D2 receptors can block adenyl cyclase and inactivate the PKA/CREB molecular pathway, which is expected to result in reduced circHomer1 expression. On the other hand, activation of 5HT2A receptors leads to phospholipase C-mediated calcium release and MEK/ERK activation47, which is expected to increase circHomer1 biogenesis. Therefore, D2R antagonism is expected to disinhibit circHomer1 expression, whereas 5HT2AR antagonism is expected to result in the downregulation in circHomer1 expression. To test this hypothesis, we treated adult male mice with either the D2R-antagonist, Sulpiride, or the 5HT2AR antagonist, MDL100907, for 14 days. and circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA were measured in the putamen, NAc, OFC, ventral hippocampus, and cerebellum with qRT-PCR. Sulpiride resulted in a significant upregulation of circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels in the OFC, NAc and Putamen, all of which are brain regions that express D2R48,49 (Fig. 4A-C). However, no changes were observed within the cerebellum (Fig. 4D), a brain region with very little D2R expression. On the other hand, treatment with 5HT2AR antagonist MDL100907 resulted in a significant downregulation of circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels in the OFC, NAc and putamen (Fig. 5A-C), all of which are brain regions that also express 5-HT2AR50,51. Similarly, to what was observed with Sulpiride, 5-HT2AR antagonism had no effect on circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels within the cerebellum, a brain region that is also devoid of 5HT2AR (Fig. 5D). Moreover, a reduction in circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA levels was also found in the ventral hippocampus after 5HT2AR but not D2R antagonism, which is expected given the high expression of 5HT2AR and low expression of D2R in that brain region52–55 (Supplementary Fig. 3A-B). This further supports our hypothesis that changes in Fus and Eif4a3 transcription are necessary for the modulation of circHomer1 biosynthesis. We conclude that D2 and 5HT2A receptors differentially modulate circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA expression within multiple brain regions that are linked to SCZ and BD pathogenesis. Dopamine D2AR blockade increases circHomer1 and its upstream regulations, whereas 5HT2AR blockade reduces circHomer1, Eif4a3 and Fus in multiple mouse brain regions.
Treatment with Olanzapine differentially affects circHomer1 expression in cortical and subcortical regions in vivo.
Based on the literature, all antipsychotics block D2 receptors and several, among which the widely used second generation “atypical” antipsychotic56 olanzapine, also block 5HT2R receptors57,58. Given our above findings showing a bidirectional effect of D2 and 5HT2A receptor blockade on circHomer1 expression, we thought to evaluate the effects of olanzapine on the biosynthesis of circHomer1 in cortical and subcortical brain regions. Mice were treated with olanzapine, (at an effective dose that reduced locomotor activity; Supplementary Fig. 3C) for 14 days. Subsequently, the putamen, NAc, OFC, and cerebellum were extracted for qRT-PCR quantification of circHomer1, Fus, and Eif4a3 mRNA. We show that that circHomer1 was not altered following olanzapine treatment in the putamen and NAc (Supplementary Fig. 4A-B), whereas a 23% reduction was observed within the OFC (Supplementary Fig. 4C), possibly due to the higher presence of 5HT2A than D2 receptors in this specific brain region. A significant downregulation was observed in the cerebellum, a brain region that does not have considerable expression of D2 and 5HT2A expression, but is known to be enriched in other receptors, such as the muscarinic and cholinergic, that can be targeted by olanzapine56,59 (Supplementary Fig. 4D). This also could potentially feed mechanistically into the same regulatory pathways responsible for circHomer1 biogenesis.