A comparison of metabolic labeling and statistical methods to infer genome-wide dynamics of RNA turnover

Abstract Metabolic labeling of newly transcribed RNAs coupled with RNA-seq is being increasingly used for genome-wide analysis of RNA dynamics. Methods including standard biochemical enrichment and recent nucleotide conversion protocols each require special experimental and computational treatment. Despite their immediate relevance, these technologies have not yet been assessed and benchmarked, and no data are currently available to advance reproducible research and the development of better inference tools. Here, we present a systematic evaluation and comparison of four RNA labeling protocols: 4sU-tagging biochemical enrichment, including spike-in RNA controls, SLAM-seq, TimeLapse-seq and TUC-seq. All protocols are evaluated based on practical considerations, conversion efficiency and wet lab requirements to handle hazardous substances. We also compute decay rate estimates and confidence intervals for each protocol using two alternative statistical frameworks, pulseR and GRAND-SLAM, for over 11 600 human genes and evaluate the underlying computational workflows for their robustness and ease of use. Overall, we demonstrate a high inter-method reliability across eight use case scenarios. Our results and data will facilitate reproducible research and serve as a resource contributing to a fuller understanding of RNA biology.

[1]  J. Weissman,et al.  Nascent transcript sequencing visualizes transcription at nucleotide resolution , 2011, Nature.

[2]  Dietmar Rieder,et al.  Thioguanosine Conversion Enables mRNA‐Lifetime Evaluation by RNA Sequencing Using Double Metabolic Labeling (TUC‐seq DUAL) , 2020, Angewandte Chemie.

[3]  M. Selbach,et al.  Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control , 2011, Nature.

[4]  R. Zimmer,et al.  High-resolution gene expression profiling for simultaneous kinetic parameter analysis of RNA synthesis and decay. , 2008, RNA.

[5]  Thomas R. Gingeras,et al.  STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner , 2013, Bioinform..

[6]  Leighton J. Core,et al.  Precise Maps of RNA Polymerase Reveal How Promoters Direct Initiation and Pausing , 2013, Science.

[7]  Arndt von Haeseler,et al.  Quantification of experimentally induced nucleotide conversions in high-throughput sequencing datasets , 2019, BMC Bioinformatics.

[8]  Steven L Salzberg,et al.  Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2 , 2012, Nature Methods.

[9]  Erik Dassi,et al.  Genome-wide dynamics of RNA synthesis, processing, and degradation without RNA metabolic labeling , 2020, Genome research.

[10]  R. Sandberg,et al.  NASC-seq monitors RNA synthesis in single cells , 2018, Nature Communications.

[11]  J. Gagneur,et al.  TT-seq maps the human transient transcriptome , 2016, Science.

[12]  Christoph Dieterich,et al.  On the optimal design of metabolic RNA labeling experiments , 2018, bioRxiv.

[13]  Thomas D. Schmittgen,et al.  Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method , 2008, Nature Protocols.

[14]  Gonçalo R. Abecasis,et al.  The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools , 2009, Bioinform..

[15]  Mark B Gerstein,et al.  Tracking Distinct RNA Populations Using Efficient and Reversible Covalent Chemistry. , 2015, Molecular cell.

[16]  Veronika A. Herzog,et al.  Sequencing cell-type-specific transcriptomes with SLAM-ITseq , 2019, Nature Protocols.

[17]  Knut Reinert,et al.  Flexbar 3.0 ‐ SIMD and multicore parallelization , 2017, Bioinform..

[18]  S. Kaufmann,et al.  Ultrashort and progressive 4sU-tagging reveals key characteristics of RNA processing at nucleotide resolution , 2012, Genome research.

[19]  Christoph Dieterich,et al.  pulseR: Versatile computational analysis of RNA turnover from metabolic labeling experiments , 2017, Bioinform..

[20]  N. Friedman,et al.  Metabolic labeling of RNA uncovers principles of RNA production and degradation dynamics in mammalian cells , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[21]  J. Peters,et al.  Cohesin-Dependent and -Independent Mechanisms Mediate Chromosomal Contacts between Promoters and Enhancers , 2020, Cell reports.

[22]  Dietmar Rieder,et al.  Osmium-Mediated Transformation of 4-Thiouridine to Cytidine as Key To Study RNA Dynamics by Sequencing. , 2017, Angewandte Chemie.

[23]  S. Fesik,et al.  WDR5 is a conserved regulator of protein synthesis gene expression , 2020, Nucleic acids research.

[24]  W. Schmid,et al.  Microarray analysis of newly synthesized RNA in cells and animals , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Fabian J Theis,et al.  scSLAM-seq reveals core features of transcription dynamics in single cells , 2019, Nature.

[26]  Meaghan C. Sullivan,et al.  TimeLapse-seq: Adding a temporal dimension to RNA sequencing through nucleoside recoding , 2018, Nature Methods.

[27]  Florian Erhard,et al.  Dissecting newly transcribed and old RNA using GRAND-SLAM , 2018, Bioinform..

[28]  N. Akimitsu,et al.  Genome-wide technology for determining RNA stability in mammalian cells , 2012, RNA biology.

[29]  Leighton J. Core,et al.  Nascent RNA Sequencing Reveals Widespread Pausing and Divergent Initiation at Human Promoters , 2008, Science.

[30]  Johannes Zuber,et al.  Thiol-linked alkylation of RNA to assess expression dynamics , 2017, Nature Methods.

[31]  L. Dölken,et al.  Metabolic tagging and purification of nascent RNA: implications for transcriptomics. , 2009, Molecular bioSystems.

[32]  Wei Shi,et al.  featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features , 2013, Bioinform..

[33]  Alexander Lex,et al.  UpSetR: an R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties , 2017, bioRxiv.

[34]  J. Boothroyd,et al.  Biosynthetic labeling of RNA with uracil phosphoribosyltransferase allows cell-specific microarray analysis of mRNA synthesis and decay , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[35]  Yang Luo,et al.  Global profiling of cellular substrates of human Dcp2. , 2020, Biochemistry.