Cell Culture and UV Cross-Linking

The RNA exosome complex functions in both the accurate processing and rapid degradation of many classes of RNA in eukaryotes and Archaea. Functional and structural analyses indicate that RNA can either be threaded through the central channel of the exosome or more directly access the active sites of the ribonucleases Rrp44 and Rrp6, but in most cases, it remains unclear how many substrates follow each pathway in vivo. Here we describe the method for using an UV cross-linking technique termed CRAC to generate stringent, transcriptome-wide mapping of exosome–substrate interaction sites in vivo and at base-pair resolution.

We present a protocol for the identification of RNA interaction sites for the exosome, using UV cross-linking and analysis of cDNA (CRAC) [1, 2 ]. A number of related protocols for the identification of sites of RNA–protein interaction have been reported, including HITS-CLIP, CLIP-Seq, iCLIP, eCLIP, and others [ 3 , 4, 5 , 6 ]. These all exploit protein immunoprecipitation to isolate protein–RNA complexes. CRAC is distinguished by the inclusion of tandem affinity purification and denaturing purification, allowing greater stringency in the recovery of authentic RNA–protein interaction sites.

To allow CRAC analyses, strains are created that express a “bait” protein with a tripartite tag. This generally consists of His6, followed by a TEV-protease cleavage site, then two copies of the z-domain from Protein A (HTP). The tag is inserted at the C terminus of the endogenous gene within the chromosome. The fusion construct is the only version of the protein expressed and this is under the control of the endogenous promoter. Several alternative tags have been successfully used, including a version with N-terminal fusion to a tag consisting of 3× FLAG-PreSission protease (PP) cleavage site-His6 (FPH) [ 7 ]. This is a smaller construct and is suitable for use on proteins with structures that are incompatible with C-terminal tagging. An additional variant is the insertion of a PP site into a protein that is also HTP tagged. This allows the separation of different domains of multidomain proteins. Importantly, the intact protein is cross-linked in the living cell, with domain separation in vitro. This has been successfully applied to the exosome subunit Rrp44/Dis3 to specifically identify binding sites for the PIN endonuclease domain [ 8 ].

Briefly, during standard CRAC analyses, covalently linked protein–exosome complexes are generated in vivo by irradiation with UV-C (254 nm). This generates RNA radicals that rapidly react with proteins in direct contact with the affected nucleotide (zero length cross-linking). The cells are then lysed and complexes with the bait protein are purified using an IgG column. Protein–RNA complexes are specifically eluted by TEV cleavage of the fusion protein and cross-linked RNAs trimmed using RNase A/T1, leaving a protected “footprint” of the protein binding site on the RNA. Trimmed complexes are denatured using 6 M Guanidinium, immobilized on Ni-NTA affinity resin and washed under denaturing conditions to dissociate copurifying proteins and complexes. The subsequent enzymatic steps are all performed on-column, during which RNA 3′ and 5′ ends are prepared, labeled with ³²P (to allow RNA–protein complexes to be followed during gel separation) and linkers ligated. Note, however, that alternatives to using ³²P labeling have been reported (e.g., [ 6 ]). The linker-ligated, RNA–protein complexes are eluted from the Ni-NTA resin and size selected on a denaturing SDS-PAGE gel. Following elution, the bound RNA is released by degradation of the bait protein using treatment with Proteinase K. The recovered RNA fragments are identified by reverse transcription, PCR amplification and sequencing using an Illumina platform.

Relative to CLIP-related protocols, CRAC offers the advantages of stringent purification, that substantially reduces background, and on-bead linker ligation that simplifies separation of reaction constituents during successive enzymatic steps. It also avoids the necessity to generate high-affinity antibodies needed for immunoprecipitation. Potential disadvantages are that, despite their ubiquitous use in yeast studies, tagged constructs may not be fully functional. This can be partially mitigated by confirming the ability of the tagged protein to support normal cell growth and/or RNA processing, or by comparing the behavior of N- and C-terminal tagged constructs. Additionally, because linkers are ligated to the protein–RNA complex, a possible disadvantage is that UV-cross-linking of the RNA at, or near, the 5′ or 3′ end it may sterically hinder on-column (de)phosphorylation and/or linker ligation. With these caveats, CRAC has been successfully applied to >50 proteins in budding yeast, and in other systems ranging from pathogenic bacteria to viral infected mouse cells [ 7 , 9 ].

Appropriate negative controls and experimental replicates are required to determine the background signal and true positive binding sites. We routinely use the (untagged) yeast parental strain as a negative control, performing a minimum of two biological and technical replicates for each sample. It is commonly observed that technical replicates (even samples from the same culture) processed in two independent CRAC experiments show more differences than two biological replicates (independent cultures) processed together.