Regensburg, Univ., Diss., 2001.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2004--Bielefeld. / Erscheinungsjahr an der Haupttitelstelle: 2003.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2004--Jena.

Techn. University, Diss., 2004--Dresden.

Bei konventionellen Mikroarray-Experimenten zur Genexpressionsanalyse wird fluoreszenz- oder radioaktiv-markierte cDNA oder RNA mit immobilisierten Proben hybridisiert. Für ein gut detektierbares und auswertbares Ergebnis werden jedoch pro Array mindestens 15 - 20 &#181;g Hybridisierungstarget benötigt. Dazu müssen entweder 15 - 20 &#181;g RNA direkt durch Reverse Transkription in markierte cDNA umgeschrieben werden oder bei Vorhandensein von weniger Startmaterial die RNA amplifiziert werden (Standard- Affymetrix-Protokolle, Klur et al. 2004). Oft sind damit zeit- und kostenintensive Probenpräparationen verbunden und das Ergebnis ist nicht immer reproduzierbar. Obwohl es inzwischen einige Protokolle gibt, die dieses Problem zu lösen versuchen (Zhang et al. 2001, Iscove et al. 2002, McClintick et al. 2003, Stirewalt et al. 2004), eine optimale, leicht handbare und reproduzierbare Methode gibt es weiterhin nicht, weshalb in dieser Arbeit ein weiterer Lösungsansatz gesucht wurde.<br> In der vorgestellten Arbeit werden zwei einfache Methoden beschrieben, mit denen Gene aus geringen RNA-Mengen nachgewiesen werden können: erstens die On Chip- RT-PCR mit cDNA als Matrize und zweitens diese Methode als One-Step-Reaktion mit RNA als Matrize.<br><br> Beide Methoden beruhen auf dem Prinzip der PCR an immobilisierten Primern auf einer Chipoberfläche. Diese Möglichkeit der exponentiellen Amplifikation ist reproduzierbar und sensitiv.<br><br> In Experimenten zur Etablierung des On-Chip-PCR-Systems wurden für die Immobilisierung der Primer verschiedene Kopplungsmethoden verwendet. Die affine Kopplung über Biotin- Streptavidin erwies sich als geeignet. Die On-Chip-Reaktion an kovalent gebundenen Primern wurde für amino-modifizierte Primer auf Epoxy-Oberflächen sowie für EDC-Kopplung auf silanisierten Oberflächen gezeigt. Für die letztgenannte Methode wurde die On-Chip-PCR optimiert, dass Spottingkonzentrationen der Primer von 5 - 10&#181;M schon ausreichend sind. Der Einsatz von fluoreszenz-markierten Primern während der PCR ermöglicht eine unmittelbare Auswertung nach der Synthese ohne zusätzliche Detektionsschritte. In dieser Arbeit konnte außerdem mit der vorgestellten Methode der simultane Nachweis zweier Gene gezeigt werden. Die Methode kann noch als Multiplex-Analyse ausgebaut werden, um so mehrere Gene in gleichzeitig einem Ansatz nachweisen zu können.<br><br> Die Ergebnisse der Versuche mit Matrizen aus unterschiedlichen Zelltypen deuten darauf hin, dass die On-Chip-RT-PCR eine weitere optimale Methode für den Nachweis von gering exprimierten Genen bietet. / The detection of low quantities of mRNA is often difficult and methods like microarray analysis require large amount of starting material or have to be amplified before application. The reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is often the chosen method to detect specific RNA sequences on account of its high sensitivity. The solid phase amplification technology by On-Chip-PCR provides a combination of amplification of rare target material and its on chip detection in one step.<br><br> In this report a novel application for the On-Chip-PCR technology is described. It was suitable to identify mRNA sequences and genes, respectively. For this approach we amplified cDNA sequences using immobilized specific primers and fluorescent labeled primers. They were used for genes coding subunits of the mouse muscle acetylcholine receptor (Chrna1, Chrnb1, Chrnd) and the genes coding for myogenin (Myog), muscle creatine kinase (Ckmm) and Atpase (Atp2a2). The cDNA templates were synthesized before the On-Chip application by Reverse Transcription from mRNA. For this application only at most 500 pg of total-RNA preparation was sufficient for detectable results and no pre-amplification steps were needed.<br><br> Furthermore the handling of RT-PCR could be minimized by using a One-step- RT-PCR protocol. This method used immobilized primers on glassy supports detecting specific mRNA sequences from 5 pg or less of total RNA preparations.<br> Moreover to the detection of low quantities of RNA preparation, low abundant genes could be detected by this method.

It is currently believed that the splicing of most pre-mRNAs occurs, at least in part, co-transcriptionally. In order to validate this principle in yeast and establish an experimental system for monitoring spliceosome assembly in vivo, I have employed the chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay to study co-transcriptional splicing events. Here, I use ChIP to examine key questions with respect to the recent proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. In my thesis, I address: 1) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5¡¦ splice site of each intron, is recruited co-transcriptionally in vivo and 2) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. U1 snRNP accumulates on downstream positions of genes containing introns but not within promoter regions or along intronless genes. More specifically, accumulation correlated with the presence and position of the intron, indicating that the intron is necessary for co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention (Kotovic et al., 2003). In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II (Komarnitsky et al., 2000; Schroeder et al., 2000), the U1 snRNP is poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP is dependent on RNA synthesis and is abolished by intron removal. Microarray data reveals that intron-containing genes are preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP furthermore indicating recruitment specificity to introns. Because U1 snRNP levels decrease on downstream regions of intron-containing genes with long second exons, our lab is expanding the study to 3¡¦ splice site factors in hopes to address co-transcriptional splicing. In my thesis, I also focus on questions pertaining to the requirements for recruitment of the U1 snRNP to sites of transcription. To test the proposal that the cap-binding complex (CBC) promotes U1 snRNP recognition of the 5¡¦ splice site (Colot et al., 1996), I use a ?´CBC mutant strain and determine U1 snRNP accumulation by ChIP. Surprisingly, lack of the CBC has no effect on U1 snRNP recruitment. The U1 snRNP component Prp40p has been identified as playing a pivotal role in not only cross-intron bridging (Abovich and Rosbash, 1997), but also as a link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment (Morris and Greenleaf, 2000). My data shows that Prp40p recruitment mirrors that of other U1 snRNP proteins, in that it is not detected on promoter regions, suggesting that Prp40p does not constitutively bind the phosphorylated C-terminal domain (CTD) of Pol II as previously proposed. This physical link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment is further tested in Prp40p mutant strains, in which U1 snRNP is detected at normal levels. Therefore, U1 snRNP recruitment to transcription units is not dependent on Prp40p activity. My data indicates that co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment is not dependent on the CBC or Prp40p and that any effects of these players on spliceosome assembly must be reflected in later spliceosome events. My data contrasts the proposed transcription factory model in which Pol II plays a central role in the recruitment of mRNA processing factors to TUs. According to my data, splicing factor recruitment acts differently than capping enzyme and 3¡¦ end processing factor recruitment; U1 snRNP does not accumulate at promoter regions of intron-containing genes or on intronless genes rather, accumulation is based on the synthesis of the intron. These experiments have lead me to propose a kinetic model with respect to the recruitment of splicing factors to active genes. In this model, U1 snRNP accumulation at the 5¡¦ splice site requires a highly dynamic web of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions to occur, ultimately leading to the recruitment and/or stabilization of the U1 snRNP.

It is currently believed that the splicing of most pre-mRNAs occurs, at least in part, co-transcriptionally. In order to validate this principle in yeast and establish an experimental system for monitoring spliceosome assembly in vivo, I have employed the chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay to study co-transcriptional splicing events. Here, I use ChIP to examine key questions with respect to the recent proposal that RNA polymerase II (Pol II) recruits pre-mRNA splicing factors to active genes. In my thesis, I address: 1) whether the U1 snRNP, which binds to the 5¡¦ splice site of each intron, is recruited co-transcriptionally in vivo and 2) if so, where along the length of active genes the U1 snRNP is concentrated. U1 snRNP accumulates on downstream positions of genes containing introns but not within promoter regions or along intronless genes. More specifically, accumulation correlated with the presence and position of the intron, indicating that the intron is necessary for co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment and/or retention (Kotovic et al., 2003). In contrast to capping enzymes, which bind directly to Pol II (Komarnitsky et al., 2000; Schroeder et al., 2000), the U1 snRNP is poorly detected in promoter regions, except in genes harboring promoter-proximal introns. Detection of the U1 snRNP is dependent on RNA synthesis and is abolished by intron removal. Microarray data reveals that intron-containing genes are preferentially selected by ChIP with the U1 snRNP furthermore indicating recruitment specificity to introns. Because U1 snRNP levels decrease on downstream regions of intron-containing genes with long second exons, our lab is expanding the study to 3¡¦ splice site factors in hopes to address co-transcriptional splicing. In my thesis, I also focus on questions pertaining to the requirements for recruitment of the U1 snRNP to sites of transcription. To test the proposal that the cap-binding complex (CBC) promotes U1 snRNP recognition of the 5¡¦ splice site (Colot et al., 1996), I use a ?´CBC mutant strain and determine U1 snRNP accumulation by ChIP. Surprisingly, lack of the CBC has no effect on U1 snRNP recruitment. The U1 snRNP component Prp40p has been identified as playing a pivotal role in not only cross-intron bridging (Abovich and Rosbash, 1997), but also as a link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment (Morris and Greenleaf, 2000). My data shows that Prp40p recruitment mirrors that of other U1 snRNP proteins, in that it is not detected on promoter regions, suggesting that Prp40p does not constitutively bind the phosphorylated C-terminal domain (CTD) of Pol II as previously proposed. This physical link between Pol II transcription and splicing factor recruitment is further tested in Prp40p mutant strains, in which U1 snRNP is detected at normal levels. Therefore, U1 snRNP recruitment to transcription units is not dependent on Prp40p activity. My data indicates that co-transcriptional U1 snRNP recruitment is not dependent on the CBC or Prp40p and that any effects of these players on spliceosome assembly must be reflected in later spliceosome events. My data contrasts the proposed transcription factory model in which Pol II plays a central role in the recruitment of mRNA processing factors to TUs. According to my data, splicing factor recruitment acts differently than capping enzyme and 3¡¦ end processing factor recruitment; U1 snRNP does not accumulate at promoter regions of intron-containing genes or on intronless genes rather, accumulation is based on the synthesis of the intron. These experiments have lead me to propose a kinetic model with respect to the recruitment of splicing factors to active genes. In this model, U1 snRNP accumulation at the 5¡¦ splice site requires a highly dynamic web of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions to occur, ultimately leading to the recruitment and/or stabilization of the U1 snRNP.