Myelodysplasia-associated mutations in serine/arginine-rich splicing factor SRSF2 lead to alternative splicing of CDC25C.

Abstract

BackgroundSerine–arginine rich splicing factor 2 (SRSF2) is a protein known for its role in RNA splicing and genome stability. It has been recently discovered that SRSF2, along with other splicing regulators, is frequently mutated in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The most common MDS mutations in SRSF2 occur at proline 95; the mutant proteins are shown to have different RNA binding preferences, which may contribute to splicing changes detected in mutant cells. However, the influence of these SRSF2 MDS-associated mutations on specific splicing events remains poorly understood.ResultsA tetracycline-inducible TF-1 erythroleukemia cell line was transduced with retroviruses to create cell lines expressing HA-tagged wildtype SRSF2, SRSF2 with proline 95 point mutations found in MDS, or SRSF2 with a deletion of one of the four major domains of the protein. Effects of these mutants on apoptosis and specific alternative splicing events were evaluated. Cells were also treated with DNA damaging drugs for comparison. MDS-related P95 point mutants of SRSF2 were expressed and phosphorylated at similar levels as wildtype SRSF2. However, cells expressing mutant SRSF2 exhibited higher levels of apoptosis than cells expressing wildtype SRSF2. Regarding alternative splicing events, in nearly all examined cases, SRSF2 P95 mutants acted in a similar fashion as the wildtype SRSF2. However, cells expressing SRSF2 P95 mutants had a percent increase in the C5 spliced isoform of cell division cycle 25C (CDC25C). The same alternative splicing of CDC25C was detected by treating cells with DNA damaging drugs, such as cisplatin, camptothecin, and trichostatin A at appropriate dosage. However, unlike DNA damaging drugs, SRSF2 P95 mutants did not activate the Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) pathway.ConclusionSRSF2 P95 mutants lead to alternative splicing of CDC25C in a manner that is not dependent on the DNA damage response.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12867-016-0071-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.