Retrotransposition Efficiency Research Articles

Locus-resolution analysis of L1 regulation and retrotransposition potential in mouse embryonic development.

Mice harbor ∼2800 intact copies of the retrotransposon Long Interspersed Element 1 (L1). The in vivo retrotransposition capacity of an L1 copy is defined by both its sequence integrity and epigenetic status, including DNA methylation of the monomeric units constituting young mouse L1 promoters. Locus-specific L1 methylation dynamics during development may therefore elucidate and explain spatiotemporal niches of endogenous retrotransposition but remain unresolved. Here, we interrogate the retrotransposition efficiency and epigenetic fate of source (donor) L1s, identified as mobile in vivo. We show that promoter monomer loss consistently attenuates the relative retrotransposition potential of their offspring (daughter) L1 insertions. We also observe that most donor/daughter L1 pairs are efficiently methylated upon differentiation in vivo and in vitro. We use Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long-read sequencing to resolve L1 methylation genome-wide and at individual L1 loci, revealing a distinctive "smile" pattern in methylation levels across the L1 promoter region. Using Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) SMRT sequencing of L1 5' RACE products, we then examine DNA methylation dynamics at the mouse L1 promoter in parallel with transcription start site (TSS) distribution at locus-specific resolution. Together, our results offer a novel perspective on the interplay between epigenetic repression, L1 evolution, and genome stability.

HCV Activates Somatic L1 Retrotransposition-A Potential Hepatocarcinogenesis Pathway.

Simple SummaryChronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a common cause of liver cancer in the developed world. Although anti-viral treatment can cure HCV infection, the risk of cancer development remains in individuals with consequent advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. In this study, we show that HCV can influence transposable DNA elements called L1 retrotransposons. These are mobile genetic elements that can negatively alter the host genome, potentially promoting cancer development. L1 elements are known to be activated in several cancer types, including liver cancer. Hence, we suggest a novel pathway involved in liver cancer development in patients with chronic HCV, including those with active infection as well as after viral clearance.Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The activation and mutagenic consequences of L1 retrotransposons in virus-associated-HCC have been documented. However, the direct influence of HCV upon L1 elements is unclear, and is the focus of the present study. L1 transcript expression was evaluated in a publicly available liver tissue RNA-seq dataset from patients with chronic HCV hepatitis (CHC), as well as healthy controls. L1 transcript expression was significantly higher in CHC than in controls. L1orf1p (a L1 encoded protein) expression was observed in six out of 11 CHC livers by immunohistochemistry. To evaluate the influence of HCV on retrotransposition efficiency, in vitro engineered-L1 retrotransposition assays were employed in Huh7 cells in the presence and absence of an HCV replicon. An increased retrotransposition rate was observed in the presence of replicating HCV RNA, and persisted in cells after viral clearance due to sofosbuvir (PSI7977) treatment. Increased retrotransposition could be due to dysregulation of the DNA-damage repair response, including homologous recombination, due to HCV infection. Altogether these data suggest that L1 expression can be activated before oncogenic transformation in CHC patients, with HCV-upregulated retrotransposition potentially contributing to HCC genomic instability and a risk of transformation that persists post-viral clearance.

LINE-1 vectors mediate recombinant antibody gene transfer by retrotransposition in Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Retrotransposons, such as long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1), can copy themselves to other genomic loci via a transposition event (termed retrotransposition). Retrotransposons, therefore, have potential use as an efficient gene delivery tool to integrate multiple copies of a target gene into a host genome. Here, we developed a retrotransposon vector based on LINE-1 that achieves target gene integration of multiple transgene copies. The retrotransposon vector contains a neomycin resistance gene split by an intron as a marker gene, and a gene encoding an antibody single-chain variable fragment (Fv) fused with the constant antibody region (Fc) (scFv-Fc) as a model target gene. G418-resistant Chinese hamster ovary cells were generated using this retrotransposon vector, and scFv-Fc was produced in the culture medium. To regulate retrotransposition, we developed a retrotransposon vector system that separately expressed the two open reading frames (ORF1 and ORF2) of LINE-1. Genomic PCR analysis detected the transgene sequence in almost all tested clones. Compared with clones established using the intact LINE-1 vector, clones generated with the split ORF1 and ORF2 system showed similar specific scFv-Fc productivity and retrotransposition efficiency. This approach of using a retrotransposon-based vector system has the potential to provide a new gene delivery tool for mammalian cells.

Essential factors involved in the precise targeting and insertion of telomere-specific non-LTR retrotransposon, SART1Bm

Telomere length maintenance is essential for most eukaryotes to ensure genome stability and integrity. A non-long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon, SART1Bm, targets telomeric repeats (TTAGG)n of the silkworm Bombyx mori and is presumably involved in telomere length maintenance. However, how many telomeric repeats are required for its retrotransposition and how reverse transcription is initiated at the target site are not well understood. Here, using an ex vivo and trans-in vivo recombinant baculovirus retrotransposition system, we demonstrated that SART1Bm requires at least three (TTAGG) telomeric repeats and a longer poly(A) tail for its accurate retrotransposition. We found that SART1Bm retrotransposed only in the third (TTAGG) tract of three repeats and that the A residue of the (TTAGG) unit was essential for its retrotransposition. Interestingly, SART1Bm also retrotransposed into telomeric repeats of other species, such as human (TTAGGG)n repeats, albeit with low retrotransposition efficiency. We further showed that the reverse transcription of SART1Bm occurred inaccurately at the internal site of the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) when using a short poly(A) tail but at the accurate site when using a longer poly(A) tail. These findings promote our understanding of the general mechanisms of site-specific retrotransposition and aid the development of a site-specific gene knock-in tool.

Properties of LINE-1 proteins and repeat element expression in the context of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

ABSTRACTBackgroundAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease involving loss of motor neurons and having no known cure and uncertain etiology. Several studies have drawn connections between altered retrotransposon expression and ALS. Certain features of the LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposon-encoded ORF1 protein (ORF1p) are analogous to those of neurodegeneration-associated RNA-binding proteins, including formation of cytoplasmic aggregates. In this study we explore these features and consider possible links between L1 expression and ALS.ResultsWe first considered factors that modulate aggregation and subcellular distribution of LINE-1 ORF1p, including nuclear localization. Changes to some ORF1p amino acid residues alter both retrotransposition efficiency and protein aggregation dynamics, and we found that one such polymorphism is present in endogenous L1s abundant in the human genome. We failed, however, to identify CRM1-mediated nuclear export signals in ORF1p nor strict involvement of cell cycle in endogenous ORF1p nuclear localization in human 2102Ep germline teratocarcinoma cells. Some proteins linked with ALS bind and colocalize with L1 ORF1p ribonucleoprotein particles in cytoplasmic RNA granules. Increased expression of several ALS-associated proteins, including TAR DNA Binding Protein (TDP-43), strongly limits cell culture retrotransposition, while some disease-related mutations modify these effects. Using quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) of ALS tissues and reanalysis of publicly available RNA-Seq datasets, we asked if changes in expression of retrotransposons are associated with ALS. We found minimal altered expression in sporadic ALS tissues but confirmed a previous report of differential expression of many repeat subfamilies in C9orf72 gene-mutated ALS patients.ConclusionsHere we extended understanding of the subcellular localization dynamics of the aggregation-prone LINE-1 ORF1p RNA-binding protein. However, we failed to find compelling evidence for misregulation of LINE-1 retrotransposons in sporadic ALS nor a clear effect of ALS-associated TDP-43 protein on L1 expression. In sum, our study reveals that the interplay of active retrotransposons and the molecular features of ALS are more complex than anticipated. Thus, the potential consequences of altered retrotransposon activity for ALS and other neurodegenerative disorders are worthy of continued investigation.

How Cell Stress and 3′ End Alterations Control the Metabolism of a Cellular Non‐Coding RNA

RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) canonically acts as a DNA‐dependent RNA polymerase (DdRP), using double stranded DNA to synthesize protein‐encoding mRNAs and some non‐coding RNAs. Pol II also has RNA‐dependent RNA polymerase activity (RdRP), which uses an RNA as a template to synthesize RNA. An example of Pol II RdRP activity is the 3′ end extension of the non‐coding B2 RNA to generate extended B2 (eB2) RNA. B2 RNA binds to Pol II and is a substrate for a Pol II‐dependent 18 nucleotide RdRP‐catalyzed extension to form eB2 RNA. eB2 RNA can be detected in cells and has a reduced half‐life as compared to B2 RNA.B2 RNA is transcribed by Pol III from Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs), which exist in over 350,000 copies in the mouse genome due to retrotransposition. Upon cellular stress, transcription of non‐coding B2 RNAs from B2 SINEs is greatly increased, thereby increasing the likelihood of retrotransposition of B2 SINEs. The RdRP activity of Pol II could control the levels of B2 RNA post‐transcriptionally by generating eB2 RNA to promote its degradation, thereby impacting the frequency of retrotransposition.To study the effects of 3′ end extension and cellular stress on the lifecycle and metabolism of B2 RNA we are developing a heterologous expression system. Because the B2 SINE sequence is embedded in many mouse mRNA transcripts (e.g. UTRs and introns), it is impossible to perform hybridization and PCR‐based experiments to distinguish between a Pol III‐derived B2 RNA and those sequences within mRNA transcripts. To overcome this, we express B2 and eB2 RNA in human cells, which do not contain B2 SINEs, using a human Pol III promoter. The expressed RNAs are the correct size, have the correct 5′ ends, have the correct 3′ secondary structure, and exogenous eB2 has decreased stability compared to B2 RNA. Therefore, the heterologous system mimics characteristics of B2 RNA and eB2 RNA in mouse cells.Using this system, ongoing experiments are investigating how extension alters the cellular localization of B2 RNA and retrotransposition efficiency in unstressed and stressed cells. Altogether, these experiments will determine the interplay between B2 RNA expression, Pol II RdRP extension, cellular localization, and cellular stress on the life cycle of this ncRNA.Support or Funding InformationR01 GM68414 T32GM008759This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Reviving a 60 million year old LINE-1 element

Mobile elements have significantly impacted genome structure of most organisms. The continued activity of the mobile element, LINE-1 (L1), through time has contributed to the accumulation of over half a million L1 copies in the human genome. Most copies in the human genome belong to evolutionary older extinct L1s. Here we apply our previous published approach to “revive” the extinct L1 PA13A; an L1 family that was active about 60 million year ago (mya). The reconstructed L1PA13A is retrocompentent in culture, but shows a significantly lower level of activity in HeLa cells when compared to the modern L1 element (L1PA1) and a 40 million year old L1PA8. L1 elements code for two proteins (ORF1p and ORF2p) that are necessary for retrotransposition. Using PA13A-PA1 and PA13A-PA8 L1 chimeric elements, we determined that both the ORF1p and ORF2p contribute to the observed decrease in retrotransposition efficiency of L1PA13A. The lower retrotransposition rate of L1PA13A is consistent in both human and rodent cell lines. However, in rodent cells, the chimeric element L1PA:1–13 containing the modern L1PA1 ORF1p shows a recovery in the retrotransposition rate, suggestive that the L1PA13A ORF2p efficiently drives retrotransposition in these cells. The functionality of the L1PA13A ORF2p was further confirmed by demonstrating its ability to drive Alu retrotransposition in rodent cells. The variation in L1PA13A retrotransposition rates observed between rodent and human cells are suggestive that cellular environment significantly affects retrotransposition efficiency, which may be mediated through an interaction with ORF1p. Based on these observations, we speculate that the observed differences between cell lines may reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the L1 element to its host cell.

LINE-1 Cultured Cell Retrotransposition Assay.

The Long INterspersed Element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) retrotransposition assay has facilitated the discovery and characterization of active (i.e., retrotransposition-competent) LINE-1 sequences from mammalian genomes. In this assay, an engineered LINE-1 containing a retrotransposition reporter cassette is transiently transfected into a cultured cell line. Expression of the reporter cassette, which occurs only after a successful round of retrotransposition, allows the detection and quantification of the LINE-1 retrotransposition efficiency. This assay has yielded insight into the mechanism of LINE-1 retrotransposition. It also has provided a greater understanding of how the cell regulates LINE-1 retrotransposition and how LINE-1 retrotransposition impacts the structure of mammalian genomes. Below, we provide a brief introduction to LINE-1 biology and then detail how the LINE-1 retrotransposition assay is performed in cultured mammalian cells.

Molecular Reconstruction of Extinct LINE-1 Elements and Their Interaction with Nonautonomous Elements

Non-long terminal repeat retroelements continue to impact the human genome through cis-activity of long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) and trans-mobilization of Alu. Current activity is dominated by modern subfamilies of these elements, leaving behind an evolutionary graveyard of extinct Alu and L1 subfamilies. Because Alu is a nonautonomous element that relies on L1 to retrotranspose, there is the possibility that competition between these elements has driven selection and antagonistic coevolution between Alu and L1. Through analysis of synonymous versus nonsynonymous codon evolution across L1 subfamilies, we find that the C-terminal ORF2 cys domain experienced a dramatic increase in amino acid substitution rate in the transition from L1PA5 to L1PA4 subfamilies. This observation coincides with the previously reported rapid evolution of ORF1 during the same transition period. Ancestral Alu sequences have been previously reconstructed, as their short size and ubiquity have made it relatively easy to retrieve consensus sequences from the human genome. In contrast, creating constructs of extinct L1 copies is a more laborious task. Here, we report our efforts to recreate and evaluate the retrotransposition capabilities of two ancestral L1 elements, L1PA4 and L1PA8 that were active ∼18 and ∼40 Ma, respectively. Relative to the modern L1PA1 subfamily, we find that both elements are similarly active in a cell culture retrotransposition assay in HeLa, and both are able to efficiently trans-mobilize Alu elements from several subfamilies. Although we observe some variation in Alu subfamily retrotransposition efficiency, any coevolution that may have occurred between LINEs and SINEs is not evident from these data. Population dynamics and stochastic variation in the number of active source elements likely play an important role in individual LINE or SINE subfamily amplification. If coevolution also contributes to changing retrotransposition rates and the progression of subfamilies, cell factors are likely to play an important mediating role in changing LINE-SINE interactions over evolutionary time.

Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) modulates long interspersed element-1 (L1) retrotransposition in human neural stem cells

Long interspersed element-1 (L1) retrotransposons compose ∼20% of the mammalian genome, and ongoing L1 retrotransposition events can impact genetic diversity by various mechanisms. Previous studies have demonstrated that endogenous L1 retrotransposition can occur in the germ line and during early embryonic development. In addition, recent data indicate that engineered human L1s can undergo somatic retrotransposition in human neural progenitor cells and that an increase in human-specific L1 DNA content can be detected in the brains of normal controls, as well as in Rett syndrome patients. Here, we demonstrate an increase in the retrotransposition efficiency of engineered human L1s in cells that lack or contain severely reduced levels of ataxia telangiectasia mutated, a serine/threonine kinase involved in DNA damage signaling and neurodegenerative disease. We demonstrate that the increase in L1 retrotransposition in ataxia telangiectasia mutated-deficient cells most likely occurs by conventional target-site primed reverse transcription and generate either longer, or perhaps more, L1 retrotransposition events per cell. Finally, we provide evidence suggesting an increase in human-specific L1 DNA copy number in postmortem brain tissue derived from ataxia telangiectasia patients compared with healthy controls. Together, these data suggest that cellular proteins involved in the DNA damage response may modulate L1 retrotransposition.

Endogenous APOBEC3B Restricts LINE-1 Retrotransposition in Transformed Cells and Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Members of the APOBEC3 (A3) family of cytidine deaminase enzymes act as host defense mechanisms limiting both infections by exogenous retroviruses and mobilization of endogenous retrotransposons. Previous studies revealed that the overexpression of some A3 proteins could restrict engineered human Long INterspersed Element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) retrotransposition in HeLa cells. However, whether endogenous A3 proteins play a role in restricting L1 retrotransposition remains largely unexplored. Here, we show that HeLa cells express endogenous A3B and A3C, whereas human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) express A3B, A3C, A3DE, A3F, and A3G. To study the relative contribution of endogenous A3 proteins in restricting L1 retrotransposition, we first generated small hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) to suppress endogenous A3 mRNA expression, and then assessed L1 mobility using a cell-based L1 retrotransposition assay. We demonstrate that in both HeLa and hESCs, shRNA-based knockdown of A3B promotes a ∼2-3.7-fold increase in the retrotransposition efficiency of an engineered human L1. Knockdown of the other A3s produced no significant increase in L1 activity. Thus, A3B appears to restrict engineered L1 retrotransposition in a broad range of cell types, including pluripotent cells.

Effect of reverse transcriptase inhibitors on LINE-1 and Ty1 reverse transcriptase activities and on LINE-1 retrotransposition

BackgroundLINE-1s (L1, Long Interspersed Element-1) are the most abundant autonomous non-LTR retrotransposons in the human genome and replicate by reverse transcription of an RNA intermediate. Full-length L1 encodes two open reading frames (ORF1, ORF2) and ORF2 has reverse transcriptase activity.ResultsHere we expressed human L1 RT in E. coli and the purified protein displayed the same RT activity as that of ORF2p expressed in insect cells. We tested the effect of different reverse transcriptase inhibitors on L1 RT and found that all four tested nucleoside inhibitors efficiently inhibited L1 RT activity competitively. The Ki values of NRTIs were calculated (AZTTP, 16.4 ± 4.21 nM; d4TTP, 0.73 ± 0.22 nM; ddCTP, 0.72 ± 0.16 nM; 3TCTP, 12.9 ± 2.07 nM). L1 RT was less sensitive to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, among these nevirapine had no effect, even at concentrations up to 500 μM. We also examined the effect of RT inhibitors on L1 retrotransposition efficiency in vivo using a cell-based retrotransposition assay. Similarly, all analog inhibitors decreased L1 retrotransposition frequency with different potencies whereas nevirapine had little or no effect on L1 retrotransposition. For comparison, we also tested the same inhibitors to highly purified RT of an LTR-retrotransposon (Ty1) and found it was less sensitive to NRTIs than L1 RT and has the same inhibition profile as L1 RT to NNRTIs.ConclusionsThese data indicate that bacterially expressed L1 RT is an active reverse transcriptase sensitive to nucleoside RT inhibitors but not to non-nucleoside inhibitors.

Diverse cis factors controlling Alu retrotransposition: What causes Alu elements to die?

The human genome contains nearly 1.1 million Alu elements comprising roughly 11% of its total DNA content. Alu elements use a copy and paste retrotransposition mechanism that can result in de novo disease insertion alleles. There are nearly 900,000 old Alu elements from subfamilies S and J that appear to be almost completely inactive, and about 200,000 from subfamily Y or younger, which include a few thousand copies of the Ya5 subfamily which makes up the majority of current activity. Given the much higher copy number of the older Alu subfamilies, it is not known why all of the active Alu elements belong to the younger subfamilies. We present a systematic analysis evaluating the observed sequence variation in the different sections of an Alu element on retrotransposition. The length of the longest number of uninterrupted adenines in the A-tail, the degree of A-tail heterogeneity, the length of the 3' unique end after the A-tail and before the RNA polymerase III terminator, and random mutations found in the right monomer all modulate the retrotransposition efficiency. These changes occur over different evolutionary time frames. The combined impact of sequence changes in all of these regions explains why young Alus are currently causing disease through retrotransposition, and the old Alus have lost their ability to retrotranspose. We present a predictive model to evaluate the retrotransposition capability of individual Alu elements and successfully applied it to identify the first putative source element for a disease-causing Alu insertion in a patient with cystic fibrosis.

A single amino acid substitution in ORF1 dramatically decreases L1 retrotransposition and provides insight into nucleic acid chaperone activity

L1 is a ubiquitous interspersed repeated sequence in mammals that achieved its high copy number by autonomous retrotransposition. Individual L1 elements within a genome differ in sequence and retrotransposition activity. Retrotransposition requires two L1-encoded proteins, ORF1p and ORF2p. Chimeric elements were used to map a 15-fold difference in retrotransposition efficiency between two L1 variants from the mouse genome, TFC and TFspa, to a single amino acid substitution in ORF1p, D159H. The steady-state levels of L1 RNA and protein do not differ significantly between these two elements, yet new insertions are detected earlier and at higher frequency in TFC, indicating that it converts expressed L1 intermediates more effectively into new insertions. The two ORF1 proteins were purified and their nucleic acid binding and chaperone activities were examined in vitro. Although the RNA and DNA oligonucleotide binding affinities of these two ORF1 proteins were largely indistinguishable, D159 was significantly more effective as a nucleic acid chaperone than H159. These findings support a requirement for ORF1p nucleic acid chaperone activity at a late step during L1 retrotransposition, extend the region of ORF1p that is known to be critical for its functional interactions with nucleic acids, and enhance understanding of nucleic acid chaperone activity.

Extensive individual variation in L1 retrotransposition capability contributes to human genetic diversity

Despite being scarce in the human genome, active L1 retrotransposons continue to play a significant role in its evolution. Because of their recent expansion, many L1s are not fixed in humans, and, when present, their mobilization potential can vary among individuals. Previously, we showed that the great majority of retrotransposition events in humans are caused by highly active, or hot, L1s. Here, in four populations of diverse geographic origins (160 haploid genomes), we investigated the degree of sequence polymorphism of three hot L1s and the extent of individual variation in mobilization capability of their allelic variants. For each locus, we found one previously uncharacterized allele in every three to five genomes, including some with nonsense and insertion/deletion mutations. Single or multiple nucleotide substitutions drastically affected the retrotransposition efficiency of some alleles. One-third of elements were no longer hot, and these so-called cool alleles substantially increased the range of individual susceptibility to retrotransposition events. Adding the activity of the three elements in each individual resulted in a surprising degree of variation in mobilization capability, ranging from 0% to 390% of a reference L1. These data suggest that individual variation in retrotransposition potential makes an important contribution to human genetic diversity.

The dicistronic RNA from the mouse LINE-1 retrotransposon contains an internal ribosome entry site upstream of each ORF: implications for retrotransposition

Most eukaryotic mRNAs are monocistronic and translated by cap-dependent initiation. LINE-1 RNA is exceptional because it is naturally dicistronic, encoding two proteins essential for retrotransposition, ORF1p and ORF2p. Here, we show that sequences upstream of ORF1 and ORF2 in mouse L1 function as internal ribosome entry sites (IRESes). Deletion analysis of the ORF1 IRES indicates that RNA structure is critical for its function. Conversely, the ORF2 IRES localizes to 53 nt near the 3′ end of ORF1, and appears to depend upon sequence rather than structure. The 40 nt intergenic region (IGR) is not essential for ORF2 IRES function or retrotransposition. Because of strong cis-preference for both proteins during L1 retrotransposition, correct stoichiometry of the two proteins can only be achieved post-transcriptionally. Although the precise stoichiometry is unknown, the retrotransposition intermediate likely contains hundreds of ORF1ps for every ORF2p, together with one L1 RNA. IRES-mediated translation initiation is a well-established mechanism of message-specific regulation, hence, unique mechanisms for the recognition and control of these two IRESes in the L1 RNA could explain differences in translational efficiency of ORF1 and ORF2. In addition, translational regulation may provide an additional layer of control on L1 retrotransposition efficiency, thereby protecting the integrity of the genome.

Functional roles of 3'-terminal structures of template RNA during in vivo retrotransposition of non-LTR retrotransposon, R1Bm

R1Bm is a non-LTR retrotransposon found specifically within 28S rRNA genes of the silkworm. Different from other non-LTR retrotransposons encoding two open reading frames (ORFs), R1Bm structurally lacks a poly (A) tract at its 3′ end. To study how R1Bm initiates reverse transcription from the poly (A)-less template RNA, we established an in vivo retrotransposition system using recombinant baculovirus, and characterized retrotransposition activities of R1Bm. Target-primed reverse transcription (TPRT) of R1Bm occurred from the cleavage site generated by endonuclease (EN). The 147 bp of 3′-untranslated region (3′UTR) was essential for efficient retrotransposition of R1Bm. Even using the complete R1Bm element, however, reverse transcription started from various sites of the template RNA mostly with 5′-UG-3′ or 5′-UGU-3′ at their 3′ ends, which are presumably base-paired with 3′ end of the EN-digested 28S rDNA target sequence, 5′-AGTAGATAGGGACA-3′. When the downstream sequence of 28S rDNA target was added to the 3′ end of R1 unit, reverse transcription started exactly from the 3′ end of 3′UTR and retrotransposition efficiency increased. These results indicate that 3′-terminal structure of template RNA including read-through region interacts with its target rDNA sequences of R1Bm, which plays important roles in initial process of TPRT in vivo.

Allelic Heterogeneity in LINE-1 Retrotransposition Activity

De novo LINE-1 (long interspersed element-1, or L1) retrotransposition events are responsible for approximately 1/1,000 disease-causing mutations in humans. Previously, L1.2 was identified as the likely progenitor of a mutagenic insertion in the factor VIII gene in a patient with hemophilia A. It subsequently was shown to be one of a small number of active L1s in the human genome. Here, we demonstrate that L1.2 is present at an intermediate insertion allele frequency in worldwide human populations and that common alleles (L1.2A and L1.2B) exhibit an approximately 16-fold difference in their ability to retrotranspose in cultured human HeLa cells. Chimera analysis revealed that two amino acid substitutions (S1259L and I1220M) downstream of the conserved cysteine-rich motif in L1 open reading frame 2 are largely responsible for the observed reduction in L1.2A retrotransposition efficiency. Thus, common L1 alleles can vary widely in their retrotransposition potential. We propose that such allelic heterogeneity can influence the potential L1 mutational load present in an individual genome.