A positional and combinatorial regulatory code for alternative splicing

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Alternative pre-mRNA splicing generates extensive transcript diversity, yet the regulatory code that determines how splicing decisions are encoded across the transcriptome remains poorly defined. Splicing outcomes are controlled by combinatorial RNA-binding protein (RBP) interactions and positional context, but how these features are integrated at the transcriptome scale remains unclear. CLIP-based approaches have mapped RBP binding, but directly comparable endogenous maps across multiple RBPs are lacking, limiting inference of global regulatory principles. Here we introduce SCALE-CLIP, an endogenous CLIP framework that integrates CRISPR-Cas9-mediated epitope tagging with long-read-guided read attribution to generate directly comparable RBP binding maps across splicing-regulatory factors. Applied to 23 RBPs, SCALE-CLIP expanded endogenous RBP coverage and, across benchmarked shared factors, increased peak recovery by a median of 12.2-fold relative to ENCODE eCLIP while preserving specificity and reproducibility. We define a transcriptome-wide positional and combinatorial code for alternative splicing, in which binding position is a primary determinant of regulatory outcome: SRSF binding within alternative exons promotes inclusion, whereas binding on flanking exons drives exon skipping. Higher-order SRSF occupancy further tunes this code, buffering exon inclusion when centered on alternative exons but reinforcing repression when distributed across flanking exons. We also show that m 6 A provides an epitranscriptomic layer that locally enhances SRSF binding and is associated with increased exon inclusion. Together, these results establish a multi-layered RNA-binding logic in which binding position, combinatorial RBP architecture and RNA modification jointly shape splicing outcomes, providing a framework for rational interpretation and modulation of alternative splicing.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.