Processing of fish Ig heavy chain transcripts: Diverse splicing patterns and unusual nonsense mediated decay

While the diversification of the antigen-binding sites is realized by genomic VDJ rearrangements during B cell differentiation, different forms of immunoglobulin (Ig) heavy (H) chains can be produced through multiple splicing pathways. In most vertebrates, the secreted (S) and membrane (Mb) forms of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Developmental and comparative immunology 2011-09, Vol.35 (9), p.949-958
Main Authors: Quiniou, Sylvie M.A., Wilson, Melanie, Boudinot, Pierre
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Conserved Sequence - genetics
Danio rerio
Evolution, Molecular
Fish
Fishes
Freshwater
IgD
IgM
IgT
Immunoglobulin
Immunoglobulin Heavy Chains - genetics
Immunoglobulin Heavy Chains - metabolism
Life Sciences
NMD
Ribonucleoproteins, Small Nuclear - genetics
RNA Splicing - immunology
RNA, Messenger - genetics
RNA, Messenger - metabolism
Splicing
Teleostei
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:While the diversification of the antigen-binding sites is realized by genomic VDJ rearrangements during B cell differentiation, different forms of immunoglobulin (Ig) heavy (H) chains can be produced through multiple splicing pathways. In most vertebrates, the secreted (S) and membrane (Mb) forms of IgM chain are created by alternative splicing through usage of a cryptic splice site in Cμ4 allowing the junction to the TM exon. The processing pattern for Igμ is different in teleosts, which generally use the Cμ3 donor site instead. In ancient fish lineages, multiple unusual splicing patterns were found for Ig H chain, involving donor sites that do not always follow the classical consensus. The production of IgD versus IgM H chains seems to be generally realized by alternative splicing in all vertebrates, but typical teleost IgD H chains are chimeric and contains a Cμ1 domain. Together, these observations raise questions on how different fish regulate RNA splicing and if their splicing machinery is especially complex. A preliminary scan of the zebrafish and stickleback genomes provides evidence that gene orthologs to the mammalian main splice factors are highly conserved as single copy genes, while the snRNPs U repertoire may be different and may explain other particular features of RNA processing in fish.
ISSN:0145-305X
1879-0089
DOI:10.1016/j.dci.2010.12.007