Highlights d Mutation of Hsh155 enables chemical inhibition of pre-mRNA splicing in living yeast d Only a single point mutation in Hsh155 is required for inhibition in cells d Mutations in Hsh155 can synergize with one another to enhance inhibitor sensitivity d Mutations that enable inhibition increase splicing of introns with weak branch sites

Genetic, biochemical, and structural studies have elucidated the molecular basis for spliceosome catalysis. Splicing is RNA catalyzed and the essential snRNA and protein factors are well-conserved. However, little is known about how nonessential components of the spliceosome contribute to the reaction and modulate the activities of the fundamental core machinery. Ecm2 is a nonessential yeast splicing factor that is a member of the Prp19-related complex of proteins. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures have revealed that Ecm2 binds the U6 snRNA and is entangled with Cwc2, a factor previously found to promote a catalytically active conformation of the spliceosome. These structures also indicate that Ecm2 and the U2 snRNA likely form a transient interaction during 5′ splice site (SS) cleavage. We have characterized genetic interactions between ECM2 and alleles of splicing factors that alter the catalytic steps in splicing. In addition, we have studied how loss of ECM2 impacts splicing of pre-mRNAs containing nonconsensus or competing SS. Our results show that ECM2 functions during the catalytic stages of splicing. Our data are consistent with Ecm2 facilitating the formation and stabilization of the first-step catalytic site, promoting second-step catalysis, and permitting alternate 5′ SS usage. We propose that Cwc2 and Ecm2 can each fine-tune the spliceosome active site in unique ways. Their interaction network may act as a conduit through which splicing of certain pre-mRNAs, such as those containing weak or alternate splice sites, can be regulated.

Genetic, biochemical, and structural studies have elucidated the molecular basis for spliceosome catalysis. Splicing is RNA catalyzed and the essential snRNA and protein factors are well-conserved. However, little is known about how non-essential components of the spliceosome contribute to the reaction and modulate the activities of the fundamental core machinery. Ecm2 is a non-essential yeast splicing factor that is a member of the Prp19-related complex of proteins. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures have revealed that Ecm2 binds the U6 snRNA and is entangled with Cwc2, another non-essential factor that promotes a catalytically active conformation of the spliceosome. These structures also indicate that Ecm2 and the U2 snRNA likely form a transient interaction during 5' splice site (SS) cleavage. We have characterized genetic interactions between ECM2 and alleles of splicing factors that alter the catalytic steps in splicing. In addition, we have studied how loss of ECM2 impacts splicing of pre-mRNAs containing non-consensus or competing SS. Our results show that ECM2 functions during the catalytic stages of splicing. It facilitates the formation and stabilization of the 1st-step catalytic site, promotes 2nd-step catalysis, and permits alternate 5' SS usage. We propose that Cwc2 and Ecm2 can each fine-tune the spliceosome active site in unique ways. Their interaction network may act as a conduit through which splicing of certain pre-mRNAs, such as those containing weak or alternate splice sites, can be regulated.

5091 Background: Controversy surrounding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) highlights the need for non-invasive assays that better discriminate patients with and without clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Such distinction avoids overtreatment in patients with absent or indolent disease while capturing pathology that would derive benefit from intervention. We analyzed the presence of specific methylated DNA markers (MDMs) within urine samples of patients with biopsy proven PCa and assessed the ability to discriminate these patients from healthy controls with no clinical suspicion for PCa. Methods: 24 healthy volunteers with no clinical suspicion for PCa were age-matched to 24 patients with biopsy-confirmed disease across all Gleason scores. Urine collected from subjects was centrifuged with the cell-free supernatant analyzed in a blinded fashion for methylation signal within specific DNA sequences across 14 genes ( HES5, ZNF655, ITPRIPL1, MAX.chr3.193, SLCO3A1, CHST11, SERPINB9, WNT3A, KCNB2, GAS6, AKR1B1, MAX.chr3.727, GRASP, ST6GALNAC2) by target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays. A patient was considered to have a positive MDM panel if any individual marker exceeded the corresponding100% specificity cut-off value (overall MDM panel specificity of 100%). MDM panel positivity was used to evaluate the sensitivity for distinguishing patients with PCa (any Gleason score) from controls as well as discriminate csPCa cancers from PCa Gleason 6. Results: Median age of healthy controls and PCa patients was 70 years (IQR 67-72) and 65 years (IQR 61-71), respectively. Median PSA was 6.4 (IQR 4.9-9.0) among PCa patients, including median PSA of 5 (IQR 4.0-6.1) for Gleason 6, and 7.8 (IQR 5.1-9.2) for Gleason ≥7 disease. Gleason 6, Gleason 7, and Gleason 8+ cancer was noted in 8, 10, and 6 patients, respectively. Utilizing an overall specificity cut-off of 100% for discriminating normal controls from PCa cases across the MDM panel revealed an overall sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 63-95%) for detection of PCa (6 of 8 Gleason 6, 9 of 10 Gleason 7, 5 of 6 Gleason 8+) and 88% (95% CI: 62-98%) for csPCa (Gleason ≥ 7). When considering a 100% specificity threshold for controls and Gleason 6 patients, the sensitivity the MDM panel was 69% (95% CI: 41-89%) for csPCa (6 of 10 Gleason 7, 5 of 6 Gleason 8+). Conclusions: We describe a panel of 14 MDMs within urine that offer high specificity and sensitivity for detection of prostate cancers as well as selective identification of clinically significant disease states. Prospective comparison between urine MDMs and PSA blood testing is necessary to discern the differential clinical impact of each screening methodology.