Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

RNA fate determination through cotranscriptional adenosine methylation and microprocessor binding

Abstract

Eukaryotic gene expression is heavily regulated at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. An additional layer of regulation occurs co-transcriptionally through processing and decay of nascent transcripts physically associated with chromatin. This process involves RNA interference (RNAi) machinery and is well documented in yeast, but little is known about its conservation in mammals. Here we show that Dgcr8 and Drosha physically associate with chromatin in murine embryonic stem cells (mES), specifically with a subset of transcribed coding and noncoding genes. Dgcr8 recruitment to chromatin is dependent on transcription as well as methyltransferase-like 3 (Mettl3), which catalyzes RNA N6-methyladenosine (m6A). Intriguingly, we found that acute temperature stress causes radical relocalization of Dgcr8 and Mettl3 to heat-shock genes, where they act to co-transcriptionally mark mRNAs for subsequent RNA degradation. Together, our findings elucidate a novel mode of co-transcriptional gene regulation, in which m6A serves as a chemical mark that instigates subsequent post-transcriptional RNA-processing events.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Genome-wide association of the Microprocessor with chromatin.
Figure 2: Mettl3 binds its targets co-transcriptionally and is essential for Dgcr8 association with chromatin.
Figure 3: Dgcr8 and Mettl3 accumulate in nuclear foci upon heat stress.
Figure 4: Dgcr8 and Mettl3 globally relocalize to heat-shock genes upon heat stress.
Figure 5: Mettl3 and Dgcr8 regulate Hsp70 mRNA stability and protein levels in response to heat stress.
Figure 6: RNA half-life determination through co-transcriptional methylation of newly synthetized transcripts.

Similar content being viewed by others

Accession codes

Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

References

  1. Schmid, M. & Jensen, T.H. Transcription-associated quality control of mRNP. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1829, 158–168 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Castel, S.E. & Martienssen, R.A. RNA interference in the nucleus: roles for small RNAs in transcription, epigenetics and beyond. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 100–112 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Swarts, D.C. et al. The evolutionary journey of Argonaute proteins. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 743–753 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Woolcock, K.J. et al. RNAi keeps Atf1-bound stress response genes in check at nuclear pores. Genes Dev. 26, 683–692 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Holoch, D. & Moazed, D. RNAi in fission yeast finds new targets and new ways of targeting at the nuclear periphery. Genes Dev. 26, 741–745 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Woolcock, K.J., Gaidatzis, D., Punga, T. & Bühler, M. Dicer associates with chromatin to repress genome activity in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 94–99 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Macias, S. et al. DGCR8 HITS-CLIP reveals novel functions for the Microprocessor. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 19, 760–766 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heras, S.R. et al. The Microprocessor controls the activity of mammalian retrotransposons. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 1173–1181 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Knuckles, P. et al. Drosha regulates neurogenesis by controlling neurogenin 2 expression independent of microRNAs. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 962–969 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chong, M.M. et al. The RNAseIII enzyme Drosha is critical in T cells for preventing lethal inflammatory disease. 205, 2005–2017 (2008).

  11. Johanson, T.M. et al. Drosha controls dendritic cell development by cleaving messenger RNAs encoding inhibitors of myelopoiesis. Nat. Immunol. 16, 1134–1141 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rolando, C. et al. Multipotency of adult hippocampal NSCs in vivo is restricted by Drosha/NFIB. Cell Stem Cell 19, 653–662 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Flemr, M. & Bühler, M. Single-step generation of conditional knockout mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Rep. 12, 709–716 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, Y. et al. The nuclear RNase III Drosha initiates microRNA processing. Nature 425, 415–419 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Denli, A.M., Tops, B.B.J., Plasterk, R.H., Ketting, R.F. & Hannon, G.J. Processing of primary microRNAs by the Microprocessor complex. Nature 432, 231–235 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Macias, S., Cordiner, R.A., Gautier, P., Plass, M. & Cáceres, J.F. DGCR8 acts as an adaptor for the exosome complex to degrade double-stranded structured RNAs. Mol. Cell 60, 873–885 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shiohama, A., Sasaki, T., Noda, S., Minoshima, S. & Shimizu, N. Nucleolar localization of DGCR8 and identification of eleven DGCR8-associated proteins. Exp. Cell Res. 313, 4196–4207 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Han, J. et al. Molecular basis for the recognition of primary microRNAs by the Drosha-DGCR8 complex. Cell 125, 887–901 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Link, S., Grund, S.E. & Diederichs, S. Alternative splicing affects the subcellular localization of Drosha. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 5330–5343 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Emmerth, S. et al. Nuclear retention of fission yeast dicer is a prerequisite for RNAi-mediated heterochromatin assembly. Dev. Cell 18, 102–113 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Oberti, D. et al. Dicer and Hsp104 function in a negative feedback loop to confer robustness to environmental stress. Cell Reports 10, 47–61 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nowak, D.E., Tian, B. & Brasier, A.R. Two-step cross-linking method for identification of NF-kappaB gene network by chromatin immunoprecipitation. Biotechniques 39, 715–725 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morlando, M. et al. Primary microRNA transcripts are processed co-transcriptionally. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 902–909 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Han, J. et al. Posttranscriptional crossregulation between Drosha and DGCR8. Cell 136, 75–84 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gromak, N. et al. Drosha regulates gene expression independently of RNA cleavage function. Cell Rep. 5, 1499–1510 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Alarcón, C.R. et al. HNRNPA2B1 is a mediator of m(6)A-dependent nuclear RNA processing events. Cell 162, 1299–1308 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alarcón, C.R., Lee, H., Goodarzi, H., Halberg, N. & Tavazoie, S.F. N6-methyladenosine marks primary microRNAs for processing. Nature 519, 482–485 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu, J. et al. A METTL3-METTL14 complex mediates mammalian nuclear RNA N6-adenosine methylation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10, 93–95 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Geula, S. et al. Stem cells. m6A mRNA methylation facilitates resolution of naïve pluripotency toward differentiation. Science 347, 1002–1006 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Batista, P.J. et al. m(6)A RNA modification controls cell fate transition in mammalian embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 15, 707–719 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Meyer, K.D. et al. Comprehensive analysis of mRNA methylation reveals enrichment in 3′ UTRs and near stop codons. Cell 149, 1635–1646 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ke, S. et al. A majority of m6A residues are in the last exons, allowing the potential for 3′ UTR regulation. Genes Dev. 29, 2037–2053 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhou, J. et al. Dynamic m(6)A mRNA methylation directs translational control of heat shock response. Nature 526, 591–594 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cernilogar, F.M. et al. Chromatin-associated RNA interference components contribute to transcriptional regulation in Drosophila. Nature 480, 391–395 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Biamonti, G. & Vourc'h, C. Nuclear stress bodies. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2, a000695 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tabuchi, Y. et al. Genes and genetic networks responsive to mild hyperthermia in human lymphoma U937 cells. Int. J. Hyperthermia 24, 613–622 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Murray, J.I. et al. Diverse and specific gene expression responses to stresses in cultured human cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 2361–2374 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Keller, C. et al. HP1(Swi6) mediates the recognition and destruction of heterochromatic RNA transcripts. Mol. Cell 47, 215–227 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bühler, M., Haas, W., Gygi, S.P. & Moazed, D. RNAi-dependent and -independent RNA turnover mechanisms contribute to heterochromatic gene silencing. Cell 129, 707–721 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mauer, J. et al. Reversible methylation of m(6)Am in the 5′ cap controls mRNA stability. Nature 541, 371–375 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hess, M.E. et al. The fat mass and obesity associated gene (Fto) regulates activity of the dopaminergic midbrain circuitry. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1042–1048 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhao, B.S., Roundtree, I.A. & He, C. Post-transcriptional gene regulation by mRNA modifications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 31–42 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. de Martel, C. & Franceschi, S. Infections and cancer: established associations and new hypotheses. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 70, 183–194 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Aggarwal, B.B., Vijayalekshmi, R.V. & Sung, B. Targeting inflammatory pathways for prevention and therapy of cancer: short-term friend, long-term foe. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 425–430 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Karin, M. Nuclear factor-kappaB in cancer development and progression. Nature 441, 431–436 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sherman, M.Y. & Gabai, V.L. Hsp70 in cancer: back to the future. Oncogene 34, 4153–4161 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jego, G., Hazoumé, A., Seigneuric, R. & Garrido, C. Targeting heat shock proteins in cancer. Cancer Lett. 332, 275–285 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rosenbloom, K.R. et al. The UCSC genome browser database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D670–D681 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gaidatzis, D., Lerch, A., Hahne, F. & Stadler, M.B. QuasR: quantification and annotation of short reads in R. Bioinformatics 31, 1130–1132 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S.L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Robinson, M.D., McCarthy, D.J. & Smyth, G.K. edgeR: a bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 26, 139–140 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Robinson, M.D. & Oshlack, A. A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 11, R25 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Risso, D., Schwartz, K., Sherlock, G. & Dudoit, S. GC-content normalization for RNA-Seq data. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 480 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Aken, B.L. et al. The Ensembl gene annotation system. Database (Oxford) 2016, baw093 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lawrence, M. et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003118 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Necsulea, A. et al. The evolution of lncRNA repertoires and expression patterns in tetrapods. Nature 505, 635–640 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Guttman, M. et al. Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals. Nature 458, 223–227 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Guttman, M. et al. Ab initio reconstruction of cell type-specific transcriptomes in mouse reveals the conserved multi-exonic structure of lincRNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 503–510 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ramírez, F., Dündar, F., Diehl, S., Grüning, B.A. & Manke, T. deepTools: a flexible platform for exploring deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, W187–W191 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang, Y., Medvid, R., Melton, C., Jaenisch, R. & Blelloch, R. DGCR8 is essential for microRNA biogenesis and silencing of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nat. Genet. 39, 380–385 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kellner, S. et al. Absolute and relative quantification of RNA modifications via biosynthetic isotopomers. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e142 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schomacher, L. et al. Niel DNA glycosylases promote substrate turnover by Tdg during DNA demethylation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Bio 23, 116–124 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank F. Mohn for discussion and critical feedback on the manuscript and H. Pickersgill (Life Science Editors) for editorial assistance. We thank M. Chong (St. Vincent's Institute of Medical Research) for providing Drosha cKO mES cells, N. Laschet for excellent technical assistance, and R. Villaseñor for assistance in the first step of cloning SpCas9-2A-mCherry and immunofluorescence sample preparation. We would like to thank the FMI Functional Genomics facility for assistance in library construction and next generation sequencing. This work was supported by funds from the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR RNA & Disease (grant no. 141735). The Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research is supported by the Novartis Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P.K. performed experiments and analyzed data. A.W. generated mES cell lines. M.M. and C.N. performed m6A analysis by MS. Bioinformatic and computational analysis was performed by S.H.C. P.K. and M.B. designed experiments, prepared figures, and wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Bühler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Endogenous gene tagging to study subcellular localization and chromatin binding.

a, b, Schematic of experimental set-up to endogenously tag RNAi factors using the CRISPR Cas9 technology, and to study protein localization by microscopy and chromatin interactions by ChIP-sequencing. c, Immunofluorescent labelling of 3xFLAG tagged Dgcr8, Drosha, Dicer, and untagged cell line as background control. DAPI was used to counterstain nuclei. Zoom-in of 3xFLAG stained cells highlighting varying nuclear/cytoplasmic ratios of different factors, scale bar = 20μm.

Supplementary Figure 2 DSG cross-linking dramatically improves sensitivity of Microprocessor ChIP-sequencing.

a, Scatter plot comparing Dgcr8 chromatin binding to input sample. Cells were cross-linked with Formaldehyde (FA) only. Enrichment represents log2 ratios of IP vs. input in 5-kb windows tiled across the genome, both normalized for library size and GC content, with a pseudo-count of 8 added. Color as in Fig. 1b; points outlined with white circles represent bins with >= 4-fold enrichment vs. input. b, Dgcr8-FLAG-Avi cells were cross-linked with Disuccinimidyl Glutarate (DSG) and FA. Scatter plot as in a. c, ChIP-qPCR analysis of binding at the mir-290 cluster for Dgcr8 and Dicer (left), or Drosha and untagged cells (right, untagged IP and input DNA respectively). Cells were cross-linked with FA or DSG followed by FA as indicated. Bars represent mean of 3 technical replicates for 2 independent experiments; Error bars= s.d; for Dgcr8. For Drosha bars represent mean of 3 technical replicates for Drosha, Error bars= s.d. d, Dicer-FLAG-Avi tagged cells were cross-linked with DSG and FA and ChIP material sequenced. No significant enrichments over input samples were detected. e, UCSC Genome browser shot of Dgcr8 locus displaying RNA-seq profiles in untreated vs. 4OHT treated conditional KO Drosha mES cells (top). Below, ChIP profile of Dgcr8 and input. Scale is mapped reads in 50bp bins normalized to mean library size. f, Meta-plot depicting Drosha ChIP-seq enrichments at genes aligned to the transcription start site (TSS) and transcription end site (TES). Enrichment is calculated as the Log2 ratio of IP against the parental input. GC normalization was done over 1-kb windows, and the plot shows enrichments averaged over 50-bp bins.

Supplementary Figure 3 Mettl3 binding to chromatin, including miRNA-encoding loci, is dependent on transcription.

a, Scatter plot comparing Mettl3 chromatin binding to input sample. Enrichment represents log2 ratios of IP vs. input in 5-kb windows tiled across the genome, both normalized for library size and GC content, with a pseudo-count of 8 added. b, UCSC Genome browser shots of Mettl3 ChIP profiles and Input samples at the Zfp57 locus. Scale is mapped reads in 50bp bins normalized to mean library size. c, Meta-plot of m6A-RNA-seq from (Batista et. al., Cell Stem Cell 15, 707-719, 2014) at genes aligned to coding sequence start and end. Mean profile (Top) shows a sharp peak towards the 3’ of genes. d, ChIP-qPCR analysis of Mettl3 binding at the mir-290 cluster and treatment with 15μg/μl of α-amanitin to block transcription. Bars represent mean of 3 technical replicates for 2 experiments; Εrror bars = s.d. e, Scatter plot comparing Dgcr8 to Mettl3 enrichments (defined as in a,) at miRNA-encoding loci. Highlighted in red are members of the mir-290 cluster.

Supplementary Figure 4 Generation of Mettl3 KO mES lines using CRISPR-Cas9.

a, Scheme of two CRISPR-Cas9 strategies (a single cut and integration of a 3X stop cassette, left; or two independent cuts removing parts of exon 2 and 3, right) to ablate the loci encoding Mettl3. b, Western blot analysis of Mettl3 and Mettl14 levels in mES cells where Mettl3 has been ablated with 2 cuts or a 3xStop integration. Clones where both Mettl3 and Mettl14 levels are low were selected for further analysis (highlighted in red boxes, clones 1d, 4d and 3f). c, Schematic of plasmid constructed for stable rescue of Mettl3. d, Western blot analysis of Mettl3 and Mettl14 levels in mES cells where Mettl3 has been ablated as well as puro-resistant stable clones where Mettl3 expression has been rescued stably from the plasmid described in c. e, ChIP-PCR assay of Dgcr8 at the 2 distinct miRNA clusters expressed in ES cells in Mettl3 KO cells and Mettl3 expression rescued from plasmid. Enrichments are expressed as % enrichment relative to the parental line. Bars represent mean of 4 independent experiments; Εrror bars = s.d. n=4; p value was calculated using two-tailed Student’s t-test.

Supplementary Figure 5 Impact of heat shock on Mettl3 and RNAi factor localization.

a, Quantification of Mettl3 nuclear foci within Z-stacks after heat shock (1hour 42oC; left panel) and number of foci that co-localize with strong αHSF1 staining (right panel; n= 119 cells). b and c, ChIP-qPCR analysis of Dgcr8 (b) and Mettl3 (c) binding at the mir-290 cluster and Hsp70 locus (for Hsp70, qPCR primers used amplify regions within Hspa1a and Hspa1b) comparing binding at 37oC vs. 42oC. Bars represent mean of 3 technical replicates; Εrror bars = s.d. for Dgcr8. For Mettl3, bars represents mean of 3 technical replicates for 2 independent experiments; Εrror bars = s.d. d, ChIP-qPCR analysis of Dgcr8 binding at Mir-290 and Hsp70 in control cells and Mettl3 KO clones after 42°C heat shock. Cells were cross-linked with FA and DSG. Bars represent mean of 4 independent experiments; Error bars = s.d; p values were calculated using two-tailed Student’s t-test.

Supplementary Figure 6 Mettl3 and the MP regulate Hsp70 mRNA stability and protein levels in response to heat stress.

a, Scheme describing temperature shifts and duration, followed by transcription inhibition using ActinomycinD and subsequent cell harvesting time points. b, Half-life measurements of control transcript Tbp in Mettl3 KO and a rescue clone. Cells were treated as described in a. Half-life estimation based on exponential regression line shows no significant difference between different lines. c, Half-life measurements of Hsp70 mRNA in Drosha cKO (4 days tamoxifen treatment) and control cells (no tamoxifen treatment). Cells were exposed to HS and treated as described in a. d, Hsp70 protein levels of unstressed cells (no HS) or cells harvested at 0, 2, or 4 hrs after exposure for 1h at 42oC. Wt cells (left) are compared to Mettl3 KO (top right panel) or Dgcr8 cKO (bottom right panel) and αTubulin was used as loading control. e, Hsp70 protein levels at 4 hours after exposure for 1h at 42oC in WT, Mettl3 KO, or Dgcr8 cKO.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–6. (PDF 786 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Oligonucleotides used in this study. (XLSX 13 kb)

Supplementary Data Set 1

Original western blot images shown in Figure 5. a-d, Un-cropped immuno-blots from Figure 5g. αHSP70, αMettl3, αDgcr8 and αTubulin (a-d respectively) of cell lysates from WT, Mettl3 KO and Dgcr8 cKO cells after 42oC heat shock and 4 hrs recovery at 37oC. Two amounts of total protein were loaded in alternating wells,1.25μg and 2.5μg. Arrow in c indicates full-length Dgcr8 in nontamoxifen treated cells, whereas * indicates truncated inactive protein after recombination. # in d shows residual signal of αHSP70 antibody as blot was stripped and re-incubated with αTubulin. (PDF 2612 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knuckles, P., Carl, S., Musheev, M. et al. RNA fate determination through cotranscriptional adenosine methylation and microprocessor binding. Nat Struct Mol Biol 24, 561–569 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3419

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3419

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing